You seem very sure on this point. Where did the proteins come from then, according to you? At what point does your scientific certainty end? And when it ends, why is it necessary to suddenly invoke God, instead of continuing to search for scientific explanations?
Good questions. So
1) I'm sure of this point because it's the foremost accepted SCIENTIFIC theory of today. Ask any biologist/chemist.
2) Proteins came from amino acids. Obviously. A protein is essentially a structure, think of a Lego structure, made of 20 kinds of different-shaped blocks (amino acids)
3) A very good question. I think you misunderstand me. I will continue to search for more explanations for as long as I am alive. But I don't think God is unscientific. He's inadmissable as a theory due to falsifiabiltiy issues, but his existence violates no physical law that I know of. At the moment, I cannot conceive of a purely scientific explanation for life due to it's minimum complexity requirement, they all fall drastically short. If there ever develops a scientific theory which I believe to have more evidence in favor than the existence of God, I will reconsider
I've only heard of the idea of irreducible complexity in the context of the discredited theory of intelligent design - a creationist front.
You say creationist front in such a... hostile way. Just because they're creationists doesn't mean they have NO viable arguments.
However, it's not actually a creationist term. The phrase "irreducable complexity" first appears in Darwin's Origin of Species. He writes "If any system can be shown to be irreducably complex, my whole theory will fall apart."
Since you appear to be unfamiliar with the definition, let me enlighten you. An irreducably complex object is one which cannot be created through evolution. Namely speaking, it is one which could not have evolved from anything simpler. Traditionally speaking, it's been used in the weak creationist argument that certain organs could not have evolved from anything simpler because those simpler things would have served no purpose. Like having half an eye is useless. But that's a stupid argument.
In what sense are "small molecules" irreducibly complex? Don't they reduce to atoms governed by the laws of chemistry?
IC doesn't mean that the molecule has no smaller parts. It means that the smaller parts don't DO anything. In this case, amino acids by themselves have no function unless they first interact with other amino acids.
What makes you think random chance is all that's involved? Atoms are not free to combine in just any old way at random, for instance. Their physics and chemistry restricts the number of combinations they readily form, the structures of the molecules formed from the atoms, and so on.
For example, try forming the compound oxy-chlorine, made up by combining oxygen and chlorine atoms to form molecules. It really doesn't matter how hard you try, you'll never get a stable oxy-chlorine molecule, because the chemical electronegativities of the atoms don't allow it. So, if you take a bunch of oxygen atoms, and some chlorine atoms and others, your not going to randomly start forming oxy-chlorine molecules. What will be formed instead are molecules that the laws of chemistry and physics favour. And there's no need for any active intelligence to be involved in that.
LOL. I wasn't going to talk about that, but the funny part is, I was giving you guys the benefit of my laziness on that one...
You see, amino acids more readily react with tons of molecules than they do with each other. That's another reason the Miller-Urey experiment was biased. Miller and Urey removed chemicals which would have reacted with the amino acids and rendered them inert. So you see, far from helping you, factoring in favorability of reaction actually HURTS you...
Furthermore, I was assuming that there were ONLY amino acids. (and that there were about 20,000x as many amino acids as there were atoms in the universe. AND that they were all in the same place to react together. See how nice I'm being?) Amino acids all bind together. Any pairing of the twenty with any other of the twenty is viable. Furthermore, the addition of non-viable molecules to the system only serves to dilute the mixture, allowing fewer amino acids to bind together due to proximity, and REDUCING the number of reactions. Since they're limited by proximity, if there are no open reactions, a molecule doesn't magically form an interaction with a far-off molecule. There is simply no reaction.
Let me put it like this James. I cannot think of ANY areas where I did not give you the benefit of the doubt. VASTLY More molecules than the number of atoms in the universe. ALL of them being in the same place. NONE of them being annulled by other chemical reactions. NO inert mixtures gumming up the works or diluting the mixture. NO protein folding to add to the complexity. One reaction EVERY microsecond for EVERY molecule in the system.
Far from cheating and sneaking a pawn or two off your side when you're not looking, I have actually probably given you an additional one of every piece. And you're still in checkmate.
But yes, the predominant scientific theory is that it wasn't random. The problem is, all the replacement theories are, shall we say, still taking baby steps. The currently most promising one lies in finding self-replicating molecules which are not actually in cell-form. The problem with this is what I just described; that scientists can't figure out how to stop their self-replicating chemicals from reacting with other by-products and ceasing to function. That and the fact that self-replicating molecules are still either far too complex, could not have been created on early earth, only in a lab, and don't closely resemble anything in any cells that we know of.
