Catch 22 Paradox of The Origin of Life

Dear SS &TM:

With your big brains, think about this catch 22 paradox of the origin of life

God bless you and yours,

BH

Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth, proceeds to outline the classic Catch-22 paradox which concerns the relationship of DNA to proteins. He writes:

The ‘Catch-22’ of the origin of life is this. DNA can replicate, but it needs enzymes in order to catalyse the process. Proteins can catalyse DNA formation, but they need DNA to specify the correct sequence of amino acids. How could the molecules of the Early Earth break out of this bind and allow natural selection to get started?

How does Dawkins attempt to resolve this enigma? He continues:

Now for the key point of the ‘RNA World theory’ of the origin of life. In addition to stretching out in a form suitable for passing on sequence information, RNA is also capable of self-assembling…into three-dimensional shapes which have enzymatic activity. RNA enzymes do exist. They are not as efficient as protein enzymes, but they do work. The RNA World theory suggests that RNA was good enough enzyme to hold the fort until proteins evolved to take over the enzyme role, and that RNA was also a good enough replicator to muddle along in that role until DNA evolved.

...To date, no plausible explanation has been advanced as to how  primitive self-replicating RNA molecules could have made the  transition into modern cellular systems which depend heavily on a   variety of proteins to process genetic information. Consider the  transition from a primitive replicator to a system for building the first  proteins. Even if such a system of ribozymes for building proteins  had arisen from an RNA replicator, that system of molecules would  still require information-rich templates for building specific proteins.  To date, there is no materialistic pathway by which specified infor-  mation can be readily produced. ...Dawkins: The Greatest Show on Earth – The Origin of Life Richard Dawkins, in The Greatest Show on Earth, has very little to say concerning the most fundamental challenge to standard materialistic thinking, namely the problem of life’s origin. In chapter 13 of his book, Dawkins writes: We have no evidence about what the first step in making life was, but we do know the kind of step it must have been. It must have been whatever it took to get natural selection started. Before that first step, the sorts of improvement that only natural selection can achieve were impossible. And that means the key step was the rising, by some process as yet unknown, of a self-replicating entity. Dawkins is overlooking or ignoring a host of key points here. As Dawkins himself concedes, natural selection can only occur in organisms which are capable of reproducing or replicating themselves. But surely any self-replicating mechanism must exhibit a definable minimal level of complexity, let alone the necessitude of functional, and thus sequence specific DNA and protein molecules. As theoretical biologist Howard Pattee explains in his The Problem of Biological Hierarchy: “There is no evidence that hereditary evolution occurs except in cells which already have…the DNA, the replicating and translating enzymes, and all the control systems and structures necessary to reproduce themselves.” In order to invoke a materialistic pathway which can account for the origin of specified information in DNA, the naturalist must invoke a process that itself depends upon pre-existing sequence specific DNA molecules. Yet, the origin of these molecules is precisely what the thesis seeks to explain. And let us not forget that it is not merely the sequence of base-pairs comprising the information in DNA which is the chief concern at this point -- but the problem becomes even deeper when confronted with the paradox of the origin of the genetic code itself. - See more at:  http://www.allaboutscience.org/dawkins-the-greatest-show-on-earth.htm#sthash.PUBhryaK.dpuf Read Dawkins: The Greatest Show on Earth Page 2 Now!

The Origin of Life

Dear SS(sincere seeker):

Could you listen to what Dawkins said about "...no evidence about what the first step in making life was, but we do know the kind of step it must have been. It must have been whatever it took to get natural selection started."

Has Dawkins rigorously proved " natural selection"? "No evidence ...yet we do know?" Is that a blind faith or good reasoning? You tell me. Yet he uses "natural selection" to deny the existence of any complex being because they are not probable and not possible...etc. Do you start to see the circular reasoning here?

I am quoting Dawkins' own words. For details, see the brief article  clip below.

I hope you rethink seriously, why you embrace " Evolution" without carefully scrutinizing it? I agree the default value is not" God exists" if Evolution theory fails to stand on its own feet. Yet that other more reasonable alternative that "God creates this universe and all the creatures" should be considered again, right?

May God open your eyes!

BH

Dawkins: The Greatest Show on Earth

Dawkins: The Greatest Show on Earth – The Origin of Life
Richard Dawkins, in The Greatest Show on Earth, has very little to say concerning the most fundamental challenge to standard materialistic thinking, namely the problem of life’s origin. In chapter 13 of his book, Dawkins writes:

We have no evidence about what the first step in making life was, but we do know the kind of step it must have been. It must have been whatever it took to get natural selection started.Before that first step, the sorts of improvement that only natural selection can achieve were impossible. And that means the key step was the rising, by some process as yet unknown, of a self-replicating entity.

Dawkins is overlooking or ignoring a host of key points here. As Dawkins himself concedes, natural selection can only occur in organisms which are capable of reproducing or replicating themselves. But surely any self-replicating mechanism must exhibit a definable minimal level of complexity, let alone the necessitude of functional, and thus sequence specific DNA and protein molecules. As theoretical biologist Howard Pattee explains in his The Problem of Biological Hierarchy: “There is no evidence that hereditary evolution occurs except in cells which already have…the DNA, the replicating and translating enzymes, and all the control systems and structures necessary to reproduce themselves.” In order to invoke a materialistic pathway which can account for the origin of specified information in DNA, the naturalist must invoke a process that itself depends upon pre-existing sequence specific DNA molecules. Yet, the origin of these molecules is precisely what the thesis seeks to explain. And let us not forget that it is not merely the sequence of base-pairs comprising the information in DNA which is the chief concern at this point -- but the problem becomes even deeper when confronted with the paradox of the origin of the genetic code itself...

Why didn't God change sinful men back to original state?

Dear SS( sincere seeker):

"Why didn't God simply change sinful men back to the original state since God created them in the first place ?"is a very good question you have raised.

The tough part this Q has been involved is what has been broken is the relationship with God, not just a broken arm, leg or an organ that can be fixed easily. To mend a broken relationship is easy said than done, otherwise, there won't be so many divorces in our world, right? Also, it involves both sides willing to reconcile, if only one side is willing to mend the relationship, it won't work. Say, if only the husband or the wife who wants to reconcile, the incompatibility will continue and the divorce will proceed, no turning back.

So now it is humankind who rebels against God and walks away from Him. Men have broken the trust in God and their precious relationship with their Creator God. God being absolutely holy can't embrace sinners back by drinking a cup of coffee as you said.

Sins are absolutely incompatible with God's absolute holiness, sins we shrugged our shoulders at, are horrible in God's sight, do you realize that? God's holiness can't be contaminated by our sins. There was a big chasm between our Creator God and sinful human beings. And Jesus is the only Way to God ( the only Bridge that brings us to cross the sin chasm between God and us.)

God being the righteous Judge has to condemn sinners to death penalties yet God being our loving Creator God Himself( God the Son, Jesus Christ being incarnate God/man) had substituted us to suffer the consequences of sins--death on the cross. On the cross, Jesus bore all our sins and paid our debts

( sins). Thus, whoever wants to restore the relationship with our Creator God can simply accept Jesus' sacrificial offer and be reconciled to God. God the Holy Spirit can then indwell in true believers whose sins were cleansed by Jesus' blood.

As it is a relationship so it needs both sides to agree to restore the former spiritual relationship. God has sacrificed Himself to make this reconciliation possible, yet God honors our free wills and won't force on us. He is waiting for you to turn to Him. The day you say" I do!" to God's salvation offer in Jesus is the day you can become God's adopted son.( Not "Son", nobody can be the Son except Jesus.)

I can only pray that day will come sooner!!! I hope you see how our loving God can't force this salvation on you, without your acceptance and agreement, the reconciliation won't work even though Jesus had paid dearly with His own life for the foundation of reconciliation. Dear SS, Jesus has really died for you, don't harden your heart!

You always question why Christians could be smarter than the non-believing Jews and know better about God, and I have told you it is because of God's grace and it is SQ( spiritual quotient) not IQ. in Christians' part. So they are not smarter than the non-believing Jews, than non-believer ( PhDs like you...etc.) but they are spiritually restored to God and have the relationship with a living Trinity God. That is the difference, not smartness at all. Otherwise, you should know much better than me.

When I woke up this morning, "the chasm" is ringing in my ears, so I googled the images of chasm and here are the 2 links The Problem: A Gap Caused by Sin,Sin's Chasm: Human Efforts Fall Short Indeed a picture can say better than a thousand words.

God bless you and yours,

May God open your spiritual eyes to see His truth!

How Bar-Headed Geese Scale the Himalayas

How Bar-Headed Geese Scale the Himalayas: Scientific American

How Do Bar-Headed Geese Manage To Migrate Over The Himalayas?

Please read the above links about Bar-headed Geese and their amazing feat to migrate over the Himalayas.

Few clips from these articles pasted below.

...

Body heat

How do bar-headed geese stay warm during their cold flight through the Himalayas? The ceaseless exertion required of Himalayan crossings produces prodigious amounts of body heat. Helping the bar-headed goose to retain this body heat is an inner layer of highly insulating down feathers, and an outer layer of tightly woven waterproofing feathers that prevents body ice from accumulating, weighing the bird down and plunging it to its death.

The bar-headed geese’s weapons against low-oxygen air also include their hemoglobin (a protein contained in red blood cells that binds oxygen molecules), which grabs oxygen particularly effectively at high altitudes, and thereby enables the birds to extract more oxygen from each breath of air than can other birds.Once the bar-headed goose’s blood is stoked with oxygen, it rushes through capillaries that are especially densely distributed in these birds’ muscles.

Dear SS( Sincere Seeker):

After reading the above articles, could you then tell me how the bar-headed geese developed or evolved inner layer of highly insulating down feathers, and an outer layer of tightly woven waterproofing feathers( without that, the icy accumulations would weigh the bird down and plunge it to its death.) if they were not originally equipped to start their migration over the Himalayas? And how did they develop or evolve their special kind of hemoglobin (a protein contained in red blood cells that binds oxygen molecules), which grabs oxygen particularly effectively at high altitudes? IF they don't have these kind of special hemoglobin to start with, they won't be able to survive in the high attitudes' low oxygen level. They couldn't survive evolving their hemoglobin gradually, little by little, right? Tell me how do these geese develop or evolve capillaries that are especially densely distributed in their muscles?

Don't tell me the magic word " Evolution" and it will do all these tricks.

Isn't it more sensible and logical to assume that they were designed that way from the very beginning of their species, smart you?

Snowflakes are all very unique!

Winter is coming, it will be cold again. Nevertheless, those who love to ski will be looking forward to the ski season and the beauty of snow mountains and trees. That reminds me of the beautiful snowflakes falling down from the sky and floating on the air.

We all know that snowflakes come in different designs, no two snowflakes are same, all very unique just like our fingerprints, none of us has same fingerprint.

Is it more logical to assume that those snowflakes have been designed by a Super Being than they just happen by chances? If they simply happen by chance, how can they be so unique, every one of them?

Smart you, please ponder again. Could you see the fingerprints of God? How can"Nothing" creates such a beautiful universe for us?

Are we half Banana? Do you have Ape DNA?

...Scientists who believe in the theory of evolution say that our DNA is so close to that of Ape DNA that this is evidence we came from apes. Are they right? Some say our DNA is 98% similar and others 95% similar to ape DNA. They say that this small difference is only a few spelling mistakes in the information the DNA has.

However, what they don't point out is that humans have about 3 billion letters worth of information just in one cell. So even if there was only 2% difference between ape and human DNA that actually equals 60 million of what the evolutionists call spelling mistakes. But, it's important to state that these are not actually spelling mistakes here. The difference in the DNA is not actually mistakes but new information.

If you were to put that new information down on paper it would be equal to 20 books each with 500 pages in them.

A better explanation of why there is only a small difference between ape and human DNA is that ape and human were made by a common designer. Here's an example that may help explain this. We all know that a builder can build more than one kind of building from the same basic materials. He/she can use materials like concrete, wood, glass and steel, to build a two story house or a 50 story sky scraper. Both buildings will have windows, doors, rooms, stairs, a foundation, a roof etc. etc.

It is not that hard then to see how God can use similar materials (design features like legs, eyes, bone, blood, stomach...) to build different creatures (like frogs, people, bears, cats, apes...)

In summary, the reason why we have similar DNA is not because we have a similar ancestor(the ape) but because we have a similar designer (God, who made both man and ape). So you could rightly say then that we have designer genes!
Finally, did you know that about 50% of our DNA is similar to the DNA of a banana! Does that mean we are half banana?

Click the link below and Watch the short video below this article and think some more about this.

Evolution - End Of The World 2012 Predictions

Fibonacci Number Patterns

Dear SS( Sincere Seeker):

When we went to LA. in last April,
Dr. Abura, called up his former medical school classmates for a reunion dinner with us. During the dinner, he shared his newly discovery of Fibonacci number patterns in nature. I think you are familiar with this pattern in nature, right? However, Dr. Abura discovered this pattern recently as he was taking art class after retirement. His art teacher told the class about these natural phenomena. So he shared this new discovery with us. And I fortunately did encounter this number series early on as my computer teacher taught us in the very beginning of our computer course. I hope this prevalent patterns do tell you that this universe has a Creator God and not just by random chances. Or else how can randomness create beautiful orders like these, could you kindly explain to me? ( You who don't acknowledge our Creator God.)

JUST in case, if you are not familiar with this natural phenomena, the link and brief description are pasted down below for your references.

The Fibonacci number patterns encountered herein occur so frequently in nature that we often hear the phenomenon referred to as a "law of nature". Not all four-petalled flowers are so rare as the four-leaf clover is reputed to be and deviations, sometimes even large ones, from Fibonacci patterns have been found. If this is at all disturbing to the modern botanist, it is not at all so to the Fibonacci devotee, for whom the whole phenomenon, if not a "law", is at least a fascinating prevalent tendency!
(note: 1.618; the Golden Number, also known as Phi, the Golden Ratio, Golden Section, Golden Proportion, Golden Mean or the Divine Proportion, and its mathematical cousin the Fibonacci Sequence (0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21 …) interesting link http://www.goldennumber.net/bible/


http://britton.disted.camosun.bc.ca/fibslide/jbfibslide.htm
Jencropable » Blog Archive » The Fibonacci Spiral


(From the above link)

...The Fibonacci Spiral is created by drawing arcs connecting the opposite corners of squares in the Fibonacci tiling. Fibonacci was a mathematician in the 13th century. He first discovered the Fibonacci number sequence by estimating how fast rabbits could reproduce in an ideal environment. Now I’m not a mathematician and I don’t want to get too technical or boring but the premise behind the squares, or the sequence, is adding each number in the sequence with the number occurring before it in the sequence. Like this…
1
1 + 1 = 2
2 + 1 = 3
3 + 2 = 5
5 + 3 = 8
8 + 5 = 13
13 + 8 = 21
21 + 13 = 34 and so on.
While I must admit I really don’t care about the math I did want to include that part in my post so you at least have some knowledge of what I’m talking about. What I most care about is what the spiral looks like in nature, architecture and the like. I did a basic search on Google and came up with some of the following images…