Expert: Eric Christy - 4/20/2008

Question
QUESTION: St. John 14:11-20

I asked the recent question regarding the similarity of genetic architecture between man and ape, and you said that you could send me an essay that you wrote explaining more scientifically that creation is superior to evolution.

I would truly  and surely like to see your own essay in the form of this forum, in comparison with an essay of mine, attempting to explain a plausible theory of evolution for comparison.

ABSTRACT:
Basically it is an idea of 1) heirarchical multiplications in durability and multiplications in numbers, Genesis 1:28, from the levels of atoms to lifeforms over long periods of time, 2) the permutative interactions of the components at the various levels of increasing complexity to find novel combinations, 3) the storage of information in durability and numbers in chemical products like amino acids and protiens, and then RNA and then DNA, and 4) product feedback processes at every level.

DETAIL ESSAY:
Evolution theory.

Atoms.
The big bang generated basic elements.  Gravity formed stars in series in time.  With each cloud to stellar generation, was element transforming disturbances, producing more element enriched nebulas and bodies.  This increased the elemental complexity of the universe by natural means.

Basic molecules.
In a fluid environment on a element enriched planet, there formed natural catalytic-like multiplicative chemistries that built catalytic chemistries in hierarchy through molecular concentration over time of the longest lived, most numerous, and most operational molecular units, through naturally existing ctalytic feedback loops of the organochemistry of a rich concentrate environment.

Protiens, ammino acids.
Organochemical elements of memory, interconnect, amplification, control, interactors, and program, began to form, and permutatively interact.  Catalytically productive forms of programs dominated, and complicated in hierarchies of catalytically related models that generated numbers and durability.

Cell membranes.
The more time space invariant programs, found in enduring numbers, over short lived sparse programs, additionally acquired basic body and processing structures, allowing programatic catalyzation ever more enduringly, in multiplied numbers over lesser programs.

RNA fragments.
Program interactions intersect with lipid and protein interactions, to form sheets and cells in organic domains and develop associations with RNA fragments.  New catalytic codes dominate on RNA chain permutations of feedback and control effects.

RNA segments.
RNA programs develop associations with basic fragments of DNA machines, and proliferate best DNA processing modules in permutations mixing for models with numbers and durability.

DNA fragments.
Basic DNA associated programs develop associations in growing DNA modules, and proliferate.  First life may be considered as occurring here, as a micro bacterial level of life form.  All formed through natural "viral" functions in numbers and strength and function.

Chromosomes and multicellular life.
Primitive sub-cells combination to cellular life programs.
Evolutionary forces continue, sometimes facing catastrophes, but throughout surviving in some forms of life, always through numbers and durability and robust fitness in domains.   Some life forms characteristic of macroscopic form and individualistic thought in populations.  Eventually macroscopic animal life acquired macroscopically active abstract individualistic thought.

Intelligent design.
Thoughts increase in complexity, until agent processing and abstraction technology allows the creation of new/novum "top-level" macroscopically designed macroscopic and micoscopic mechanochemical systems, notably machines, integrated circuits, inorganic mechanochemical nanotechnology, and organic genetics of life, to be created from prior abstract and scientific thought, coming from the macroscopic domain, to go back down into the microscopic domain of existence efficiently by design methods approximating predictable future stable life forms before they would normally occur, or might never occur due to time limitations in a cooling and naurally disruptive universe evolution around naturally slow macroscopic life.

This is the end of the essay on evolutions heirarchical process eventually transitioning into intelligent design of biological life and even machine life, by gentic engineers and computer scientists, by the intelligent pneuma life of God.  Mat 3:9 ESV "We have Abraham as our father,' for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham."


ANSWER: Hi Shawn,

You have some interesting topics for discussion. My background is in biology, chemistry, and electronics. Let's begin by narrowing down the discussion material to the chemistry of life. Let's ask the question: Can natural chemical systems (i.e. nature) create proteins? This question needs to be asked as a starting point in the discussion regarding the origin of life because all lifeforms require proteins as fundamental building blocks. Much like a house requres wood or bricks as fundamental building blocks of its construction, cells and even viruses require proteins of all kinds to build the complex structures and metabolic machinery required of any lifeform. So, it is fitting to determine if natural chemical systems are capable of creating proteins. If they are, that still does not prove life could arise from natural chemical systems, because of all the other necessary requirements for any life to arise, but if nature cannot create proteins, then it cannot create life.

So here is where we ought to begin our discussion: Can nature create a protein?

The answer is, no.

Ergo, life could not arise by natural processes. That leaves only God as the source for life.

Now, if you would like a detailed reason for why this is so, I would be happy to send you specific biochemical reasons.

Let me know,

Eric

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Respectfully, I would argue that at first simple proteins, and then later heavier protiens (as well as RNA and DNA fragments) could be formed by nature in the following way.

GIVENS.
Start with low oxygen atmosphere, composed primarily of nitrogen, methane which is CH4 that is common from the atmospheres of stars and the nebula of a carbon rich supernova star's remains, and water in the tide pools of the early earth, some sulphur and heavy metals from the heavy volcanism, and numerous minerals on a beach with sand for large amounts of surface area for surface chemistry, and constant wave action and concentration cycles from tides and solar activity, and volcanic heat from the thinner crust for acting as a concentrating factor, and even the effects of coastal lightning to promote chemical transitions.

PERMOTATIONS OF COMBINATIONS OF INTERACTIONS.
With all of the givens occurring on these tide pool beaches all around the world, there is a large amount of surface chemistry and open water volumetric mineral molecule assisted (e.g. iron oxides, magnesium compounds, carbonaceous rocks) chemistry available in a reductive atmosphere and water.  Now Stanley Miller at the University of Chicago, back in the 1950s, performed the Miller-Urey experiment which had a simpler experiment that is contained within the bounds of my example of givens, above, that actually produced some amino acids from a subset of these conditions, which are the building blocks of proteins.  In addition, it formed, other organic compounds, sugars, lipids or fatty moleccules, and some nucleic acids of RNA and DNA.

Also with the richer superset experiment in [GIVENS], one can imagine regions where wave and wind actions prevalently concentrate these products in tidepools in places on the earth.  This allows the beach sand surface chemistry, and volumetric water chemistry to be performed in higher concentration, to take these basic products and form the first level of small molecular weight proteins, and short nucleic acid length RNA and DNA molecules.  The proteins may only form molecules in the 1000's of AMU or Dalton weight class compared to sugars of 200 AMU or Dalton weight, and the nucleic acids may only form sequences of the strongest bonding sequences of 2-10 bases in a DNA or RNA fragmentary strand.

But at this point you have a rich soup of organic chemicals and large amounts of surface area on the tide waters which then allow the breeding of other new larger proteins, molecules and chains that would otherwise have not formed in a thin soup where the winds prevail in other directions.  Not only that, but chemistry at this point of time is free to make unique catalytic combinations of molecules in permutations not otherwise possible in today's filtered world, because this initial chemistry is both left and right handed symmetry for molecules that can't simply be flipped.  So this stage of biochemistry is filled with possibilities in multiplicative permutations of combinations leading to many species of heavier molecules that are both numerous in product reaction rates, but also durable to disassociation in the same thickened soup, and have many possible mechanisms for formation because even left right symmetry hasn't been broken, yet.

And as new species of molecules form in numbers and endurance, it allows another new generation of molecules to form in numbers and endurance, in a feedback cycle that continues until the next stages of proto-life can begin as expositive in the first level of my question/essay.

So this, I believe answers and even expands on the idea that proteins, in fact, *can* be built starting with the smaller molecular weight varieties in the earliest stages in the first question essay sections, named:

[Atoms.],
[Basic molecules.], and
[Protiens, ammino acids.].

Even, Miller-Urey's simple 1953 experiment made protiens and ammino and nucleic acids with even less that this concentrating and rich tidepool example outlined in this second question.

I still much hope to see your essay on a creationism explanation for life.  If you paste unformatted text from word, it should drop into the webpage all right, that is what I did with my condensed essay.  Tho I wouldn't mind an interactive Socratic dialog like we are having here.  All great food for the mind.

Regards,
Shawn


ANSWER: Hi Shawn,

Let's begin where you begin. That is, with your givens. I will give you all your givens. And more. In fact, I will give you all your givens and all the 92 natural elements (in case you might need them). I will give you all the wind and water and solar energy you feel you may need. So, we agree on the givens. You have whatever natural elements and energy sources that are available today, or were available when life first supposedly appeared. And feeling rather generous, I'll give you enough time, all the time you feel you might need for any chemical reaction to occur that you think would aid your argument. See, I'm easy.

So, given all these givens, let's see what we have to work with. Keep in mind, that chemical reactions can go both ways. That is, reactants can go to products, (what all naturalists require from the chemically reactive environment so that more and more complex macromolecules will evolve), but products can go to reactants as well. So, if you want to discuss the possibility (given enough time for a reaction to proceed) you have to admit to the liklihood that the reverse reaction can occur, thus undoing any accidental biochemical advantage leading to more complex macromolecules. This reverse reaction can occur given the energy relationships between reactant(s) and product(s). This is bad for your argument. It means that any gains made, accidentally leading to the necessary biochemical complexity, can be undone in any natural chemical environment. This is because there is nothing (no one) to stop this adverse chemical reaction, as there would be if you permitted an intelligent designer to run the chemical reactions. Nature is not not a one-way only (positive reactions only) system. Nature destroys as easily it it builds.

Okay, this is one problem the naturalist has to overcome in designing a scientifically sound (meaning chemically sound) basis for the arrival of life via nature. That is, how does he account for nature's lack of control over the supposed evolving macromolecule leading to first lifeform? There are any number of problems this evolving macromolecule would run into, thus destroying any biochemical gains it accidentally achieved. For instance, if this macromolecule found itself encountering too low pH, this would cause a break apart of this macromolecule, destroying any gains in complexity it accidentally had achieved. Or, if this macromolecule ran into various salts, (chlorides, nitrates, sulfates, oxalates, carbonates, sulfides, or amides, etc) these would have adverse affects on the evolving macromolecule, as it would change its conformation (denature it) making it not what it would have accidentally become...a simple protein. Or, if this macromolecule found itself in too hot a solution, this would have adverse affects on the various bonds connecting atoms together. So you see, that unless you protect your evolving macromolecule from the myriad dangers 'out there' as it is evolving into the first lifeform, you will NEVER have a protein, let alone a first lifeform. Nature destroys as easily as it builds.

One of the reasons I am not an evolutionist/naturalist, is because I have a solid grounding in chemistry. And, I have a decent knowledge of biology. Couple these together, and I realized long ago that natural chemical systems cannot create proteins, let alone lifeforms which use proteins to carry on their day-to-day chemical activities. Nature destroys as easily as it builds.

If you can realize that nature is incapable of creating the building blocks of life (proteins) then it is clear that nature is incapable of creating life. The more one investigates the intricately complex machinery of the cell, the more on realizes that nature is not capable of creating such a machine. What naturalists don't want you to know is that given all the material to create proteins, and all the time you ever wanted, nature is only given more tools to destroy (by adverse chemical reactions) any accidental chemical complexity it did achieve. How will the naturalist demonstrate that nature protected all the constructive accidental chemical gains it achieved, while keeping all the destructive chemical reactions from happening? Nature neither has the intelligence, nor the will, nor the controls, to do so. An intelligent designer, however, does. Ergo, I posit that the scientific evidence available to us strongly points to and intelligent designer, i.e. God, as the source for life.

Let's keep the discussion on whether nature can create proteins or not because if not, then no further discussion is necessary, and you will be, by default, a creationist. If you can show that nature can not only create proteins (absolutely necessary for any life) then we can continue with whether nature could create DNA/RNA. But until we resolve this protein business, let's stick with proteins.

By the way, the Miller-Urey experiment did NOT yeild proteins. It only yielded simple amino acids (the building blocks of proteins---not proteins themselves). No natural, or man-made system has ever created proteins by leaving all the chemical precursors necessary to make proteins, in a chemcial system like the Miller-Urey experiment. Research this, and you will see that I am correct. Less informed teachers often cite this experiment as "proof" that nature could have created proteins. Nature cannot. Proteins are ONLY created by already living bodies, or by humans using PCR "Polymerase Chain Reaction" which requires intelligence and control of the chemical environment, neither of which nature possesses.

Let me know your thoughts,

Eric

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Thank you in advance,

I will also grant that the Miller Urey experiment only created 2-3 of the 20 odd amino acids used in current lifeforms, and not low molecular weight protiens.

But there are many restrictions that modern right handed chiral biochemistry has placed on biology by removing the left handed chiral chemistry through filtering in biological systems, which restrictions are not placed on early biomolecular genesis.

For example, more than just the Miller Urey was at work in the early chemical mix, but rather hundreds of parallel "experiments" reaction chains were occuring, all from the mix of natural base chemicals, including large amounts of surface chemistry in particulate matter, and fragmented graphite from carbonaceous meteors and comets continually falling on the earth and oceans and tidepools.

For example, the large areas of powdered mineral surfaces, and the fragments and surfaces of pulverized graphitic materials, from graphite, and Buckminster fullerines, to solid graphite, they all provide many electrically active surfaces and sites where even metal ions may float by and bond with van der Waals forces to allow the statistical catalyzation of the amino acids formed by the simpler set of hundreds of Miller Urey type reactions working simultaneously, to shift the reaction rate 10-10000's of times though the reduction of energy required for the reaction under more, which are what catalysts do to reaction, by greatly increasing the forward rate of reactions.

Also, with no modern biochemical restrictions placed on the early biochemistry, one can see that there may be, say 1000 right handed chiral base reactions possible with the permutations of the right handed chemicals, and 1000 left handed chiral reactions possible with the left handed chemicals, and then a *synergy* of, say 2000 additional reactions possible between the left handed and right handed chiral chemicals that can also form catalytic reactions to allow more biochemical pathways to allow the reduced in energy and thus more numerous products for additional reactions to occur, in this primordial soup.

Additionally, since we are discussing an early region of biochemistry, without the "intelligent" guidance of longer DNA and RNA fragment micro-code populations, yet, they have large areas of tidepools and silt levels below the water, which could provide a statistical homeostasis for a biochemistry over long periods of time to produce numerous forward product catalyzed chemicals, without destroying them with great thermal or pH variations, as examples.  Many large lakes, inlets, and bays around the early proto-continents can produce many areas with different statistically "homeostatic" biochemistries to form, further increasing the varieties of chemistries that can be found, some with more graphite catalysts, some with more silicate catalysts, and some with more carbonaceous mineral catalysts, and all with iron, mercury, magnesium, sodium, sulphuric, arsenic, lead, etc reaction assisting ions floating in the water.  Some of which are no longer used by modern, DNA right handed chiral chemistry, like lead and arsenic.

And here is where the math of heirarchical chemistry branching factors comes into effect.  For each base catalytic reaction that creates a new biochemical product in greatly increased rates, due of the catalytic forward reaction rate increase of a statistical catalytic reaction, that one gets new branches of reactions between the new product and every previously existing biochemical product.  This process is a permutative combinatorial process with some extinction factor in that not every possible soup chemical combination may produce a useful forward catalytic reaction, but some fraction of new catalytic reactions will occur, including the mineralized surface chemistry, much like a natural diode or tansistor can be found by cat whiskering a germanium crystal, which is a natural form of diode or transistor found in the fracture defects of the crystal.

The argument you make, is that it is a proven scientific fact that the branching permutation factor of this rich soup is so high for new catalytic reactions, that all natural permutation reach a dead end of basic biochemical reactions, not allowing a self-feedback of new left *or* right handed and synergystic left *and* right handed reactions, to allow the generation of low molecular weight protiens, which can also act as catalysts.  Is this true, based on your biochemistry experience, that more enzymatic breakdown reactions truly occur in the complex permutational chemistry complexes described in the above combinations of chemistries?  Basically, there is no bootstrap feedback process in the permutations opened up in a very rich, non-modern biological chemistry process with hundreds of products feeding back on themselves and more catalysts for buildup than enzymes for breakdown, as well as natural lowered reverse rate reactions due to the catalysts which increase the forward reaction rates.

I don't know anyone who has done such a complex ad-hoc compound mixture experiment, as the early biochemical genesis theory says that many more ad-hoc reactions occur that no longer occur in the right handed chiral filtered biology of modern life.

Great regards, Eric
Shawn Troxel
setroxel1971 at yah-hoo dought com


Answer
Nice reply. I am enjoying our discussions.

You stated:
"But there are many restrictions that modern right handed chiral biochemistry has placed on biology by removing the left handed chiral chemistry through filtering in biological systems, which restrictions are not placed on early biomolecular genesis."

My response:
Let's allow both right-handed and left-handed chiral reactions. Let's allow *all* possible chemical reactions to take place so that the maximum number of chemical products may form. Let's not disallow any possible reactions, no restrictions. Then, let's see what the results would be. Here is what you might expect: Chemical reactions leading to either equilibrium (as many reactants forming from products--the reverse reaction I was speaking of before--or stasis, no further reactions. I will limit nothing. I allow everything. In doing so, of course, I also must allow adverse chemical reactions (which you would expect from a random chemically reactive environment necessary for increased complexity of the supposed evolving macromolecule leading to first lifeform). This same random chemically environment is what would be found in any natural system, i.e. the system that life first supposedly evolved from. Naturalists require a chemically reactive system to achieve the complex macromolecules (proteins, DNA/RNA, etc) that are required for living structures. However, what the naturalist doesn't want to admit is that this same chemically reactive system can destroy any accidental gains it accidentally achieved. Bummer.

You stated:
"For example, more than just the Miller Urey was at work in the early chemical mix, but rather hundreds of parallel "experiments" reaction chains were occuring, all from the mix of natural base chemicals, including large amounts of surface chemistry in particulate matter, and fragmented graphite from carbonaceous meteors and comets continually falling on the earth and oceans and tidepools."

My response:
Yes, all of these and more, were happening. All of this chemistry was occuring since the formation of the earth. But having the abundance of reactants to make the abundance of products we have today, shows that chemistry was occuring. It does not show that the controls necessary to produce a *living* chemistry occured. What you are assuming (all naturalists have to assume this) is that just having all the materials necessary for life implies that life will eventually emerge from their materials--given time. That is like saying that a computer will emerge from its materials (microprocessors, transistors, IC chips, resistors, capacitors, inductors, the correct wiring layout, and of course the program (analgous to DNA in lifeforms)) given time. Clearly, nature could not bring all these constituents of a computer together, along with the program to run it. Why? Because nature has not the intelligence, nor the will, nor the controls necessary to bring it into existence. Keep in mind that a computer (as sophisticated as we humans think it is) is simple compared to a single cell! If you like, we can discuss in the future metabolic feedback pathways that all living structures require for metabolism, that would have to have been active in the first lifeform, but are only created by the genetics of the parent lifeform, thus creating a logical hole in the notion that the first lifeform would have evolved with these necessary metabolic positive and negative feedback mechanisms.

You stated:
"Also, with no modern biochemical restrictions placed on the early biochemistry, one can see that there may be, say 1000 right handed chiral base reactions possible with the permutations of the right handed chemicals, and 1000 left handed chiral reactions possible with the left handed chemicals, and then a *synergy* of, say 2000 additional reactions possible between the left handed and right handed chiral chemicals that can also form catalytic reactions to allow more biochemical pathways to allow the reduced in energy and thus more numerous products for additional reactions to occur, in this primordial soup."

My response:
Again, I am not restricting anything that you might require for the arrival of your first lifeform from natural processess. Nothing. And again, for every postive chemical reaction leading to greater complexity for the assumed macromolecule leading to first lifeform, you have just as likely a negative chemical reaction destroying any gains this macromolecule may have made. You cannot say that nature allows constructive-only reactions, while disallowing destructive reactions. Nature does not work that way. Nature is, by nature (forgive the pun) ambivalent, not caring what the outcome of a chemical reaction would be, nor able to control that outcome. Naturalists have a difficult time understanding this fact of nature. They only want to admit to the positive chemical gains nature might create, while ignoring the just as likely negative losses. Nature destroys as easily as it builds.

You stated:
"Additionally, since we are discussing an early region of biochemistry, without the "intelligent" guidance of longer DNA and RNA fragment micro-code populations, yet, they have large areas of tidepools and silt levels below the water, which could provide a statistical homeostasis for a biochemistry over long periods of time to produce numerous forward product catalyzed chemicals, without destroying them with great thermal or pH variations, as examples.  Many large lakes, inlets, and bays around the early proto-continents can produce many areas with different statistically "homeostatic" biochemistries to form, further increasing the varieties of chemistries that can be found, some with more graphite catalysts, some with more silicate catalysts, and some with more carbonaceous mineral catalysts, and all with iron, mercury, magnesium, sodium, sulphuric, arsenic, lead, etc reaction assisting ions floating in the water.  Some of which are no longer used by modern, DNA right handed chiral chemistry, like lead and arsenic."

My response:
Tidepools can hold a rich assortment of reagents from which to produce complex products. But upon investigation of these tidepools, what do we find? Do we find proteins, for instance? Again, you can have all the reagents in the world available to you, and you will find that nature cannot create a protein with them. You use of statistical models is fine, but unfortunately nature cannot, and does not, apply them. What you do is cite what 'might happen' in natural systems, then assume that they 'do happen' and proceed with your views as if they 'did happen'. That is not science. That is science fiction, albeit a highly educated variety. You cannot cite science demonstrating the formation of complex molecules becoming proteins from tidepools, or any other substrate. That is because nature has neither the intelligence, nor the controls necessary to do so. In time, I am hoping you will realize this. Let SCIENCE speak for itself, and keep out the science fiction, and you will be shocked by what you learn.

You stated:
"And here is where the math of heirarchical chemistry branching factors comes into effect.  For each base catalytic reaction that creates a new biochemical product in greatly increased rates, due of the catalytic forward reaction rate increase of a statistical catalytic reaction, that one gets new branches of reactions between the new product and every previously existing biochemical product.  This process is a permutative combinatorial process with some extinction factor in that not every possible soup chemical combination may produce a useful forward catalytic reaction, but some fraction of new catalytic reactions will occur, including the mineralized surface chemistry, much like a natural diode or tansistor can be found by cat whiskering a germanium crystal, which is a natural form of diode or transistor found in the fracture defects of the crystal."

My response:
You math of heirarchical chemistry branching factors is not well understood by nature. I don't think it took that class. Because something is mathematically possible, does not mean that it is chemically possible. There is a reason that scientists have not found nature capable of producing proteins. That reason involves the exact sequential positioning (locations along the amino acid peptide-bonding) of the amino acids that form a protein. If any of the 20 amino acids that form a protein are out of order in any position along the peptide chain, the functionality of that protein is severely disrupted. For instance, if one of the amino acids forming the protein hemoglobin are missing, or in the wrong position, you get a major lack of functionality for the hemoglobin protein. An example of this is sickle-cell anemia. If only one amino acid is wrong, and the malfunction of that protein occurs. It is not only which amino acid, but also where it is located along the amino acid chain, that makes a protein function. Do you know what the probability would for nature to form this protein from its amino acid constituents? The location, and type of amino acid in its sequence in forming proteins, is the problem. Nature does not have the tools necessary to control the required amino acid specificity.

You brought up the "cat whisker" diode idea. I design electronics systems, specializing in nodal analysis (circuit analysis tool to determine node voltages in a circuit and consequently AC/DC currents) and have designed transistor radios, and then put my designs together and made them work. One of the components I used was a germanium diode as my low-voltage demodulator to the input of a high impedance (JFET 2N3918) rf amplifier. The germanium diode is similar to the "cat whisker" diode you mentioned. One of the things I learned early in life was that just having all the components necessary to build a device was not enough to actually get the device. You had to design the device around the components you had. This takes a measure of intelligence. Then, you had to place the components of the device in their proper positions in relation to all the other components. This requires intelligence coupled with control of the environment (sound familiar)? Then you had to troubleshoot any problems that arose from improper soldering or misplacing a component lead, etc. Finally, after working and reworking your design and project board, you got a working radio. Now, I ask you. Where in nature do we see the intelligence necessary to bring together the requisite parts of a protein, and the controls necessary to make it happen in the correct sequence, and where do we see error checking mechanisms that correct for any errors (which requires knowledge of the original amino acid placement (ie DNA/RNA))? Nature has neither the intelligence, nor the controls to achieve protein synthesis, Shawn.



Here would be a good place to pause. The pause is necessary so that you can think about this fundamental aspect of nature and natural processess. That being, that nature can build and nature can destroy what it built, and it neither cares nor can control this feature. If we can agree that this is fundamental to all natural processess, then we can proceed with showing that no life is impossible using only natural processess because natural processes will destroy as likely as it will build, not having the intelligence, the will, nor the controls necessary to protect what it has built.

We need to establish the Fundamental Principle (FP) in regard to nature's capabilities. The Fundamental Principle is this: Nature destroys as easily as it builds, and cannot protect what it builds, thus allowing destruction of any gains it may have accidentally achieved.

Based upon the FP, do you agree that nature cannot control what it is building, and cannot protect what it is building? This is the crucial understanding so that we can proceed with the specifics of the problem of protein synthesis via natural processes, and why nature is intrinsically incapable of building them. Once we discuss this, it will be clear that life could not have arisen by natural processess. In time, I will allow protein synthesis by natural processess, and still demonstrate that nature could not have brought about life because of the FP.

Eric