A Scientist Speaks:sarf2g

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, (Creation Ministries International, www.CreationOnTheWeb.org) explains how the simplest known life form today, Mycloplasma genitalium, shows the impossibility of life beginning by chemical evolution.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Mycoplasma
• genitalium
• chemical
• evolution

[pontecanis]

Dr. Sarfati, bonebrain extraordinaire, fails to understand that Mycloplasma genitalium is not the simplest organism known today, and demonstrates that he is without a doubt a collossal lying jackass....far simpler organisms exist, such as Cyanobacteria, and predeate M. genitalium by millions of years...moron!

[CincoTalentos]

Why the infantile rant with demeaning epitaphs? Common from those whose argument is weak. Choose whichever "primitive" bacteria YOU want! You still haven't solved the problem Sarfati raises. Chemical Ev. is a myth! No one has ever observed the spontaneous (or even scientist produced) assembly of even one life protein or amino-a. let alone single gene which would still be useless by itself. From non-living chemicals to ANY bacteria is just plain impossible. See? No need for childish name calling.

[pontecanis]

@CincoTalentos ~Oh dear, a bit behind the times are we? See the 1989 Nobel Prize for Chemistry---production of self-replicating RNA from created amino acids, in the lab. You are incorrect, Sarfati is wrong, and a congenital liar at that!

[CincoTalentos]

So, self replicating RNA from "created" amino acids is equivalent to life forming all by itself? Would the RNA not need DNA? Would there be no need for ribossomes? No need for a cell membrane? Oh, maybe the self replicating RNA from "created" amino acids could magically form inside a cell membrane that was also miraculously forming around it and a whole slew of specialized proteins necessary for life -- and they all did it at the exact same instant --what has never been observed happening once!

[SqueakerAlpha]

does he mean abiogenesis ? because chemicals do not reproduce and therefore do not mutate and evolve.

[jamaicanification]

also 1chronicles chp 6 vs49-53 vs Ezra chp 7 vs 1-5. The other point is that in hebrew 'day' has different meanings. Now i know people will say in this contexts it means a 24 hour day because of morning and evening. But that wouldn't make sense because Genesis states that morning and evening was created on the 4th day. Also many hebrew scholars, and even jews today believe its and extended day. So the earth being billions of years old does not contradict the bible

[jamaicanification]

The bible does not say that the earth is 6000 yrs old. There is no date on the earth's age. The only reason people believed that(and some still do) is because an archbishop in the 1800's named james ussher calculated all the genealogies in the bible and came to the conclusion that creation started at 4004BC. What he didn't take notice of was the fact that all the hebrew geneolies were compresed(evidence Luke chp 3 vs23-38 compared to Genesis chp11 vs 10-26)(continued)

[jamaicanification]

i am a christian and i think that jonathan safati is just wrong in his view of the earth being 6000 years old. Initially when i was younger i did believe in a 'young earth', but not one that was 6000 years. Then the creation ministries team came to my church to show ho 'evolution was a religion' and how it was unscientific and it sounded convincing because i had not done enough research on the scietific evidence(continued)

[TheScienceFoundation]

@5tonyvvvv We've already gotten around the chirality problem, whether you understand that circular polarity preferentially destroys certain amino acids is irrelevant.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@5tonyvvvv They didn't take out the DNA, they mapped it digitally and created it bio-synthetically.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@5tonyvvvv No they're not exaggerated, they didn't use any living part of the cell, they made it all from scratch. I didn't say 'new' life I said life from non-life, which it was.

[5tonyvvvv]

@TheScienceFoundation No scientist on earth has gotten around the problem of chirality..Miller at least tried to create life from chemicals and failed.all the amino acids lacked chirality .venter just copied code and information..

[5tonyvvvv]

They spent $40 million and used the research skills of 20 highly qualified and intelligent scientists over 10 years. They copied this information and then reconstructed the genome, inserting the equivalent of a “name tag”’ and then, after taking out the DNA, inserted the “synthetic” genes into another already-existing bacterium, so that the complicated machinery of the living bacterium (that God had created) could then enable this cell to live and replicate— They copied life and created nothing!

[5tonyvvvv]

@TheScienceFoundation LOL...These are exaggerated claims by venters team and the media..NO LIFE was created!!!..why is it irrelevant??..the genome was copied..and grown in a living yeast cell that already existed!!!!..and was passed off as New life created ..what lies!!!!