The origin of life is the biggest unanswered question in biology. Evolution explains the origin of all species once life has started, but there really is no good theory that explains exactly the steps that created life on earth. There is the RNA world hypothesis which supposes that before life was based on DNA and proteins, the world only had RNA which acted as both a replicator and an enzyme. But there really is not good theory that explains how you go from a soup of amino acids and nucleotides to a cell wall enclosed RNA world living organism. The transition from RNA to DNA is also not clear.
PS: I am NOT claiming that we need a "creator" or god to explain the origin of life. I am sure there is a natural non-theistic solution to the problem but we just don't really understand the mechanism behind the origin of life at this point in time.
Darwinism has in fact been dismissed, that happened in the 90’s. The 207 references regarding this fact listed are in the public domain.
One of the reasons the Supreme Court granted the title ‘religion’ to Atheism is to give you one layer of protection from HR347. Since there is no evidence, nor is there any scientific rationale for Atheism, it is a form of Rational Charisma. That is, you have been convinced by arguments and ‘charisma’ about this or that ‘scientific’ hypothesis, however, there is insufficient evidence to elevate such hypothesis to theory. In the case of Darwin we have seen Genomics prove conclusively (a rare thing) that such a genetic ‘evolution’ is impossible (refs 17-49, 125-281) even though they set out to prove Darwin right. The Taxons, Genetic Drift, Pangenesis, and so on, vocabulary created by biologists to describe processes they lacked the tools to verify at the time, did not exist. Furthermore, this ‘science’ is not known by the ‘believer.’ They can neither do the math nor read the Technical English literature. It is Rational Charisma that calls on urban myth beyond the common person’s knowledge or ability. It is in fact beyond the ability of science altogether.
(refs 17-49, 125-281)
17. Moran, Laurence (22 January 1993). “Random Genetic Drift”. TalkOrigins Archive. Houston, TX: The TalkOrigins Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2008-06-27.
18. Sanford, John. Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome.
19. Rennie, John (9 April 2008). “Ben Stein’s Expelled: No Integrity Displayed”. Scientific American (Stuttgart: Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group). ISSN 0036-8733. Retrieved 2015-11-16.
20. Shubin, Neil; Tabin, Cliff; Carroll, Sean B. (February 12, 2009). “Deep homology and the origins of evolutionary novelty”. Nature (London: Nature Publishing Group) 457 (7231): 818–823. Doi:10.1038/nature07891. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 19212399.
21. Futuyma, D. J. 2009. Evolution. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
22. Carroll, S. B. 2006. The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
23. Tomkins, J. and J. Bergman. 2013. Incomplete lineage sorting and other ‘rogue’ data fell the tree of life. Journal of Creation. 27 (3): 84-92.
24. Jeanson, N. 2013. Does “Homology” Prove Evolution? Acts & Facts. 42 (9): 20.
25. Tomkins, J. 2013. Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%. Answers Research Journal. 6: 63-69.
26. Sanford, J. 2008. Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. Waterloo, NY: FMS Publications.
27. Rupe, C. L. and J. C. Sanford. 2013. Using Numerical Simulation to Better Understand Fixation Rates, and Establishment of a New Principle—“Haldane’s Ratchet.” In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Creationism. M. Horstemeyer, ed. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship.
28. Jeanson, N. T. 2014. New Genetic-Clock Research Challenges Millions of Years. Acts & Facts. 43 (4): 5-8.
29. Graur, D. et al. 2013. On the immortality of television sets: “function” in the human genome according to the evolution-free gospel of ENCODE. Genome Biology and Evolution. 5 (3): 578-590.
30. The ENCODE Project Consortium. 2012. An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome. Nature. 489 (7414): 57-74.
31. Gregory, T. R. The onion test. Evolver Zone. Posted on genomicrom.evolverzone.com April 25, 2007, accessed December 17, 2013.
32. Venema, D. ENCODE and “Junk DNA,” Part 2: Function: What’s in a Word? The BioLogos Forum. Posted on biologos.org September 26, 2012, accessed December 17, 2013.
33. Jeanson, N. 2013. Does “Junk DNA” Exist? Acts & Facts. 42 (4): 20.
34. Carter, R. W. The Non-Mythical Adam and Eve! Refuting errors by Francis Collins and BioLogos. Creation Ministries International. Posted on creation.com August 20, 2011, accessed June 25, 2014.
35. Tomkins, J. 2013. Alleged Human Chromosome 2 “Fusion Site” Encodes an Active DNA Binding Domain Inside a Complex and Highly Expressed Gene—Negating Fusion. Answers Research Journal. 6: 367-375.
36. Venema, D. and D. Falk. Signature in the Pseudogenes, Part 2. The BioLogos Forum. Posted on biologos.org May 17, 2010, accessed December 13, 2013.
37. Max, E. E. Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics: Another argument in the evolution-creation controversy. The TalkOrgins Archive. Posted on talkorigins.org May 5, 2003, accessed December 13, 2013.
38. Jeanson, N. 2011. Human-Chimp Genetic Similarity: Do Shared “Mistakes” Prove Common Ancestry? Acts & Facts. 40 (9): 6.
39. Tomkins, J. 2013. Pseudogenes Are Functional, Not Genomic Fossils. Acts & Facts. 42 (7): 9.
40. Ayala. Francisco, “The Mechanisms of Evolution,” Scientific American, V. 239, No. 3, 1978, pp. 56-69.
41. Kolata, Gina, “Genes in Pieces.” Science, V. 207. No. 4429, 1980, pp. 392-393. (Note also the emphasized quotation on P. 393: “A number of molecular biologists believe there is more to the extra DNA than the evolutionary theories imply.”)
42. Pai, Anna. Foundations of Genetics New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1974, pp. 248-249.
43. Grassé, Pierre-Paul, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, as quoted by William Bauer, “Review of Evolution of Living Organisms” “ Acts and Facts, Impact No. 76, 1979.
44. Kimura, Motoo, “The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution,” Scientific American V. 241, No. 5, 1979, pp. 98-126.
45. Powell, Jeffrey, and Charles Taylor, “Genetic Variation in Diverse
46. Environments,” American Scientist, V.67, No. 5, 1979, pp. 590-596.
47. Kanapaux, B. UF study: Rapid burst of flowering plants set stage for other species. University of Florida press release, February 9, 2009.
48. Thomas, B. Darwin’s Evolutionary Tree ‘Annihilated.’ ICR News. Posted on icr.org February 3, 2009, accessed March 3, 2009.
49. Wang, H., et al. Rosid radiation and the rapid rise of angiosperm-dominated forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Published online before print, February 17, 2009.
125. Darwin, C., On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The
126. Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, 1859.
127. Zuckerkandl, E. and Pauling, L.; in: Bryson V. and Vogel, H. (Eds.), Evolving Gene and Proteins, Academic Press, New York, pp. 97–166, 1965.
128. Holder, M. and Lewis, P.O., Phylogeny estimation: traditional and Bayesian approaches, Nature reviews Genetics 4:275–284, 2003.
129. Throckmorton, L.H., Similarity versus relationship in Drosophila, Systematic Zoology 14:221–236, 1965.
130. Farris, J.S., Inferring phylogenetic trees from chromosome inversion data, Systematic Zoology 27:275–284, 1978.
131. Dambroski, H.R. and Feder, J.L., Host plant and latitude-related diapause variation in Rhagoletis pomonella: a test for multifaceted life history adaptation on different stages of diapause development, J. Evolutionary Biology 20:2101–2112, 2007.
132. Koblmuller, S., Egger, B., Sturmbauer, C. and Sefc, K M., Rapid radiation, ancient incomplete lineage sorting and ancient hybridization in the endemic Lake Tanganyika cichlid tribe Tropheini, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 55:318–334, 2010.
133. Elmer, K.R., Kusche, H., Lehtonen, T.K. and Meyer, A., Local variation and parallel evolution: morphological and genetic diversity across a species complex of neotropical crater lake cichlid fishes, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological Sciences 365:1763–1782, 2010.
134. Felsenstein, J., Alternative methods of phylogenetic inference and their interrelationship, Systematic Zoology 28:49–62,1979.
135. Maddison, W.P. and Knowles, L., Inferring phylogeny despite incomplete lineage sorting, Systematic Zoology 55:21–30,2006.
136. McCormack, J.E., Huang, H. and Knowles, L., Maximum likelihood estimates of species trees: how accuracy of phylogenetic inference depends upon the divergence history and sampling design, Systematic Zoology 58:501–508, 2009.
137. Boussau, B. et al., Genome-scale coestimation of species and gene trees, Genome Research 23:323–330, 2013.
138. Degnan, J.H. and Rosenberg, N.A., Gene tree discordance, phylogenetic inference and the multispecies coalescent, Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24:332–340, 2009.
139. Churakov, G. et al., Mosaic retroposon insertion patterns in placental mammals, Genome Research 19:868–875, 2009.
140. Grehan, J R. and Schwartz, J.H., Evolution of the second orangutan: phylogeny and biogeography of hominid origins, J. Biogeography 36:1823–1844, 2009.
141. Ebersberger, I. et al., Mapping human genetic ancestry, Molecular Biology and Evolution 24:2266–2276, 2007.
142. Scally, A. et al., Insights into hominid evolution from the gorilla genome sequence, Nature 483:169–75, 2012.
143. Felsenstein, J., Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: a maximum likelihood approach, J. Molecular Evolution 17:368–376, 1981.
144. Kingman, J.F., Origins of the coalescent. 1974–1982. Genetics 156:1461–1463, 2000.
145. Wilkinson, M., Majority-rule reduced consensus trees and their use in bootstrapping, Molecular Biology and Evolution 13:437–444, 1996.
146. Clarke, G.D.P., Beiko, R.G., Ragan, M.A. and Charlebois, R.L., Inferring genome trees by using a filter to eliminate phylogenetically discordant sequences and a distance matrix based on mean normalized BLASTP scores, J. Bacteriol 184:2072–2080, 2002.
147. Talavera, G. and Castresana, J., Improvement of phylogenies after removing divergent and ambiguously aligned blocks from protein sequence alignments, Systematic Biology 56:564–577, 2007.
148. Castresana, J., Selection of conserved blocks from multiple alignments for their use in phylogenetic analysis, Molecular Biology and Evolution 17:540–552, 2000.
149. Aberer, A.J., Krompass, D. and Stamatakis, A., Pruning rogue taxa improves phylogenetic accuracy: an efficient algorithm and webservice, Systematic Biology 62:162–166, 2013.
150. Degnan, J.H. and Salter, L.A., Gene tree distributions under the coalescent process, Evolution:International J. Organic Evolution 59:24–37, 2005. 92 JOURNAL OF CREATION 27(3) 2013 || PAPERS
151. Yu, Y., Than, C., Degnan, J.H. and Nakhleh, L., Coalescent histories on phylogenetic networks and detection of hybridization despite incomplete lineage sorting, Systematic Biology 60, 138–149, 2011.
152. Rokas, A., Williams, B.L., King, N. and Carroll, S.B., Genome-scale approaches to resolving incongruence in molecular phylogenies, Nature 425:798–804, 2003.
153. Kuo, C.H., Wares, J.P. and Kissinger, J.C., The Apicomplexan whole-genome phylogeny: an analysis of incongruence among gene trees, Molecular Biology and Evolution 25:2689–2698, 2008.
154. Heled, J. and Drummond, A.J., Bayesian inference of species trees from multilocus data, Molecular Biology and Evolution 27:570–580, 2010.
155. Kubatko, L.S., Identifying hybridization events in the presence of coalescence via model selection, Systematic Biology 58:478–488, 2009.
156. Than, C. and Nakhleh, L., Species tree inference by minimizing deep coalescences, PLoS Comput Biol 5:e1000501, 2009.
157. Maddison, W.P., Gene Trees in Species Trees, Systematic Biology 46:523–536,1997.
158. Ashkenazy, H. et al., FastML: a web server for probabilistic reconstruction of ancestral sequences, Nucleic Acids Research 40:W580–584, 2012.
159. Thornton, J.W., Need, E. and Crews, D., Resurrecting the ancestral steroid receptor: ancient origin of estrogen signaling, Science 301:1714–1717, 2003.
160. Chang, B.S., Jonsson, K., Kazmi, M.A., Donoghue, M.J. and Sakmar, T.P., Recreating a functional ancestral archosaur visual pigment, Molecular Biology and Evolution 19:1483–1489, 2002.
161. Chindelevitch, L., Li, Z., Blais, E. and Blanchette, M., On the inference of parsimonious indel evolutionary scenarios, J. Bioinformatics andComputational Biology 4:721–744, 2006.
162. Dolgin, E., Rewriting evolution: Tiny molecules called microRNAs are tearing apart traditional ideas about the animal family tree, Nature 486:460–462, 2012.
163. Pisani, D., Feuda, R., Peterson, K.J. and Smith, A.B., Resolving phylogenetic signal from noise when divergence is rapid: a new look at the old problem of echinoderm class relationships, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 62:27–34, 2012.
164. Guo, L., Yang, S., Zhao, Y., Wu, Q. and Chen, F., Dynamic evolution of mir-17-92 gene cluster and related miRNA gene families in vertebrates, Mol Biol Rep 40:3147–3153, 2013.
165. Axtell, M.J., Westholm, J.O. and Lai, E.C., Vive la difference: biogenesis and evolution of microRNAs in plants and animals, Genome Biology 12:221, 2011.
166. Salmena, L., Poliseno, L., Tay, Y., Kats, L. and Pandolfi, P.P., A ceRNA hypothesis: the Rosetta Stone of a hidden RNA language? Cell 146:353–358, 2011.
167. Miura, P., Shenker, S., Andreu-Agullo, C., Westholm, J.O. and Lai, E.C., Widespread and extensive lengthening of 3’ UTRs in the mammalian brain, Genome Research 23:812–825, 2013.
168. Heimberg, A.M., Sempere, L.F., Moy, V.N., Donoghue, P.C. and Peterson, K.J., MicroRNAs and the advent of vertebrate morphological complexity Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105:2946–2950, 2008.
169. Tarver, J.E., Donoghue, P.C.J. and Peterson, K.J., Do miRNAs have a deep evolutionary history? Bioessays 34:857–866, 2012.
170. Robinson, J.M. et al., The identification of microRNAs in calcisponges: independent evolution of microRNAs in basal metazoans, J. Experimental Zoology. Part B, Molecular and developmental evolution 320:84–93, 2013.
171. Lyson, T.R. et al., MicroRNAs support a turtle + lizard clade, Biol. Lett. 8:104–107, 2012.
172. Meredith, R.W. et al., Impacts of the Cretaceous Terrestrial Revolution and KPg extinction on mammal diversification, Science 334:521–524, 2011.
173. Al-Shahrour, F. et al., Selection upon genome architecture: conservation of functional neighborhoods with changing genes, PLoS Comput Biol 6:e1000953, 2010.
174. De, S., Teichmann, S.A. and Babu, M.M., The impact of genomic neighborhood on the evolution of human and chimpanzee transcriptome, Genome Research 19:785–794, 2009.
175. Khalturin, K., Hemmrich, G., Fraune, S., Augustin, R. and Bosch, T.C., More than just orphans: are taxonomically-restricted genes important in evolution? Trends in Genetics 25:404–413, 2009.
176. Tautz, D. and Domazet-Loso, T., The evolutionary origin of orphan genes, Nature Reviews Genetics 12:692–702, 2011.
177. Yang, L., Zou, M., Fu, B. and He, S., Genome-wide identification, characterization, and expression analysis of lineage-specific genes within zebrafish, BMC Genomics 14:65, 2013.
178. Colbourne, J.K. et al., The ecoresponsive genome of Daphnia pulex, Science 331:555–561, 2011.
179. Jacob, F., Evolution and tinkering, Science 196:1161–1166, New York, 1977.
180. Meyer, S.C., Signature in the cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, 1st edn, HarperOne, 2009.
181. Zhaxybayeva, O. and Doolittle, W.F., Lateral gene transfer, Current Biology 21:R242–246, 2011.
182. Dunning Hotopp, J.C. et al., Widespread lateral gene transfer from intracellular bacteria to multicellular eukaryotes, Science 317:1753–1756,2007.
183. Boschetti, C. et al., Biochemical diversification through foreign gene expression in bdelloid rotifers, PLoS Genetics 8:e1003035, 2012.
184. Wise, K., Baraminology: a young-earth creation biosystematic method; in: Walsh, R.E. and Brooks, C.L. (Eds.), Second International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, vol. 2, Pittsburgh, PA, pp.345–360, 1990.
185. Wood, T.C., The Current Status of Baraminology, Creation Research Society Quarterly 43:149–158, 2006.
186. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ-4umGkgos
187. Futuyma, D. J. 2009. Evolution. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
188. Carroll, S. B. 2006. The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
189. Tomkins, J. and J. Bergman. 2013. Incomplete lineage sorting and other ‘rogue’ data fell the tree of life. Journal of Creation. 27 (3): 84-92.
190. Jeanson, N. 2013. Does “Homology” Prove Evolution? Acts & Facts. 42 (9): 20.
191. Tomkins, J. 2013. Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%. Answers Research Journal. 6: 63-69.
192. Sanford, J. 2008. Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. Waterloo, NY: FMS Publications.
193. Rupe, C. L. and J. C. Sanford. 2013. Using Numerical Simulation to Better Understand Fixation Rates, and Establishment of a New Principle—“Haldane’s Ratchet.” In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Creationism. M. Horstemeyer, ed. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship.
194. Jeanson, N. T. 2014. New Genetic-Clock Research Challenges Millions of Years. Acts & Facts. 43 (4): 5-8.
195. Graur, D. et al. 2013. On the immortality of television sets: “function” in the human genome according to the evolution-free gospel of ENCODE. Genome Biology and Evolution. 5 (3): 578-590.
196. The ENCODE Project Consortium. 2012. An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome. Nature. 489 (7414): 57-74.
197. Gregory, T. R. The onion test. Evolver Zone. Posted on genomicrom.evolverzone.com April 25, 2007, accessed December 17, 2013.
198. Venema, D. ENCODE and “Junk DNA,” Part 2: Function: What’s in a Word? The BioLogos Forum. Posted on biologos.org September 26, 2012, accessed December 17, 2013.
199. Jeanson, N. 2013. Does “Junk DNA” Exist? Acts & Facts. 42 (4): 20.
200. Carter, R. W. The Non-Mythical Adam and Eve! Refuting errors by Francis Collins and BioLogos. Creation Ministries International. Posted on creation.com August 20, 2011, accessed June 25, 2014.
201. Tomkins, J. 2013. Alleged Human Chromosome 2 “Fusion Site” Encodes an Active DNA Binding Domain Inside a Complex and Highly Expressed Gene—Negating Fusion. Answers Research Journal. 6: 367-375.
202. Venema, D. and D. Falk. Signature in the Pseudogenes, Part 2. The BioLogos Forum. Posted on biologos.org May 17, 2010, accessed December 13, 2013.
203. Max, E. E. Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics: Another argument in the evolution-creation controversy. The TalkOrgins Archive. Posted on talkorigins.org May 5, 2003, accessed December 13, 2013.
204. Jeanson, N. 2011. Human-Chimp Genetic Similarity: Do Shared “Mistakes” Prove Common Ancestry? Acts & Facts. 40 (9): 6.
205. Tomkins, J. 2013. Pseudogenes Are Functional, Not Genomic Fossils. Acts & Facts. 42 (7): 9.
206. Azzalin, C.M., et al. (2001), Human intrachromosomal telomeric-like repeats: sequence
207. organization and mechanisms of origin. Chromosoma 110:75-82.
208. Bergman, J. and Tomkins, J. (2012), Is the human genome nearly identical to chimpanzee? A
209. reassessment of the literature. Journal of Creation 26:54-60.
210. Buggs, R. (2008), Chimpanzee? Reformatorisch Dagblad;
211. www.refdag.nl/.chimpanzee_1_282611.
212. Fan, Y., et al. (2002), Genomic structure and evolution of the ancestral chromosome fusion site
213. in 2q13-2q14.1 and paralogous regions on other human chromosomes. Genome Res.
214. 12:1651–1662.
215. Hughes, J. F., et al. (2010), Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in
216. structure and gene content. Nature 463:536–539.
217. Ijdo, J.W., et al. (1991), Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusion.
218. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 88:9051–9055.
219. Lin, W.L. and Yan, J. (2008), Endings in the middle: Current knowledge of interstitial telomeric
220. sequences. Mutation Research 658:95-110.
221. Tomkins, J. (2011), Genome-Wide DNA Alignment Similarity (Identity) for 40,000 Chimpanzee
222. DNA Sequences Queried against the Human Genome is 86 - 89%. Answers Research Journal 4:233-241.
223. Tomkins, J. and Bergman, J. (2011a). The chromosome 2 fusion model of human evolution – part 2: re-analysis of the genomic data. Journal of Creation 25:111-127.
224. Tomkins, J. and Bergman, J. (2011b), Telomeres: implications for aging and evidence for
225. intelligent design. Journal of Creation 25(2):86–97.
226. Tomkins, J. and Bergman, J. (2012), Genomic monkey business—estimates of nearly identical
227. human–chimp DNA similarity re-evaluated using omitted data. Journal of Creation 26:94-100.
228. Tomkins, J.P. 2013. Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals
229. Average DNA Similarity of 70%. Answers Research Journal 6:63-69.
230. Yunis, J. J. and Prakash, O. (1982), The origin of man: a chromosomal pictorial legacy, Science 215:1525–1530.
231. Jean K. Lightner, Liberty University, 1971 University Blvd, Lynchburg, Virginia, 24515.Answers Research Journal 8 (2015):111–119
232. Jeanson, N. T. 2014. Purpose, Progress, and Promise, Part 1. Acts & Facts. 43 (10): 13; Jeanson, N. T. 2014. Purpose, Progress, and Promise, Part 2. Acts & Facts. 43 (11): 9.
233. Jeanson, N. T. 2014. Purpose, Progress, and Promise, Part 3. Acts & Facts. 43 (12): 9; Jeanson, N. T. 2015. Purpose, Progress, and Promise, Part 4. Acts & Facts. 44 (1): 9; Jeanson, N. T. 2015. Purpose, Progress, and Promise, Part 5. Acts & Facts. 44 (2): 9.
234. Jeanson, N. T. 2014. Darwin vs. Genetics: Surprises and Snags in the Science of Common Ancestry. Acts & Facts. 43 (9): 8-11.
235. Jeanson, N. T. 2013. Does “Junk DNA” Exist? Acts & Facts. 42 (4): 20.
236. Jeanson, N. T. 2011. Human-Chimp Genetic Similarity: Do Shared “Mistakes” Prove Common Ancestry? Acts & Facts. 40 (9): 6.
237. Jeanson, N. T. 2013. The Origin of Species: Did Darwin Get it Right? In Creation Basics & Beyond: An In-depth Look at Science, Origins, and Evolution. Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 125-131.
238. Jeanson, N. T. 2014. New Genetic-Clock Research Challenges Millions of Years. Acts & Facts. 43 (4): 5-8.
239. Vardiman, L., A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin, eds. 2005. Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative. El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research and Chino Valley, AZ: Creation Research Society. See also Dr. Vernon Cupps’ recent series on radioactive dating in the October 2014 to June 2015 issues of Acts & Facts.
240. Morris, J. D. and F. J. Sherwin. 2010. The Fossil Record: Unearthing Nature’s History of Life. Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research.
241. Morris, J. D. 2012. The Global Flood: Unlocking Earth’s Geologic History. Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research.
242. Thomas, B. Published Reports of Original Soft Tissue Fossils. Posted on icr.org/soft-tissue-list July 21, 2011, accessed March 26, 2015.
243. Wood, T. C. 2013. A Review of the Last Decade of Creation Biology Research on Natural History, 2003-2012. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Creationism. Horstemeyer, M. ed. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship.
244. Tomkins, J. 2013. Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%. Answers Research Journal. 6: 63-69.
245. Bergman, J. and J. Tomkins. 2011. The chromosome 2 fusion model of human evolution—part 1: re-evaluating the evidence. Journal of Creation. 25 (2): 106-110.
246. Tomkins, J. and J. Bergman. 2011. The chromosome 2 fusion model of human evolution— part 2: re-analysis of the genomic data. Journal of Creation. 25 (2): 111-117.
247. Tomkins, J. 2013. Alleged Human Chromosome 2 “Fusion Site” Encodes an Active DNA Binding Domain Inside a Complex and Highly Expressed Gene—Negating Fusion. Answers Research Journal. 6: 367-375.
248. Jeanson, N. T. 2014. Purpose, Progress, and Promise, Part 1. Acts & Facts. 43 (10): 13; Jeanson, N. T. 2014. Purpose, Progress, and Promise, Part 2. Acts & Facts. 43 (11): 9.
249. Jeanson, N. T. 2014. Purpose, Progress, and Promise, Part 3. Acts & Facts. 43 (12): 9.
250. Tomkins, J. 2013. Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%. Answers Research Journal. 6: 63-69.
251. Bergman, J. and J. Tomkins. 2011. The chromosome 2 fusion model of human evolution—part 1: re-evaluating the evidence. Journal of Creation. 25 (2): 106-110; Tomkins, J. and J. Bergman. 2011. The chromosome 2 fusion model of human evolution—part 2: re-analysis of the genomic data. Journal of Creation. 25 (2): 111-117; Tomkins, J. 2013. Alleged Human Chromosome 2 “Fusion Site” Encodes an Active DNA Binding Domain Inside a Complex and Highly Expressed Gene—Negating Fusion. Answers Research Journal. 6: 367-375.
252. Jeanson, N. T. 2011. Human-Chimp Genetic Similarity: Do Shared “Mistakes” Prove Common Ancestry? Acts & Facts. 40 (9): 6.
253. Tomkins, J. P. 2013. The Human Beta-Globin Pseudogene Is Non-Variable and Functional. Answers Research Journal. 6: 293-302.
254. Jeanson, N. T. 2014. Darwin vs. Genetics: Surprises and Snags in the Science of Common Ancestry. Acts & Facts. 43 (9): 8-11.
255. Venema, D. R. 2010. Genesis and the Genome: Genomics Evidence for Human-Ape Common Ancestry and Ancestral Hominid Population Sizes. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. 62 (3): 166-178.
256. Ingman, M. et al. 2000. Mitochondrial genome variation and the origin of modern humans. Nature. 408 (6813): 708-713.
257. Hinch, A. G. et al. 2011. The landscape of recombination in African Americans. Nature. 476 (7359): 170-175.
258. Jeanson, N. T. 2013. Recent, Functionally Diverse Origin for Mitochondrial Genes from ~2700 Metazoan Species. Answers Research Journal. 6: 467-501.
259. Carter, R. W. The Non-Mythical Adam and Eve! Refuting errors by Francis Collins and BioLogos. Creation Ministries International. Posted on creation.com August 20, 2011, accessed September 9, 2014.
260. Carroll, S. B. 2006. The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of volution.
261. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
262. Tomkins, J. and J. Bergman. 2013. Incomplete lineage sorting and other ‘rogue’ data fell the tree of life. Journal of Creation. 27 (3): 84-92.
263. Jeanson, N. 2013. Does “Homology” Prove Evolution? Acts & Facts. 42 (9): 20.
264. Tomkins, J. 2013. Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%. Answers Research Journal. 6: 63-69.
265. Sanford, J. 2008. Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. Waterloo, NY: FMS Publications.
266. Rupe, C. L. and J. C. Sanford. 2013. Using Numerical Simulation to Better Understand Fixation Rates, and Establishment of a New Principle—“Haldane’s Ratchet.” In Proceedings of the
267. Seventh International Conference on Creationism. M. Horstemeyer, ed. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship.
268. 8. Jeanson, N. T. 2014. New Genetic-Clock Research Challenges Millions of Years. Acts & Facts. 3(4): 5-8.
269. Graur, D. et al. 2013. On the immortality of television sets: “function” in the human genome according to the evolution-free gospel of ENCODE. Genome Biology and Evolution. 5 (3): 578-590.
270. The ENCODE Project Consortium. 2012. An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome. Nature. 489 (7414): 57-74.
271. 11. Gregory, T. R. The onion test. Evolver Zone. Posted on genomicrom.evolverzone.com April 5, 2007, accessed December 17, 2013.
272. Venema, D. ENCODE and “Junk DNA,” Part 2: Function: What’s in a Word? The BioLogos Forum. Posted on biologos.org September 26, 2012, accessed December 17, 2013.
273. Jeanson, N. 2013. Does “Junk DNA” Exist? Acts & Facts. 42 (4): 20.
274. Carter, R. W. The Non-Mythical Adam and Eve! Refuting errors by Francis Collins and BioLogos.
275. Creation Ministries International. Posted on creation.com August 20, 2011, accessed June 25, 2014.
276. 15. Tomkins, J. 2013. Alleged Human Chromosome 2 “Fusion Site” Encodes an Active DNA Binding
277. Domain Inside a Complex and Highly Expressed Gene—Negating Fusion. Answers Research
278. Journal. 6: 367-375.
279. Venema, D. and D. Falk. Signature in the Pseudogenes, Part 2. The BioLogos Forum. Posted on biologos.org May 17, 2010, accessed December 13, 2013.
280. Max, E. E. Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics: Another argument in the evolution-creation controversy. The TalkOrgins Archive. Posted on talkorigins.org May 5, 2003, accessed December 13, 2013.
281. Jeanson, N. 2011. Human-Chimp Genetic Similarity: Do Shared “Mistakes” Prove Common Ancestry? Acts & Facts. 40 (9): 6.19. Tomkins, J. 2013. Pseudogenes Are Functional, Not Genomic Fossils. Acts & Facts. 42 (7): 9.
There is obviously no way to prove what happened back then. But the RNA world enthusiasts have demonstrated that theoretically every step of this hypothesis seems realistic, and could have happened indeed- millions of years ago, on Earth or other "parental" planet (from which some "building blocks" could spread out via meteorites). Check out older papers from Deamer, Szostak, Yarus, other grandmasters.
The closest so far is a combinarion on RNA and protein. Catalytic RNA
The best paper, which crossed my path, on abiogenesis that explain the creation of a primitive coenzyme that in turn can promote other biological processes.
###
The Transformation by Catalysis of Prebiotic Chemical Systems to Useful Biochemicals: A Perspective Based on IR Spectroscopy of the Primary Chemicals: Solid-Phase and Water-Soluble Catalysts
Ragnar Larsson & Abdul Malek
Applied Sciences 11(2021) 10125, DOI: 10.3390/app112110125
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355840308_The_Transformation_by_Catalysis_of_Prebiotic_Chemical_Systems_to_Useful_Biochemicals_A_Perspective_Based_on_IR_Spectroscopy_of_the_Primary_Chemicals_Solid-Phase_and_Water-Soluble_Catalysts
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/21/10125
Abstract:
This study is a continuation of our research on understanding the possible chemical routes to the evolution of life on earth based on the “Selective Energy Transfer” (SET) theory. This theory identifies the specific vibrational mode of the catalyst that is in energy-resonance with a suitable vibrational mode of the reactant. In this way, energy is transferred from catalyst to reactant up to the energy of activation, making possible a particular chemical outcome. Then, we extend this model to the mostly unknown and highly complex environment of the hydrothermal vents, to speculate how prebiotic chemicals, necessary for the evolution of life, could have formed. It is to the credit of the SET theory that it can reflect the slight difference in the catalytic system that gives dramatically very different chemical outcome. It is shown, here, how in model laboratory experiments, methanol gives dimethyl ether (DME) in a 100% yield with Cu exchanged montmorillonite as the catalyst, or a very different product methyl formate (MF) in lower yields, with another Cu2+ ion-exchanged clay mineral (laponite) as the catalyst system. We also show, based on standard laboratory experiments, how COS (carbonyl sulfide) with a strong absorption band at 2079 cm−1 by itself and/or catalyzed by montmorillonite with strong Si-O-Si asymmetric vibration of 1040 cm−1 can react with alpha-amino acids to form alpha-amino acid thiocarbamate (AATC), which we feel could represent the most primitive analogue to coenzyme A (CoASH), a highly versatile bio-enzyme that is vital both for the metabolism and the synthesis of biochemicals in the living system. AATC itself may have undergone evolutionary developments through billions of years to transform itself into coenzyme A (CoASH) and its acetyl ester analogue acetyl coenzyme A (ACoA).
Please take at look at the article "Can Radioactivity Create Living Cells?" at Preprint Can Radioactivity Create Living Cells?
Richard Gauthierwww.microvitaexpress.org
“The origin of life- the biggest unanswered question in biology?”
- to answer to this question it is evidently before to answer to the question “what is Life?”, which, as any other really fundamental questions/corresponding fundamental scientific problems, can be scientifically answered only if a number of the really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fields”, “chemical reactions” etc., ”Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, are scientifically defined before,
- whereas all of which – and all really fundamental phenomena/notions at all also, though, are now fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational in the mainstream philosophy and sciences. So in every case, when some science attempt to answer to any really fundamental question, the result completely obligatorily logically is nothing else than some transcendent fantastic mental construction.
Thank heavens, despite of that now in the mainstream there exist rather numerous “theories” of life, most of scientists understand that all that is nothing else than some transcendent fantasies, however, because of the transcendence above, moreover – because of the transcendent also belief in the mainstream that this transcendence doesn’t exist, next and next “theories” appear in quite respectable scientific publications sources.
Any fundamental phenomenon/notion can be, and practically all known now ones are, scientifically defined only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute, and, since till now humans really observe, and so really study, only the informational systems “Matter” and the informational system “consciousness on Earth”, though the phenomenon/scientific notion ”Consciousness”, because of the transcendence above this phenomenon doesn’t exist in the mainstream,
- are more concretely and in detail defined in the SS&VT informational physical model
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics, where more 30 fundamental physical problems are either solved or essentially clarified.
Including, again since because of the transcendence above, and so because of the corresponding transcendent belief of most of the scientists that Life emerged by some way at some physical interactions in some material compounds/structures, the problem “what is Life” quite legitimately is considered as a concrete fundamental physical problem, so this problem is considered in the last linked paper also. More see first 11+ pages in the link above, i.e. including section “What is Life”.
To read SS posts in the thread
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Intelligent_Design_a_matter_of_Science_or_notit is useful as well
Cheers
I take issue that natural selection (the major mechanism that Wallace + Darwin described for differential survival and reproduction which causes evolutionary changes) has been dismissed by scientists since the 1990's. I think there is confusion by some in the public over the origin vs the evolution of life. As Richard Dawkins and other scientists have noted, we don't need to understand the origin of life in order to understand its evolution.
“…I take issue that natural selection (the major mechanism that Wallace + Darwin described for differential survival and reproduction which causes evolutionary changes) has been dismissed by scientists since the 1990's….”
- that essentially is the case, however that
“…. I think there is confusion by some in the public over the origin vs the evolution of life. As Richard Dawkins and other scientists have noted, we don't need to understand the origin of life in order to understand its evolution.…..”
- is a bit formally questionable: if some evolution of some system is known, in principle it is possible to trace it to a primary event(s), and so to understand the system’s origin.
However that is fundamentally impossible if it relates to the Life on Earth origin – from the evolution it can be known only that what the first biostructures could be – and that is essentially known from, say, paleontology, but from this it is principally impossible, remaining in framework of the mainstream science, to answer the question – how these chemical compounds had became be alive?,
- because that in the mainstream philosophy and sciences, including biology [and neuroscience], all really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Matter”, “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational,
- so in every case, when some mainstream authors address to some really fundamental problem, while the problem “What is Life on Earth and what is its origin” is a fundamental one, the results completely obligatorily logically are nothing else than some transcendent fantastic mental constructions – as that existent now rather numerous “theories of Life” are.
Really any fundamental problem can be really solved or at least rationally scientifically clarified only provided that scientific definitions of the phenomena/notions above are scientifically defined, what is possible, and is done, only in framework of the philosophical 2007 Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed
, where, including, it is rigorously proven that any consciousness, including “consciousness on Earth” and Matter are fundamentally different informational systems; and, since every living being has some version of the “consciousness on Earth” , so any Life fundamentally cannot “emerge” from any material structure.
Correspondingly Life on Earth was originated by some [by this or some external] consciousness, which used at that some energies that essentially fundamentally differ from that physics know – and new how the energies should be applied to make some living being chemical structure so, that the structure would be a stable residence for the consciousness..
More see the link above, though more brief explanation is in first dozen of pages in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics
to read the initial functional model of consciousness in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329539892_The_Information_as_Absolute_conception_the_consciousness it is useful as well.
Cheers
There are many very interesting answers so far. To dive more into complex systems and emergence observed within them, two animations are going to to be shown along with the first publication describing a case study. Animations were created by the open source GoL-N24 Python software that enables everyone to study those and many similar cases.
The first animation describes emergents that are error-resilient in a similar way that is utilized in living systems. Those emergents maintain their existence even when 1% of random errors is injected into the simulation.
The second animation depicts the process of spontaneous occurrence of an emergent structure (ship), which is generating the second-order structures (yet another type of ships).
This all is accomplished using a homogenous computing medium with a fairly primitive evolution rule assigned to each computing element. This type of simulations is creating a striking similarity to life forms observed. Do you agree? What is your take on it?
References:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361818826_Robust_massive_parallel_information_processing_environments_in_biology_and_medicine_case_study
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365477118_Exploring_emergence_Python_program_GoL-N24_simulating_the_'Game_of_Life'_using_8_neighbors_from_24_possible
“…This type of simulations is creating a striking similarity to life forms observed. Do you agree? What is your take on it? ….”
- does that mean that this simulations create striking similarity to such life forms as “DNA”, “RNA”, etc., and further – really functioning cells? If we don’t consider, of course, the computer models of these forms that are developed in bioscience – while, though all these models are in computers where only some simple binary relations proceed, but these concrete relations in computers are concretely programmed and controlled basing on existent information in bioscience,
- which, at that, is purely empirical, and any other then this information, information, if is downloaded in computer, by no means simulates real biostructures.
Though if we don’t concern too specifically bioscience, the attempts that study self-organizing systems rather possibly really can be useful in general.
The answer to the thread question see in the couple of SS posts on page 1.
Cheers
Dear readers,
please find a link to the relevant paper:
Is Darwinian selection a retrograde driving force of evolution? - ScienceDirect
Article Is Darwinian selection a retrograde driving force of evolution?
DOI: 10.1016/j.biosystems.2023.105031
Kind regards ...
The really scientific answer to, or, more correctly, scientific clarification of, the thread question is in a couple of SS posts on page 1, so for those readers who want to clarify for themselves this problem more see the posts and papers that are linked in the posts.
Recent SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do-you-believe-in-the-Theory-of-Evolution/128
- is relevant to this thread question.
Cheers