Tag Archives: Biology

Creation

Creation: Question Evolution Campaign — 11 of 15

Our 9th Anniversary

Our 9th Anniversary

A Sunday guest post by my brilliant husband, Gregg.

Every Sunday, my clever husband offers me a “day of rest” by taking over the homemaker duties here. His primary topic, the Biblical Truth of Creation vs. Darwinism, is a subject that has broad reaching scientific, social, and metaphysical implications and is gaining more and more attention in our modern culture. For believers and non-believers alike, the primary purpose is to present scientific, historical, logical, and/or sociological data in an empirical and defensible fashion, as much as possible written in layman’s terms, and in a format suitable for supplementing any homeschool curriculum whether you choose to believe the Biblical account — or secular guesses — about the origins of human life on earth.

Origin of the Mind

Question number 11 in the creation.com Question Evolution campaign is, “How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?

If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes? Why, then, do we also teach philosophy? What is the outcome of generations of nihilist indoctrination on our culture?

“Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and I must say that these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposive forces of any kind, no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I’m going to be completely dead. That’s just all! That’s going to be the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans either. What an unintelligible idea!”
Professor William Provine, PhD; Professor of Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University, from a debate in 1994 at Stanford University

In the USA, our forefathers founded a nation on the principles that all people are “created” equal, and that all human beings have unalienable rights that are endowed upon us by our “Creator,” and that among them are the right to life and liberty. These principles are clearly the natural and very logical conclusions one reaches when one understands that we are created beings, that our creator is a supreme intelligence and the lawgiver of the universe, that our lives have meaning and value. Since the 1960s, we have gone very far away from those very simple principles.

In the teachings of the Bible, there are very clear moral absolutes.  Murder, for example, is always wrong.  Lying (bearing false witness) is always wrong.  What kind of morality can come from the muddy relativism that is the natural offspring of the Darwinist philosophy?

While Christians define it as murder, Darwinism is so plastic and so morally relative, that it is perfectly fine to murder utterly innocent unborn human beings ala abortion, or the aged or infirm ala euthanasia.  It all depends upon who solipsistically gets to define whom is deemed the “fittest” in the context of the species.

Darwinian fraud is perpetrated on global and shocking scale.  When 200 year old fraudulent embryo drawings turn up in modern textbooks, the Darwinian apologetic is simply that the end often justifies the means.  In other words, lying is sometimes morally right, provided that the lie advances the Darwinian agenda.

In the teachings of the Bible, man is given dominion and stewardship over the entire earth.  This means that we are to sheperd all living things. On the other hand, Darwinists may be extremely cruel to animals; after all, under the doctrine of “survival of the fittest,” even the most gratuitous and painful actions can rationalized and justified as “helping” natural selection along. While on the opposite end of the spectrum, Darwinists elevate animals to the status of human beings, like those who wish to give human rights to apes, on the basis that we are all “related,” by the mythical common ancestor, so humans are not entitled to any special status.

Ultimately, a philosophy that encompasses every possible notion, has no particular meaning.

“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”
Richard Dawkins, Evangelical Atheist and University of Oxford’s Professor for Public Understanding of Science

By clinging to the above philosophy, Darwinists are in denial of even basic and foundational evidence that refutes thier worldview.  As GK Chesterton wrote nearly a century ago, ‘If an ignorant man went about saying that the earth was flat, the scientific man would promptly and confidently answer, “Oh, nonsense; of course it’s round.” He might even condescend to give the real reasons, which I believe are quite different from the current ones. But when the private citizen rushes wild-eyed down the streets of Heliopolis, Neb., calling out “Have you heard the news? Darwin’s wrong!” the scientific man does not say, “Oh, nonsense, of course he’s right.” He says tremulously, “Not entirely wrong; surely not entirely wrong”; and we can draw our conclusions.’

 

The Truth

If mankind is the result of an absence of design, a dearth of purpose, and we came from blind indifference — then why do we design, why do we live purposeful lives, and why are acts of sacrifice and altruism to better the human condition so very common?  In other words, how did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?  To read more about this question and it’s answer, go to http://creation.com/chesterton

I commit to you that I will publish every single comment that meets this blog’s commenting criteria. You may want to review that criteria before adding your opinion here.

God Bless you and yours.

Gregg


Resources:
Additional Posts dealing with Creation and Darwinism

Pin It
Share
Creation

Creation: Question Evolution Campaign — 10 of 15

Our 9th Anniversary

Our 9th Anniversary

A Sunday guest post by my brilliant husband, Gregg.

Every Sunday, my clever husband offers me a “day of rest” by taking over the homemaker duties here. His primary topic, the Biblical Truth of Creation vs. Darwinism, is a subject that has broad reaching scientific, social, and metaphysical implications and is gaining more and more attention in our modern culture. For believers and non-believers alike, the primary purpose is to present scientific, historical, logical, and/or sociological data in an empirical and defensible fashion, as much as possible written in layman’s terms, and in a format suitable for supplementing any homeschool curriculum whether you choose to believe the Biblical account — or secular guesses — about the origins of human life on earth.

Lazarus Taxa

Question number 10 in the creation.com Question Evolution campaign is, “How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years?

The late Professor Stephen J. Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”  No kidding, doc.  How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, given that the Darwinian model of evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame?

I wrote a very long post about the Lazarus Taxa in a post entitled “Creation: Lazarus Taxa Come Forth!”  I talked about bugs and fish and flowers and spiders and plants and even people.  The thing is, paleontologists all seem to want to “discover” a new species and have it named after themselves.  A recent critical reorganization of all known dinosaurs, for example, showed that a huge number of simply immature (as in juvenile) specimens were granted a species name as if they were an entirely different species.  So, a baby Something-a-saurus is called Something-else-a-saurus quite often.

In exactly the same way, when a fossilized cockroach is found in the dirt somewhere — in every meaningful morphological way identical to a modern day cockroach — it is christened a Cockroach-Something-Saurus.  Usually, the “something” is the name of the paleontologist who “discovered” this exciting new species.

fossil & modern shovel ray

Left: A fossil Shovelnose Ray (Belemnobatis sismondae). Evolutionary ‘age’: 148 million years.Right: A living ray (Rhinobatos productus) caught at Malibu, California, USA.

See, the problem is, they are identical.  Maybe the ones we find in the fossil record are significantly older (biological age not assumed evolutionary age it died) or significantly larger, but both of those facts actually refute Darwin.  It should no longer be a dead ringer for the ancient fossil, assuming evolution is true. It should be extinct. Or, it should be replaced by a differently evolved Ray. Or replaced even by some non-Ray. Something should be different after so many millions of years.

Damselfly fossil

The tiny, metallic green dragonfly known as the Ancient Greenling Damselfly was found at Long Swamp, in the Discovery Bay Coastal Park near Portland. The damselfly, part of the dragonfly group Odonata, is the only living representative of the family Hemiphlebiidae. Its so-called ancient predecessors are found solely in a timeframe that Darwinists claim is 250-300 million-year-old fossil records anywhere from Brazil to Russia.

Modern Living Damselfly

Okay. So, following evolutionary concepts, 300 million years ought to be more than enough time for mutations to occur in the damselfly and for natural selection to weed out the unfit and generate a new living form from the old. In fact, given the assumed evolutionary process of mutations and natural selection relentlessly occurring over time, even at miraculously slow rates, this vast age ought to guarantee at least some alteration in the insect. But not only is the damselfly still recognizable as a damselfly, but even more specifically as the Ancient Greenling Damselfly.

But it should no longer be a dead ringer for the ancient fossil, assuming evolution is true. It should be extinct. Or, it should be replaced by a differently evolved Damselfly. Or replaced even by some non-Damselfly. Something should be different after so many millions of years.

For more information about question number 10 in this searies, visit creation.com/living_fossils.

The Truth

Darwinist apologists have no valid, cogent, sound explanation for the gaps in the fossil record because they are locked into a paradigm of uniformitarianism.

“The fossil record is often so sparse that … there are plenty of cases where groups survived for tens of millions of years without leaving a single fossil.” Peter J. Bowler, Review of In Search of Deep Time, by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999). In American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.

A person with even a fragment of objectivity can see the foolishness in the constant Darwinian apologia.  The truth is that the fossil record is not a record of long evolutionary ages, with distinctive life forms in each distinctive age, as Darwinists allege and purport, but rather of just one age, that of the great flood and the subsequent local catastrophes that followed the global flood. Little wonder, then, that practically all modern living organisms are represented in the rocks of the so-called geologic column.

In their nearly infinite variety, vast complexity, perfectly engineered design, and uncompromising beauty, all living things bear witness to the wisdom and power of our Creator, while the great panorama of suffering and death — and often even extinction — displayed in their fossilized preservation is a perpetual reminder, not of Darwinism and evolutionary theory, but of the terrible consequences of human sin on this earth.

I commit to you that I will publish every single comment that meets this blog’s commenting criteria. You may want to review that criteria before adding your opinion here.

God Bless you and yours.

Gregg


Resources:
Additional Posts dealing with Creation and Darwinism

Pin It
Share
Creation

Creation: Question Evolution Campaign — 9 of 15

Our 9th Anniversary

Our 9th Anniversary

A Sunday guest post by my brilliant husband, Gregg.

Every Sunday, my clever husband offers me a “day of rest” by taking over the homemaker duties here. His primary topic, the Biblical Truth of Creation vs. Darwinism, is a subject that has broad reaching scientific, social, and metaphysical implications and is gaining more and more attention in our modern culture. For believers and non-believers alike, the primary purpose is to present scientific, historical, logical, and/or sociological data in an empirical and defensible fashion, as much as possible written in layman’s terms, and in a format suitable for supplementing any homeschool curriculum whether you choose to believe the Biblical account — or secular guesses — about the origins of human life on earth.

Transitional Forms

Question number 9 in the creation.com Question Evolution campaign is, “Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?

Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing? Charles Darwin noted the problem and it still remains more than 2 centuries later. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on PURE imagination, not fossil evidence, or any other evidence for that matter.

Christmas Evolution

Christmas Evolution

The late famous Harvard paleontologist (and fervent Darwinist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”.

The fact is that the average Darwinist cladogram has as much in common with factual scientific evidence and observation as the Santa cladogram pictured here.  Note that there are actual examples of living things with lines connecting them to “inferred” and utterly imaginary things.

This is essentially the philosophy of Darwin when it comes to the fossil record.  It goes back to Larmarkism when Jean Baptiste Lamark invented pictures of a deer on one end of the spectrum and a giraffe on the other and filled in the inferred intermediate space with utterly imaginary things that have never existed — explaining that they must have existed to transform deer into giraffe.  (The three rightmost creatures are completely imaginary.)

In modern “evolutionary” biology, there is an assumption of imaginary living things that span the gaps and “link” all of the gaping chasms in the fossil record and in observed biological processes.  While there should be hundreds of thousands of transitional forms that “transition” every single living thing on the planet from the mythical “simple” single celled “original” ancestor into current complex multi-cellular living things, the fact is that there simply aren’t more than a few very questionable examples.

In the human fossil record, there is an assumption of monkey to man transformation.  However, an objective study reveals only a collection of monkey bones (fully ape) an man bones (fully human).

Inferred Transitions pt 1

The assumption is that fossils evidence valid inferences between ape and human

Inferred Transitions pt 2

The red points out all the inferred assumptions this diagram portrays

Inferred Transitions pt 3

The truth is all fossils are either completely ape or completely human when inferences and assumption is removed

Other Darwinist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem at an intellectual level, though like Gould, they completely ignore it at a philosophical level.  Charles Darwin famously predicted that “future discoveries” in the fossil record would validate his theory.  In more than 2 centuries, the actual fossil record has done nothing more than disprove his theory again and again.

For more information about question number 9 in this searies, visit creation.com/pattquote.

The Truth

The truth is that a rational human being without a philosphical bias has to conclude that the evidence does not support the assumption.  In fact, it contradicts it.  The more consistent answer to this very large question is that we were designed by an intelligent agent and we bear the tool marks of that design effort.

I commit to you that I will publish every single comment that meets this blog’s commenting criteria. You may want to review that criteria before adding your opinion here.

God Bless you and yours.

Gregg


Resources:
Additional Posts dealing with Creation and Darwinism

Pin It
Share
Creation

Creation: Question Evolution Campaign — 8 of 15


Our 9th Anniversary

Our 9th Anniversary

A Sunday guest post by my brilliant husband, Gregg.

Every Sunday, my clever husband offers me a “day of rest” by taking over the homemaker duties here. His primary topic, the Biblical Truth of Creation vs. Darwinism, is a subject that has broad reaching scientific, social, and metaphysical implications and is gaining more and more attention in our modern culture. For believers and non-believers alike, the primary purpose is to present scientific, historical, logical, and/or sociological data in an empirical and defensible fashion, as much as possible written in layman’s terms, and in a format suitable for supplementing any homeschool curriculum whether you choose to believe the Biblical account — or secular guesses — about the origins of human life on earth.

Today’s Sexy Topic

Question number 8 in the creation.com Question Evolution campaign is, “How did sex originate?

Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction.  While discussing the advantages of a fully functional sexual reproductive system, don’t think that misleadingly implies that such is sufficient to explain its origin.

Given the facts, how could sexual reproduction ever gain enough advantage to be “selected” over asexual reproduction? How could mere physics and chemistry simultaneously invent the needed  complementary apparatuses for sexual reproduction to work?  Non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs.  ”Nature” cannot forecast against future need and stockpile utterly superfluous apparatus until the day they are finally needed.

Why not “simple” asexual reproduction?  Why not even far more “simple” parthenogenesis?  There are breeds of reptiles, such as lizards in Texas, that are entirely female. They lay eggs that hatch into lizards that are essentially clones of the mother.  They seem to do very well, so what’s the point of sexual reproduction?  Where is the “evolutionary” advantage?

Speaking of advantage, sexual reproduction has many disadvantages.  Afterall, in either asexual reproduction or parthogenetic reproduction, 100% of the parent’s genetic material is passed on to subsequent generations.  In sexual reproduction, only half of each parent’s genetic material can possibly be passed on, a mere 50%.  How does “evolution” deem this advantageous?

It’s also very “costly” in terms of fitness to maintain sexual organs, to keep the male’s own immune system from destroying his own (genetically different) sperm cells, and the female’s immune system from destroying either the incoming spermatozoa or the (genetically different) offspring while gestating. Think of how vulnerable females are while gestating and immediately after bearing live young.  How does evolution account for any of this?

The biblical account of creation explains the origin of fully functioning sexual reproduction, from the start, in an optimal and genetically diverse population. Once the mechanisms are already in place, they have these advantages. But simply having advantages doesn’t remotely explain how they could be built from scratch. Hypothetical transitional forms would be highly disadvantageous, therefore natural selection would work against them. In many cases, the male and female genitalia are precisely designed to fit with each other, meaning that these mechanisms logically could not have independently “evolved”.

For more information about this topic, visit creation.com/evosex

The Truth

Believers in the Biblical account of Creation deny neither natural nor sexual selection. For example, we think it’s likely that sexual selection augmented natural selection in producing the different people groups (‘races’) from a single population of humans that were isolated after Babel.

The difference is that we recognize that selection can only  work on existing genetic information. Darwinists believe mutation provides new information for selection. But no known mutation has ever increased genetic information, although there should be many hundreds or thousands of examples observable today if mutation/selection were truly adequate to explain the goo-to-you hypothesis.

I commit to you that I will publish every single comment that meets this blog’s commenting criteria. You may want to review that criteria before adding your opinion here.

God Bless you and yours.

Gregg


Resources:
Additional Posts dealing with Creation and Darwinism

Share
Creation

Creation: Question Evolution Campaign — 7 of 15


Our 9th Anniversary

Our 9th Anniversary

A Sunday guest post by my brilliant husband, Gregg.

Every Sunday, my clever husband offers me a “day of rest” by taking over the homemaker duties here. His primary topic, the Biblical Truth of Creation vs. Darwinism, is a subject that has broad reaching scientific, social, and metaphysical implications and is gaining more and more attention in our modern culture. For believers and non-believers alike, the primary purpose is to present scientific, historical, logical, and/or sociological data in an empirical and defensible fashion, as much as possible written in layman’s terms, and in a format suitable for supplementing any homeschool curriculum whether you choose to believe the Biblical account — or secular guesses — about the origins of human life on earth.

Darwinism’s god of the gaps: Multi-cellular life

Question number 7 in the creation.com Question Evolution campaign is, “How did multi-cellular life originate?

Sounds like a simple question, doesn’t it?

Creation: Simple Organisms

After all, if inorganic, lifeless rocks and dirt can decide to one day just up and form a single asexually reproducing self-replicating living cell that is able to eat, eliminate waste, maintain life saving processes, and survive with really no problems in the given “primordial” evolutionary environment (abiogenesis) then it makes perfect sense that the thus magically created and equally magical single cellular organism can decide it wants future generations to become a multi-cellular organisms via even more utterly unexplained evolutionary processes, doesn’t it?

The Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Synthesis is the currently accepted model of evolutionary theory.  There are some debatable details such as saltation and punctuated equilibrium, but really it all goes back to Lamarkism with the rationalizations of mutation adding information and natural selection sorting the information out.  Now, the truth is that mutation cannot infuse new information into the gene, and neither can selection, but that isn’t the point of debate for this question.

The point of this post is that whenever you decide to question the merits of their preposterous theory with a true believer, the Darwinist ALWAYS excludes abiogenesis from the debate.  “The origin of the original cell has nothing to do with evolution,” will be his emphatic claim.

Oh?  So the origin of life has nothing whatsoever to do with the debate over the origin of life?

Okay.  Well, that seems to utterly lack any logic whatsoever, but we can go with that assumption.  Let’s move the goal post and cherry pick and allow those fallacious parameters to dictate the agenda.

Just for the sake of argument, let’s assume that we CAN safely exclude the origin of that first original hypothetical simple cell from the debate — how, then did simple single celled organisms “evolve” into complex multicellular organisms?

Oh my.

That cannot be excluded from the question, also, can it?  Or are we actually expected to move the goal post once again?  Without moving the goal post, Darwinists simply MUST have an answer for this taking place.  The question is, how did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn‘ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals consisting of more than single cells?  How did cellular specialization occur?

The Darwinist faithful have an answer.  The answer is that “somehow, someway” evolution did it.  Yes, dear friends, unknown and unknowable and never, EVER observed or observable magical evolutionary forces performed this supernatural feat using only random chance and time and only –ONLY — naturalistic processes.  That is the answer.  That is exactly as specific as that answer ever gets, too, without delving into seriously questionable territory.

This is what happens when pure philosophy masquerades as science.  While it is safe to have faith in a religious belief that magical events can occur all under the “evolution” umbrella, it cannot pretend to elevate itself to an area so grand as to call itself fact or science.  It is pure religion, godless though it may be.

For more information on Question number 7  of  the creation.com Question Evolution campaign visit creation.com/multicellularity.

The Truth

The Bible explains the origin of life in a scientifically consistent manner with both integrity and cogency.  By contrast, the more than 200 year old theory of evolution has actually developed more holes since it first captured the popular imagination.

I commit to you that I will publish every single comment that meets this blog’s commenting criteria. You may want to review that criteria before adding your opinion here.

God Bless you and yours.

Gregg


Resources:
Additional Posts dealing with Creation and Darwinism

Pin It
Share
Creation

Creation: Question Evolution Campaign — 6 of 15


Our 9th Anniversary

Our 9th Anniversary

A Sunday guest post by my brilliant husband, Gregg.

Every Sunday, my clever husband offers me a “day of rest” by taking over the homemaker duties here. His primary topic, the Biblical Truth of Creation vs. Darwinism, is a subject that has broad reaching scientific, social, and metaphysical implications and is gaining more and more attention in our modern culture. For believers and non-believers alike, the primary purpose is to present scientific, historical, logical, and/or sociological data in an empirical and defensible fashion, as much as possible written in layman’s terms, and in a format suitable for supplementing any homeschool curriculum whether you choose to believe the Biblical account — or secular guesses — about the origins of human life on earth.

If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck…

Question number 6 in the creation.com Question Evolution campaign is, “Living things look like they were designed, so how do (Darwinist) evolutionists know that they were not designed?”

This question, logically, should not even have to be asked if all scientific observation enjoyed a level playing field. The reason it needs to be asked is because there is very obviously an a prioiri commitment to reject design among the Darwinist faithful.

Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.” (Dawkins, R., The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, p. 1, 1986.)  After this famous quotation on page 1, he then spends more than 300 pages explaining why one shouldn’t make a design inference.  To quote his late countryman, “Methinks he doth protest too much.”

Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” (Crick, F., What mad pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Sloan Foundation Science, London, 1988, p. 138.)  Constantly?  Really?  They must constantly remind themselves not to draw a design inference when observing very obviously designed living things.

It’s almost funny that every Darwinist must reasonably admit that living things “look” designed. They, grudgingly in most cases, must concede that living things somehow “appear” as if they were designed by a designer. Nevertheless, they cannot make the philosophical leap to admit that living things bear the tool marks of design, or (perish the thought!) that design always implies a designer.

Designed Human BeingsSee, the problem for the proponents of the Darwinian model of evolution is that living things demonstrate far too many signs of design.

Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? When archaeologists stumble upon a lost city, they don’t think it just evolved over time by accident via purely random chance processes.  They immediately and correctly draw a design inference.  Yet whenever someone attributes the very clear signs of design in living organisms to a designer, that is somehow just not acceptable.

Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than entirely logical causes?

In fact, Crick later became a proponent of intelligent design after a fashion.  He now things that all living things on earth were designed and planted here by little green men.  Because, you know, the alternative is that we were created by God, just like He said in the holy scriptures.

The Truth

The truth is that a human being bears more specified complexity of dense information and design than any man made thing ever will.  Nothing that ever happened or currently happens by chance ever does.  Design always implies a designer and information always implies an intelligence.

I commit to you that I will publish every single comment that meets this blog’s commenting criteria. You may want to review that criteria before adding your opinion here.

God Bless you and yours.

Gregg


Resources:
Additional Posts dealing with Creation and Darwinism

Pin It
Share
Creation

Creation: Question Evolution Campaign — 5 of 15


Our 9th Anniversary

Our 9th Anniversary

A Sunday guest post by my brilliant husband, Gregg.

Every Sunday, my clever husband offers me a “day of rest” by taking over the homemaker duties here. His primary topic, the Biblical Truth of Creation vs. Darwinism, is a subject that has broad reaching scientific, social, and metaphysical implications and is gaining more and more attention in our modern culture. For believers and non-believers alike, the primary purpose is to present scientific, historical, logical, and/or sociological data in an empirical and defensible fashion, as much as possible written in layman’s terms, and in a format suitable for supplementing any homeschool curriculum whether you choose to believe the Biblical account — or secular guesses — about the origins of human life on earth.

Biochemical Pathways

Biochemical Pathways 02

How does this level of complexity in living things evolve all at once?

Question number 5 in the creation.com Question Evolution campaign is, “How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?

It isn’t an argument from ignorance.  In fact, it should be a very easy question for Darwinists to answer if evolutionary biology is based on actual science. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?

According to the folks at creation.com, the famous communist British Darwinist J.B.S. Haldane claimed all the way back in 1949 that evolution could never produce ‘various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect.’ (Dewar, D., Davies, L.M. and Haldane, J.B.S., 1949. Is Evolution a Myth? A Debate between D. Dewar and L.M. Davies vs. J.B.S. Haldane, Watts & Co. Ltd / Paternoster Press, London, p. 90.)

Therefore molecular machines in organisms — such as the ATP synthase enzyme or the bacterial flagellum — would prove Darwinian evolution false according to Heldane. Molecular motors such as these do indeed fulfilled one of Haldane’s criteria. Did you know that turtles and monarch butterflies use magnetic sensors for navigation? They are examples that fulfill Haldane’s other criterion. Do you suppose he would have had a change of heart if he had been alive to understand these discoveries. Many Darwinists rule out any kind of intelligent design a priori, so the evidence, overwhelming as it is, would probably have no effect on that closed mind.

The truth is that every pathway and nano-machine relies upon multiple protein/enzyme components in order to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30+ all at the same time, and in highly specific and specifically complex necessary programmed sequence like a team of contractors following plans and a blue print? Darwinist evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”

Biochemical Pathways 01Wishful speculations?  Seriously? Are wishful speculations considered a meaningful substitute for science in this century?

See, science is a systematized methodology of investigation that relies on observation, testing, experimentation, and evidence.  It almost never relies on wishful speculations.  Wishful speculations fall more in the realm of philosophy.  Or, you know, religion.

Certain biochemical pathways, such as the clotting of blood or the growth of a human fetus, are irreducibly complex, to borrow a phrase from intelligent design theorists. It is quite plain that biochemical pathways must have come into being all at once as a complete system. In other words, they are designed systems. It is quite obvious that systems this perfectly engineered and specifically complex could not have developed via chance random procesess one little part at a time as would be absolutely necessary with the Darwinian model of evolution.

Even staunch Darwinists admit there is no doubt that certain aspects of living organisms are extremely complex, and the individual parts fit together in a seamless whole that leaves absolutely no vestigial waste in its wake as randomness and chance would leave behind. However, Darwinists countered every example of an irreducibly complex system advanced in recent years, providing far fetched and perfectly implausible explanations of how designed systems could have developed gradually through the mysterious workings of magical evolution. In other words — wishful speculations.

Of course they do not — and cannot — know whether these explanations based on wishful speculations are actually true – after all, if wishes were nickels we’d all be rich. That, and biochemical changes that allegedly “evolved” hundreds of millions of years ago leave no meaningful evidence behind — but Darwinists are able to close their minds once more, secure in their philosophy with the certain knowledge that a “palatable” naturalistic explanation exists and such removes all credibility, in their closed minds, from the obvious fact that life was designed.

For more information about biochemical pathways, visit creation.com/motor.

The Truth

The truth is that Darwinists like to tar believers in the Biblical account of creation as religious fanatics.  The truth is they are much more fanatical in their beliefs since they believe in irrational nonsense that is not supported by either logic or actual science.

The truth is the Biblical account of creation is both more plausible and more scientifically sound.

I commit to you that I will publish every single comment that meets this blog’s commenting criteria. You may want to review that criteria before adding your opinion here.

God Bless you and yours.

Gregg


Resources:
Additional Posts dealing with Creation and Darwinism

Pin It
Share
Creation

Creation: Question Evolution Campaign — 4 of 15

Our 9th Anniversary

Our 9th Anniversary

A Sunday guest post by my brilliant husband, Gregg.

Every Sunday, my clever husband offers me a “day of rest” by taking over the homemaker duties here. His primary topic, the Biblical Truth of Creation vs. Darwinism, is a subject that has broad reaching scientific, social, and metaphysical implications and is gaining more and more attention in our modern culture. For believers and non-believers alike, the primary purpose is to present scientific, historical, logical, and/or sociological data in an empirical and defensible fashion, as much as possible written in layman’s terms, and in a format suitable for supplementing any homeschool curriculum whether you choose to believe the Biblical account — or secular guesses — about the origins of human life on earth.

Survival of the Fittest

Survival of the Fittest

Is Natural Selection Really  Darwinian Evolution?

Question number 4 in Creation.Com’s Question Evolution Campaign is, “Why is natural selection, a contradictory and subjective principle that is nevertheless recognized by believers in the Biblical account of creation, taught as ‘evolution’, as if natural selection explains the origin and the diversity of life?”

By definition, natural selection is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so it’s automatically not a creative process. While it might in very specific cases under narrowly and subjectively defined parameters explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), natural selection is not any kind of explanation for the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place).

Natural Selection -- Speciation Events

Natural Selection -- Speciation Events

What is Natural Selection?

Natural Selection is generally defined as the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. Darwinists arbitrarily apply the term to both peripatric and allopatric speciation events.

Suppose a bunch of monkeys were isoloated from the main group and they continued to bring forth within their kinds seperately.  Eventually, they might look different and Darwinists would claim they were seperate species.  Somehow, they rationalize equivocating this very obvious and perfectly normal process with natural selection.  I suppose because this is actually observable and quantifiable in the field of operational science.

Anyway, natural selection is often referred to as the principle of the survival of the fittest. The iconic demonstration of this principle in action is when the ram mountain goats fight each other for the right to breed with nanny goats.  But is this principle of the survival of the fittest really even the case in all circumstances?

After all, how do you know which organisms are the fittest? Well, that’s easy. The fittest are the survivors. Right?

Or is that too circular and absent logic even for the most ardent Darwinist?

Consider the following scenarios and ask how well this principle applies.  Should we rename it to something more appropriate and descriptive?

Survival of the Fastest

Survival of the Fastest

Could he have been really “fit” — much fitter than the others here — just, you know, unfortunate?
Survival of the Biggest

Survival of the Biggest

Does having a really big mouth make you the fittest in a given environment?  Is being smaller really a disadvantage?  If so, why aren’t all predators gigantic?  Why do these smaller carnivores continue to arrogantly survive?
Survival of the Sickest

Survival of the Sickest

Drug resistant bacteria are actually quite weak and mutated. Basically, they are sick. Because they are sick, they can’t matabolize antibiotics so antibiotics don’t kill them. Sort of like people without feet will never get athletes foot. Does that mean that people with no feet are the fittest? Does that mean that sick bacteria are the fittest?
Survival of the Richest

Survival of the Richest

Wealth, privelege, and material possessions can certainly afford an advantage over the poor and lower classes with little in the way of wealth or possessions.  Yet there are still poor after allegedly millions of years of human history.
Survival of the Most Well Armed

Survival of the Most Well Armed

In a fight to the death, she is certainly better equiped than I to survie at the moment.  One wonders if she is more fit than I am.
 
Who really determines the criteria for “fittness” anyway?  Should we all be blond haired and blue eyed as was the Aryan ideal of the most fit master race?  What confers the label of “fit” and who decides?
Survival of the Best Tree Climber

Survival of the Best Tree Climber

It’s pretty easy to see that the concept of natural selection, while generally recognized as valid, brings some very real logical problems with it.  Ultimately, nature is not something that has a mind or a will and has no actual ability to select.  To confer such an ability upon nature is to commit the fallacy of reification by lending nature such misplaced contretism.
 
All that aside, natural selection within strictly defined parameters is a fact of life.  Not only that, the principles defined by natural selection were recognized by believers in the Biiblical account of creation long before Darwin ever got kicked out of his father’s house and sent on his 3 year voyage of exile.  It was recognized by believers back then and it is recognized by believers today.Specifically, it is recognized that natural selection often favors certain already-existing genetic traits within populations by culling less favorable genes out of the gene pool.  It is known to be a valid reductive phenomenon.  Thus natural selection helps adaptation of a population to its environment. Even though sometimes the new population that results is given a new species name, the phenomenon of both adaptation and speciation are not now, nor have they ever been, in dispute.  Monkey A and Monkey B are still some kind of monkeys though their genes vary.  Dog A and Wolf B and Fox C are still some kind of dogs though their genes vary.
 
What is in dispute is that natural selection by itself generates absolutely no new genetic information. It cannot be said to be a causefor the type of macro-evolution Darwinists claim commonly occurs that would require the infusion of massive amounts of highly specific and specifically complex information into the genes. Natural selection does not do that.  It only ever successfully reduces the amount of information present in  the genes.Any adaptations that are purely the result of natural selection acting on pre-existinggenetic information are not changes in the right direction to drive primordial ooze to become astronomers.  Therefore — and this is the very easy part for folks who either possess common sense or are not afflicted with Darwinism or both– natural selection is not the same thing as “evolution” in the way Darwinists would like that much more grand process defined.

Equivocation

One major problem, of course, is that while some Darwinists privately admit that natural selection cannot account for large scale evolution ala pond scum to people, most lapse into equivocation.  They use the terms evolution and natural selection interchangably, as if one equals the other.

In theory, Darwinists look to mutations as being responsible for generating the new genetic information required, which new information is then sorted by natural selection.

In reality, does that ever even really happen?  And the answer, of course, is no.

Whenever asked to provide specific evidence or even theoretical examples of any mutations that increase the information in the genome, Dawkins and similar atheist/secular humanist cohorts of his ilk cannot provide even a single coherent answer or point to a single documented case.  By now, Darwinists ought to be able to point to hundreds of examples of such mutations. But they can’t. There is a tiny handful —- one or two at best -— which could even possibly represent a modicum of information increase, and the lead candidate, the ability of a single strain of laboratory grown bacterium to digest the man-made substance nylon, involves considerable doubt.

There is, in effect, no smoking gun.  There isn’t even a burnt out matchstick. 

For more information about question number four, visit creation.com/defining-terms.

The Truth

The truth is that to believe in the Darwinist myth, there is only one thing a person must accept as patently impossible.  It isn’t impossible, believes the Darwinist, that the universe was a bunch of nothing that decided to create everything one day.  It isn’t impossible, believes the Darwinist, that “proto-stars” can explode over and over until they become actual stars.   It isn’t impossible, believes the Darwinist, that they can explode so often and so hot that they can fuse past mass gap 3 or 8.   It isn’t impossible, believes the Darwinist, that the laws of nature can be utterly ignored with respect to the orbits of planets and stars and the placement of moons and galaxies.   It isn’t impossible, believes the Darwinist, that dirt and rocks can decide to create a living cell.   It isn’t impossible, believes the Darwinist, that mutation and other assorted malignant and reductive processes can infuse unbelievable amounts of specific and complex information into living things.

In fact, the only thing a Darwinist ardently claims is impossible is that God might actually exist.

But He does.  God exists as surely as other non-material things such as thought, consciousness, information, love, and hope.  It is not a gigantic leap of faith to understand that God created the universe and it belongs to Him along with everything and everyone in it.  It takes considerably more faith to believe in the patent impossibilities that Darwinism requires. 

I commit to you that I will publish every single comment that meets this blog’s commenting criteria. You may want to review that criteria before adding your opinion here.

God Bless you and yours.

Gregg


Resources:
Additional Posts dealing with Creation and Darwinism

Pin It
Share
Creation

Creation: Question Evolution Campaign — 3 of 15


Our 9th Anniversary

Our 9th Anniversary

A Sunday guest post by my brilliant husband, Gregg.

Every Sunday, my clever husband offers me a “day of rest” by taking over the homemaker duties here. His primary topic, the Biblical Truth of Creation vs. Darwinism, is a subject that has broad reaching scientific, social, and metaphysical implications and is gaining more and more attention in our modern culture. For believers and non-believers alike, the primary purpose is to present scientific, historical, logical, and/or sociological data in an empirical and defensible fashion, as much as possible written in layman’s terms, and in a format suitable for supplementing any homeschool curriculum whether you choose to believe the Biblical account — or secular guesses — about the origins of human life on earth.

How did mutations create information?

How could copying errors (mutations) create 3 billion letters of DNA instructions to change a microbe into a microbiologist?

It is nearly impossible to conceive of the raw amount of specific information stored in the DNA of any living thing. If you could record all the information for how to build proteins, cells, entire biological systems such as respiratory and circulatory, and organs, how to reproduce, how to follow instinctive patterns — and then incorporate those plans into a body type complete with instructions for maintenance and expansion (growth) and ensure that the information cannot be easily lost or overwritten as well as instructions for every molecular machine in the entire human body — that is DNA. The density and complexity of the information is not reduced between a fern to a flamingo or a man to a moth.

Shuttle Endeavor

Space Shuttle Endeavor

It isn’t like a cookbook that contains both a list of ingredients and instructions for their use. It is more like an entire 80 story library the size of a warehouse that contains ALL POSSIBLE information and instructions for running all of NASA. The library would have to cover all elements of the organization from HR and policies to floor plans for factories and blueprints for any tools required to manufacture and operate a fleet of space shuttles — and maintain them. That would be a good metaphor, except that the DNA for any living creature on planet earth actually contains far more data even than that.

Writing out the information in human DNA in standard sized books would mean you could fill a box the size of the grand canyon — twice. Conversely, if all information generated by the human race in the last 5000 years — from smoke signals and cave paintings to every single daily newspaper ever published on every continent to the entire internet — could be translated into the language of DNA, it would not fill a tablespoon. That is how efficient and how information rich DNA is.

Darwinists claim that mutations, or copying errors — essentially accidents — in the DNA code are the primary engine for growing living things from an amoeba into an aviator. Mutations rank equally with fossils and natural selection as the three most important aspects of biological evolution. Fossil evidence in the sedimentary rock strata is supposed to provide evidence that species evolution has occurred in the past, and natural selection and mutations are the only reasonable means (mechanisms or engines) by which this could possibly occur.

A genetic mutation is damage to a single DNA unit (a gene). Mutations can occur spontaneously or be induced. In general, mutations can potentially affect structure, function, or fitness of the individual or inheritance of abilities in offspring.

Some definitions, first. Normal body cells are called somatic cells. In eukaryotic cells, the nucleus of somatic cells will contain a diploid number of chromosomes. Gametic cells (gametes such as sperm and ova) contain half the diploid number of chromosomes, called the haploid number. In humans, the diploid number is 46 (found in such cells as muscles, bone, skin etc.) and the haploid number is 23 (found in gametic cells such as sperm and ova). On fertilization, two haploid cells (sperm + ovum) unite to form a zygote (an unborn baby) with the diploid number of 46 chromosomes.

One can put genes into two categories; somatic (body) and gametic (reproductive). If a mutation occurs in a somatic gene, it only affects the individual. If a mutation occurs to a gametic gene, it could possibly be passed on to descendants. Neither creates new, useful, tremendously specific, exceptionally accurate, highly complex information in DNA. They are, after all, errors and errors have largely deleterious effects.

Mutated TV

“An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one’s watch or one’s radio set will seldom make it work better.” Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity and the Nature of Man, p. 105

In sexual reproduction, the odds are slim that mutations will be passed on to subsequent generations and the odds are just about one in four that the mutation could express if it is passed on. The overwhelming majority of mutations that occur in gametic genes that ARE passed on AND expressed are neutral — the remainder are either fully harmful or even lethal. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Absolutely no known mutations create any new useful information in genes.

This leads to the second question posed by the folks at Creation.Com in their Question Evolution Campaign: How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?

Seriously? Even given billions of years and only the most favorable possible conditions and outcomes at every turn, how could reproductive (gametic) gene errors create over 300 lines of letters of tremendously specific, exceptionally accurate, highly complex DNA coded information to change a microbe into a microbiologist?

About 3% of human DNA contains information for how to make proteins. The remaining 97% of human DNA (formerly thought by Darwinists to be “Junk DNA” and “vestigial” evidence of our evolutionary past) contains what is now known to be meta-information, or regulatory information which is mostly instructions for controlling the use and functions of the proteins. In a nearly perfect definition of irreducible complexity, both had to exist fully intact and all at once because — one without the other is utterly useless.

Even assuming information packed DNA somehow magically appeared fully provisioned complete with specificity and zero errors in the mythical primordial soup, how then can scrambling existing DNA information at random from generation to generation create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many very specific components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ Darwinian evolution possible?

For example, How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, adenosine triphosphate, for all life on this planet), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside living cells) originate?

To Coyne a Phrase

His words, not mine.  Nice guy, no?

His words, not mine. Nice guy, no?

Allow me to introduce died in the wool Darwinist apologist and evolutionary biologist Dr Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago. Dr. Coyne once famously stated, upon learning that the peppered moth photos were fraudulent, that finding out this “prize horse in our [Darwinists'] stable” had to be thrown out gave him the same feeling as when he found out that Santa Claus was not real.

Coyne says that believers in the Biblical account of creation are irrational.  Coyne has a lot of rather thought provoking things to say about believers in the Biblical account of creation.

After trotting out the same old tired arguments (minus the peppered moth, of course) and examples of rapid human-induced biological changes (antibiotic resistance in bacteria, pesticide resistance in insects, changes in growth rate of fish from overfishing) to get people to “consent” to the bigger idea of microbes-to-mankind evolution, Coyne then asserts that anyone who doesn’t believe evolution is made possible on this basis is “irrational.”

The truth is that Coyne deplores the fact that these tired and very familiar examples will probably not change the minds of believers in the Biblical account of creation, who have already accepted such changes as ‘variation within a kind’ because this is exactly what Genesis states happens in God’s created order. Coyne thinks believers argue that “such small changes cannot explain the evolution of new groups of plants and animals”, and concludes: ‘This argument defies common sense. When, after a Christmas visit, we watch grandma leave on the train to Miami, we assume that the rest of her journey will be an extrapolation of that [first] quarter-mile.”

Thus, says Coyne, a “creationist unwilling to extrapolate from micro- to macro-evolution” is being “irrational”.

Coyne has a problem and it is this: his analogy is dead wrong.

The “train” for the antibiotic resistant bacteria, the pesticide resistant insects, or the overfished sea life never leaves the station headed north. It goes the opposite direction.  The real issue in biological change is all about what happens at the DNA level, which concerns information. The information carried on the heredity DNA is a set of instructions for the manufacture of certain items along with meta-information pertaining to that set of items.

Not one single example cited by Coyne, nor any example in any modern biology textbook, is an example of adding information to the DNA. All of Coyne’s examples actually greatly reduce the amount of information in the DNA of the organism. Just like with a train pulling out from Miami and heading south to Chicago, that train will certainly end up on the ocean floor and nowhere near the Sears tower. Likewise, when the types of changes we observe today are extrapolated over time, they lead to extinction and deformation, not onward and upward to a more perfected and highly “evolved” species.

For more information about question number 3 posed by the folks at Creation.Com, visit creation.com/train.

The Truth

The truth is that Darwinists have no actual “engine” that could drive evolutionary change on the scale the Darwinian myth describes.  A belief in such a thing amounts to pure faith, and faith, beloved, is religion.  It requires a great deal of faith to believe the fairy tale told by modern day Darwinists in the face of such a complete absence of evidence.

The truth is that a much more cogent, logical, valid, and sound explanation is that life was created by a Creator. The truth is that all the created kinds brought forth within their own kinds and science actually supports this in case after case after case.

I commit to you that I will publish every single comment that meets this blog’s commenting criteria. You may want to review that criteria before adding your opinion here.

God Bless you and yours.

Gregg


Resources:
Additional Posts dealing with Creation and Darwinism

Pin It
Share
Creation

Creation: Question Evolution Campaign — 1 1/2 of 15

Our 9th Anniversary

Our 9th Anniversary

A Sunday guest post by my brilliant husband, Gregg.

Every Sunday, my clever husband offers me a “day of rest” by taking over the homemaker duties here. His primary topic, the Biblical Truth of Creation vs. Darwinism, is a subject that has broad reaching scientific, social, and metaphysical implications and is gaining more and more attention in our modern culture. For believers and non-believers alike, the primary purpose is to present scientific, historical, logical, and/or sociological data in an empirical and defensible fashion, as much as possible written in layman’s terms, and in a format suitable for supplementing any homeschool curriculum whether you choose to believe the Biblical account — or secular guesses — about the origins of human life on earth.

Glad you Missed Me

I had to take a brief sabbatical upon my return home. With the new year, I resolve to make my regular Sunday appearances more frequently.

To revisit and refresh on the campaign from creation.com

Question #1. How did life — with specifications for hundreds of proteins — originate just by random interactions of chemicals without intelligent design?

Paul Davies

Paul Davies

Darwinist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”

Professor Andrew Knoll, of the biology department at Harvard, admitted said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet.”

These are stunningly honest remarks from men who believe with religious zeal that life somehow DID occur by accident with no intelligent intervention.

A minimal living single cellular organism requires nearly a thousand proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life — with hundreds or thousands of proteins — originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?

“At present, science has no satisfactory answer to the question of the origin of life on the earth. Perhaps the appearance of life on the earth is a miracle. Scientists are reluctant to accept that view, but their choices are limited; either life was created on the earth by the will of a being outside the grasp of scientific understanding, or it evolved on our planet spontaneously, through chemical reactions occurring in nonliving matter lying on the surface of the planet. The first theory places the question of the origin of life beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. It is a statement of faith in the power of a Supreme Being not subject to the laws of science. The second theory is also an act of faith. The act of faith consists in assuming that the scientific view of the origin of life is correct, without having any concrete evidence at all to support that belief.”
Robert Jastrow (b. 1925) PhD Theoretical Physics, recipient of NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, exerpted from Until the Sun Dies (1977) pp. 62-63

Andrew Knoll

Andrew Knoll

For more than half a century, experiments along the lines of the failed Miller-Urey experiment have lauded man’s ability to generate “the building blocks of life” from base chemicals in simulated “primordeal” atmosphere. The truth is very, very different from the claim.

First of all, it is important to know that absolutely no evidence, geological or otherwise, has ever been found anywhere on earth for the alleged primordial soup. None. It is an imaginary, if necessary construct. A prop.

Given that background, understand that free oxygen is scrupulously excluded from such experiments as Miller-Urey and all analogs. Oxygen instantly “oxidizes” organic compounds, but oxygen is required to form base elemental compounds (such as water and ozone) and oxygen forms the ozone layer which shields the earth from harmful radiation. Oxygen would naturally be produced by photodissociation of water vapor (evaporation caused by heat) and ionized oxygen would naturally form ozone.

So, if there were no oxygen, there could be no ozone, therefore ultraviolet rays would destroy any biochemicals that might accidentally form in the alleged primordial soup. Also, adenine can be seen as fairly important since it is one of the four molecules that makes up DNA and RNA. The hydrogen cyanide polymerization that leads to adenine can only occur in the presence of oxygen. Without oxygen, only cytosine, guanine, and thymine can possibly form. Yet every living thing contains all four as the basis of their genetic code.

Urey-Miller Experiment

Urey-Miller Experiment

Side Note: Some Darwinists claim that without A, just C, T, and G would be sufficient for a theoretical “RNA World” to exist, and that ribosomes would co-opt adenine when it became available. Even if that claim were true, the fact is that ribose and cytosine are also hard to form, and are very unstable once formed.

By Darwinist’s own estimated timeline (to which I do not personally subscribe), oxidized minerals such as hematite are found as early as 3.8 billion years old according to geologic columner dating, which is nearly as old as the earliest rocks, and (again, by their own estimates) 300 million older than the earliest known life. In summary, leaving out oxygen invalidates these experiments entirely.

Furthermore, there is now almost universal agreement among specialists that the earth’s primordial atmosphere contained neither methane, ammonia, nor hydrogen — collectively called ‘reducing’ gases. Rather, most scientists now believe it contained carbon dioxide and nitrogen. Miller-Urey “sparking” experiments and all analogs will not work with those gases in the absence of reducing gases.

Understand that energy is generally destructive. Adding energy to any thing doesn’t “organize” that thing. Genreally, it transforms it into disorder. For example, adding fire to a Christmas tree doesn’t organize the Christmas tree — or the house in which it resides. Keeping the nature of energy in mind, understand that all energy sources which can produce amino acids actually destroy them much more efficiently.

Miller–Urey used strategically designed and placed “traps” (never found in nature, by the way) to isolate any biochemicals as soon as they were formed so that electric sparks or UV didn’t destroy them. Without these traps, even the miniscule amounts of biochemicals obtained, which actually amounted to tars and toxins, would not have been able to remain intact for more than a few seconds. Think logically. Even billions of years cannot lend aid to Darwinian theory when biochemicals are destroyed faster than they can possibly form.

Biochemicals always react with each other and with inorganic chemicals. Sugars (and other carbonyl (>C=O) compounds) react destructively with amino acids (and other amino (–NH2) compounds), yet both must be present for a living cell to form.

Creation: Various Proteins

Three-D Proteins

Along with tars, Urey-Miller resulted in formaldehyde and other toxins. Without enzymes from a living cell, chemical reactions such as formaldehyde (HCHO) reactions with hydrogen cyanide (HCN) are necessary for the formation of DNA and RNA bases, condensing agents, and other elements critical to life. But HCHO and especially HCN are deadly poisons. Both formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide destroy vital proteins and thus terminate life. This could be why hydrogen cyanide was used in Nazi gas chambers.

Abundant Ca2+ ions would precipitate fatty acids (necessary for cell membranes) and phosphate (necessary for such vital compounds as DNA, RNA, ATP, etc.). Metal ions readily form complexes with amino acids, hindering them from more important reactions.

In fact, polymerisation requires bifunctional molecules (can combine with two others), and is stopped dead in its tracks by a small fraction of unifunctional molecules (can combine with only one other, thus blocking one end of the growing chain). Miller type experiments produce five times more unifunctional molecules than bifunctional molecules.

Life requires homochiral polymers (all the same ‘handedness’) — proteins have only ‘left-handed’ amino acids, while DNA and RNA have only ‘right-handed’ sugars. A small fraction of wrong handed molecules terminates RNA replication, shortens polypeptides, and ruins enzymes. Urey-Miller and analogs only ever produce racemic mixtures, or equal mixtures of left and right handed molecules. This is known as the Chirality Problem and it is never realistically addressed by Darwinists. The problem is side-stepped with such answers as “maybe it hasn’t always been that way” and the like.

In the wake of the utter failure of these types of experiments to explain how life — with specifications for hundreds of proteins — might have originated just by chance without intelligent intervention, a host of new religious beliefs popped up that have little or nothing to do with science and amount to fantastical “just so” stories.

The Truth

The truth is that the only valid explanation that is consistent with science, logic, and revealed knowledge is the creation account described in the book of Genesis in the Holy Bible, referred to in the 10 commandments, and by God incarnate in the form of Jesus Christ.

Many choose to think and view the world in the starkly conflicted ways that Darwinism as a philosophy, within the context of a dogma of methodological naturalism, require. I choose to believe the teachings of the most qualified and accredited individual to ever walk this earth, Jesus Christ the Son of God. The Creator, the Logos, an authentic teacher, instant healer of disease and disability, raiser of the dead, calmer of the seas. He was the greatest non-conformer to the dominant ideas of this world and paid for it with His life.

I commit to you that I will publish every single comment that meets this blog’s commenting criteria. You may want to review that criteria before adding your opinion here.

God Bless you and yours.

Gregg


Resources:
Additional Posts dealing with Creation and Darwinism

Related Posts with ThumbnailsPin It
Share