Changes

#'''Chicken or the Egg problem regarding [[DNA]] and [[protein]]s''': John Horgan wrote: "Many investigators now consider nucleic acids to be much more plausible candidates for the first self-replicating [[molecule]]s. The work of [[James Watson|Watson]] and [[Francis Crick|Crick]] and others has shown that proteins are formed according to the instructions coded in DNA. But there is a hitch. DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or [[enzyme]]s. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins. To those pondering the origin of life, it is a classic chicken-and-egg problem: Which came first, proteins or DNA?" - (John Horgan,[science writer], "In The Beginning...," ''[[Scientific American]]'', Vol. 264, No. 2, February 1991, pp.&nbsp;100–109, p.&nbsp;103)"<ref name="members.iinet.net.au"/>

#'''Chicken or the Egg problem regarding [[DNA]] and [[protein]]s''': John Horgan wrote: "Many investigators now consider nucleic acids to be much more plausible candidates for the first self-replicating [[molecule]]s. The work of [[James Watson|Watson]] and [[Francis Crick|Crick]] and others has shown that proteins are formed according to the instructions coded in DNA. But there is a hitch. DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or [[enzyme]]s. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins. To those pondering the origin of life, it is a classic chicken-and-egg problem: Which came first, proteins or DNA?" - (John Horgan,[science writer], "In The Beginning...," ''[[Scientific American]]'', Vol. 264, No. 2, February 1991, pp.&nbsp;100–109, p.&nbsp;103)"<ref name="members.iinet.net.au"/>

#Complexity of the [[cell]]: [[Molecule|Molecular]] [[biology|biologist]] Michael Denton wrote regarding the complexity of the cell: "To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by [[molecular biology]], we must magnify a [[cell]] a thousand million times until it is twenty [[kilometer]]s in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like [[London]] or [[New York City|New York]]. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity... Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which-a functional [[protein]] or [[gene]] - is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?"<ref>Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books, London, 1985, pages 328 and 342</ref>

#Complexity of the [[cell]]: [[Molecule|Molecular]] [[biology|biologist]] Michael Denton wrote regarding the complexity of the cell: "To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by [[molecular biology]], we must magnify a [[cell]] a thousand million times until it is twenty [[kilometer]]s in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like [[London]] or [[New York City|New York]]. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity... Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which-a functional [[protein]] or [[gene]] - is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?"<ref>Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books, London, 1985, pages 328 and 342</ref>

#[[Catch 22]] problem regarding [[oxygen]] and the early [[earth]]: Mike Riddle cites the "catch 22" dilemma regarding oxygen on the early earth in regards to a hypothesized naturalistic origin of life: "If we were to grant the evolutionists’ assumption of no oxygen in the original [[atmosphere]], another fatal problem arises. Since the [[ozone]] is made of oxygen, it would not exist; and the [[ultraviolet]] rays from the [[sun]] would destroy any biological molecules. This presents a no-win situation for the evolution model. If there was oxygen, life could not start. If there was no oxygen, life could not start. Michael Denton notes: What we have is sort of a “Catch 22” situation. If we have oxygen we have no [[organic compound]]s, but if we don’t have oxygen we have none either."<ref>Riddle, Mike, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/can-natural-processes-explain Can natural processes explain the origin of life?] 17th May, 2007 (Answers in Genesis).</ref>

#[[Catch 22]] problem regarding [[oxygen]] and the early [[earth]]: Mike Riddle cites the "catch 22" dilemma regarding oxygen on the early earth in regards to a hypothesized naturalistic origin of life: "If we were to grant the evolutionists’ assumption of no oxygen in the original [[atmosphere]], another fatal problem arises. Since the [[ozone]] is made of oxygen, it would not exist; and the [[ultraviolet]] rays from the [[sun]] would destroy any biological molecules. This presents a no-win situation for the evolution model. If there was oxygen, life could not start. If there was no oxygen, life could not start. Michael Denton notes: What we have is sort of a “Catch 22” situation. If we have oxygen we have no [[organic compound]]s, but if we don't have oxygen we have none either."<ref>Riddle, Mike, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/can-natural-processes-explain Can natural processes explain the origin of life?] 17th May, 2007 (Answers in Genesis).</ref>

#Implausibility of the RNA World hypothesis.<ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm</ref><ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1532 Self-replicating enzymes?], ''Journal of Creation'' 11(1):4–6, April 1997.</ref><ref>Cairns-Smith, Graham, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4148/ Genetic Takeover: And the Mineral Origins of Life], Cambridge University Press, 1982 (Quoted on Creation Ministries International web-site).</ref>

#Implausibility of the RNA World hypothesis.<ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm</ref><ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1532 Self-replicating enzymes?], ''Journal of Creation'' 11(1):4–6, April 1997.</ref><ref>Cairns-Smith, Graham, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4148/ Genetic Takeover: And the Mineral Origins of Life], Cambridge University Press, 1982 (Quoted on Creation Ministries International web-site).</ref>

#[[Chirality]] problem<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1719 Origin of life: the chirality problem], ''Journal of Creation'' 12(3):263–266, December 1998.</ref>

#[[Chirality]] problem<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1719 Origin of life: the chirality problem], ''Journal of Creation'' 12(3):263–266, December 1998.</ref>