When Charles Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species, in 1859, the biological cell was viewed as a globule of protoplasm consisting of carbon dioxide, oxygen, and nitrogen. Even up until the 1950s, scientists believed that the building blocks of life could be produced by combining these chemical substances in just-right proportions, under just-right conditions. Then, Harold Urey and Stanley Miller produced a small yield of amino acids in a highly controlled experiment, and chemical evolution became the reigning canon of life origins.

But rather than demonstrating chemical evolution, all the Urey-Miller experiment really showed was that an atmosphere designed for life could be carefully guided to produce one of life’s building blocks. In other words, their success depended not on a random and unguided process, but on an intelligently designed and managed experiment that started out with the necessary chemical components. While attempting to verify evolution by blind, materialistic means, Urey and Miller merely confirmed the need for an intelligent agent to create and control the conditions necessary for life.

One year after the Urey-Miller experiment, Francis Crick and James Watson unraveled the structure of DNA. With that, scientists learned that the instructions for life came from a code within the DNA molecule. What’s more, they found that the tiny double helix structure governed a whole range of cellular functions from DNA replication, repair, and data transmission, to feedback looping and self-correction processes for transcription errors. 

As a result, the cell could no longer be thought of as a simple collection of chemicals reacting under the right environmental conditions. It was a microcosmic “factory” -- a veritable manufacturing center of life -- consisting of specialized hardware and highly complex software written in chemical “phrases” and “sentences” according to a language convention designed to make possible all of the “instructions” necessary for cellular operations.

After analyzing the chemical sequences of DNA, a group of Microsoft engineers remarked, “It’s like a piece of software, only much more sophisticated than anything we’ve developed.” Let that sink in until tomorrow.

(Image © Windows to the Universe)

Comments

[Gregor]

Regis, one thing I appreciate about you is that you are an articulate servant for your Lord.

[Rolley Haggard]

I most heartily second Gregor's sentiment!

[Regis Nicoll]

You guyzzzz! Youzinns (and LeeQuod and SKB) have been doing the heavy lifting in this discussion... and what a great discussion it's been! With all the pearls emitting from those pixels last week, I can't wait to see what youzinns have in store for us this week. Great job guys!

[matthew]

My bro, studying biology and an ardent creationist, wrote this bit on where creation and evolution diverge and where the current state of scientific inquiry has progressed to:

http://www.ipandora.net/2009/02/07/a-biologists-perspective/

"On a daily basis, I am confronted and challenged on my beliefs on evolution. I have established myself as a creationist, but there is so much more to evolution than just the beginnings of life. In fact, I have come to realize that the beginnings of life is just a small part of evolution. I have been learning about evolution for about 6 years now and I have come to realize something. Conservative creationists rarely understand exactly what evolution really is."

[mike]

you guys make yourself sound stupid god is an imaginary item and just proves that there has to be a creator or maybe over the time of millions of years evenually it was found correct.

[Gina Dalfonzo]

Watch it with the "stupid" talk, Mike. As I've had to remind everyone recently, it's against the rules here.

[Steve (SBK)]

Can I call myself stupid in accordance with the rules? If so, I do, because I can't understand what mike said. (My brain has trouble with punctuation-free sentences).

[LeeQuod]

Clearly mike evolved not from a line of hominids, but teddy bears.