Meyer pretends that he does not understand how the evolution works. According to him, TOE claims that complex proteins appear by chance. Whereas TOE postulates that complex things evolve from simple ones.
The honest attempt to come up with the probability of life appearing on its own should asses the probability of random formation of a simplest molecules capable of replicating itself. And those molecules are NOT proteins at all, much less the complex ones, which Meyer calls "minimally functional".
And Meyer knows that -- he consciously lies because he is either paid to do so, or he thinks that the goal justifies the means.
Maybe it's less sinister than you think. Maybe he's just not stupid enough to fall into the chicken/egg argument you are referring to above.
It is no chicken/egg, the evolution goes from simple organisms to more complex. The simplest molecules were the result of random reactions.
What kind of scientific experiments can you cite that have been done on simple molecules randomly copying themselves?
Google RNA world. Actually don't bother, I just did:
Exploring Life's Origins: A Timeline of Life's Evolution
Anyway, the simplest replicating molecules probably were RNA. As for the proteins, any high school student should know that they cannot replicate themselves. Until last century, each protein on Earth was synthesized by RNA machines like those found in cells today. Therefore calculating the chances of a protein randomly forming, as Meyer does, is an exercise in stupidity -- we all know, and he knows, that such an event never happened.
But Meyer does it anyway, because he needs to trick his audience into believing that the life appearing randomly is statistically impossible.
I'm confused. You say the simplest molecules PROBABLY were RNA. Then you say we all know, and he knows, that such an event never happened. You have presented a circular argument so here is your strawman, if proteins weren't randomly formed, and then functional proteins didn't exist, how did RNA know what to build after it started copying itself and turned into DNA? Come on people!!! Are you really falling for this stuff??
A little about RNA from Professor Walton...
■ Statistically, the chance of forming even one “useful” RNA sequence can be shown to be essentially zero in the lifetime of the earth.
■ The complexity of the first self-replicating system, and the information needed to build it, imply intelligent design.
■ Hope of beating the colossal odds against random formation of replicating RNA is based on ideology rather than science.
■ As lab experiments on model replicators become more complex they demonstrate the need for input from intelligent mind(s).
■ Acceptance of an early earth atmosphere free of oxygen atoms strains belief beyond breaking point!
■ No chemically or geologically plausible routes to nucleotides or RNA strands have been developed.
■ Geological field work shows no support for a “prebiotic soup.” It favors little change in the atmosphere over time. Living things have been present since the first crustal rocks.
And I ask again.... who believes in Fairytales??
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-big-picture-56-minutes-that-may-change-your-life/
"Alonso and Szostak’s origin-of-life scenario: a brilliant example of Intelligent Design
But wait, there’s more! Apparently results obtained by (human) Intellligent Design also count automatically as evidence for unguided evolution on the primordial Earth, four billion years ago! How can methodological naturalists possibly lose, with a strategy like that? To quote Alonso and Szostak:
We started with trillions of random RNA sequences. Then we selected the ones that had catalytic properties, and we made copies of those. At each round of copying some of the new RNA strands underwent mutations that turned them into more efficient catalysts, and once again we singled those out for the next round of copying. By this directed evolution we were able to produce ribozymes that can catalyze the copying of relatively short strands of other RNAs, although they fall far short of being able to copy polymers with their own sequences into progeny RNAs. (pp. 58-59) (Emphases mine – VJT.)
I would like to commend the authors for their honesty in this passage. Lesser scientists than they might have glossed over these awkward facts, but Alonso and Szostak were decent enough to acknowledge that nothing short of Intelligent Design can make their favored scenario work, at this point in time."
And neither should you.
