Darwinism refuted

[Loddfafner]

Let me get this right: proteins were formed through Vrilian energy by Atlantan scientists doing quadrillions of deep knee bends.

[Psychonaut]

Depicting evolutionism (btw, why are you using such an antiquated term?) as existing in fundamental opposition to theism is fallacious. The incompatibility only exists in metaphysical theologies (or hierologies) that are top-down in nature (e.g. Platonism, most Christian theologies, etc.). Bottom-up systems (e.g. Hylozoism, Teilhard's Christianity, Process theology, etc.) are always explicitly evolutionary in their formulations.

[Adalwolf]

Drop any animal from Central Asia in South Pacific Island and watch it annihilate local species. That's evolution.

That's called extinction and progressive adaptation.

[Eldritch]

It's completely pointless to start reverse-engineering the biochemistry of proteins, and insisting that the likelihood of each polypeptide chain forming itself entirely at random is vanishingly unlikely, because proteins don't form like that in the first place.

EDIT:

I just realised something. Is the author of this article claiming that each time a cell (any cell, anywhere) synthesizes proteins, God or some other higher power has to guide the process?

[Adalwolf]

It's more in the sense of abiogenesis. This has turned out be a bankrupt theory that most modern evolutionists are distancing themselves from. The most popular recent lie is the panspermia theory. Which basically claims that life might have come to earth on a meteor at some point. Basically they're so desperate to deny any sort of involvement from God, that they consider instead that we could have developed from alien life forms. Pathetic really.

[Adalwolf]

[Panspermia theory burned to a crisp: bacteria couldn’t survive on meteorite

A number of evolutionists have become disillusioned with ideas that life could have evolved from non-living chemicals on Earth (i.e. via chemical evolution, sometimes called ‘abiogenesis’). So they hoped that with the whole universe to work with, life might have evolved elsewhere in the universe, and travelled to Earth. This is the theory of panspermia, from Greek πάς/πάν (pas/pan, all) and σπέρμα (sperma, seed), i.e. seeds of life are everywhere in the universe (see how one evolutionist ‘reasons’ to panspermia).

The classic form of panspermia is the theory that these seeds happen to hitch a ride on comets or meteorites (as opposed to ‘directed panspermia’ where the seeds are sent by aliens1). Yet a recent experiment has dealt a fatal blow to this theory, because it showed that they couldn’t survive the extreme heat on entering the earth’s atmosphere—and causes meteoroids to become meteors or ‘shooting stars’.2

Experimental disproof
Scientists at the Centre of Molecular Biophysics in Orleans, France, managed to simulate a meteorite entry by attaching rocks to the heat shield of a returning Russian spacecraft (FOTON M3 capsule) last month. These rocks were smeared with a hardy bacterium called Chroococcidiopsis—supposed to resemble a proposed germ on Mars. The rocks also contained microfossils.

After the spacecraft was retrieved, the microfossils survived, but the Chroococcidiopsis was burned black, although their outlines remained. Lead author Frances Westall says:

The results are more problematic when applied to panspermia. STONE-6 showed at least two centimetres (0.8 inch) of rock is not sufficient to protect the organisms during [atmospheric] entry.—Frances Westall, Centre of Molecular Biophysics in Orleans
‘The STONE-6 experiment suggests that, if Martian sedimentary meteorites carry traces of past life, these traces could be safely transported to Earth. However, the results are more problematic when applied to panspermia. STONE-6 showed at least two centimetres (0.8 inch) of rock is not sufficient to protect the organisms during [atmospheric] entry.’2
Their original paper stated:

‘The Chroococcidiopsis did not survive but their carbonized remains did. Thus sedimentary meteorites from Mars could reach the surface of the Earth and, if they contain traces of fossil life, these traces could be preserved. However, living organisms may need more than 2 cm of rock protection.’3
The paper also had this typically cautious concluding remark:

‘However, because of a technological flaw, no conclusions can be drawn regarding the thickness of rocky materials needed to protect extant life during atmospheric entry.’
It turned out that there was:

‘burning of the back side of this particular sample owing, apparently, to the entry of heat and flames behind the sample. This occurred because the difference in composition between the carbon-carbon screws and the silicon phenolic material of the sample holder resulted in a space appearing between the screws and the screw holes. Thus, the Chroococcidiopsis cells were completely carbonised despite the 2 cm thickness of protective rock covering them.’
However, this didn’t stop the leading researcher asserting that 2 cm of rock was insufficient, both in a press release and in their abstract. A real rock is likely to have gaps larger than in the experiment.

Indeed, this experiment seems to understate the problems. The paper states:

‘Entry speed of the FOTON capsule was 7.6 km/sec, slightly lower than the normal meteorite velocities of 12–15 km/sec. It was possible to determine the minimum temperature reached during entry through the thermal dissociation of one of the space cement that occurs at a temperature of ~1700°C. Although the basalt control sample was lost, comparison with the results of the STONE 5 experiment indicates that the temperatures upon entry are high enough to form a fusion crust.’3
One must question whether little over half the speed is ‘slightly lower’. It’s worse because the frictional drag and kinetic energy are proportional to the square of the velocity; i.e. if the velocity is doubled, the drag and energy are quadrupled.4

This indicates that a real meteorite would heat up much more, requiring an even thicker shield.

Life from Mars?
This experiment also supports our rejection of the life from Mars hype in 1996, in that the atmosphere would likely fry any Martian meteoritic microbes. We also pointed out that life on Mars was more likely to have been blasted off from Earth in the first place, and this experiment indirectly reinforces this. I.e. the frictional drag is proportional to the atmospheric density,4 and the Martian atmosphere is < 1% as dense as ours. So planets with dense atmospheres are more likely to be sources than destinations for life.

Conclusion
Panspermia has now been shown to have a huge flaw. Since panspermia was a common last-ditch attempt to preserve materialism in the face of problems in chemical evolution on Earth, materialism itself has likewise taken yet another huge blow.

http://creation.com/panspermia-theor...e-on-meteorite

[Aramis]

Proteins, life, consciousness... Why hasn't this God character won a noble prize yet?

[Eldritch]

Okay, so the panspermia hypothesis is unlikely to be correct. What does that have to do with protein synthesis?

Btw, the conclusions to be drawn from the Foton-M3 experiments are more or less the opposite of what the article in post #26 claims.

[Loddfafner]

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with Darwin. If you read the Origin of Species, you will notice that Darwin actually mentions a "Creator" breathing life into the original species. Darwin's theory was about the modifications and differentiations that followed.

[Hess]

i would be interested in conducting a poll to see how many people on here believe in Evolution