Not really politics, but Evolution... (cont. a thread)

Page 3 of 14 First 12345 ... Last

  1. Quote Originally Posted by anabolicrhino
    Only the great moderator in the sky knows for sure but,,,,concerning the giraffee or long necked horse.The evolution therory is not that the horse needed a longer neck so it evolved one.The theory concures that though there are many genetic mutations that occur when so many cells divide imperfectly. The mutations that survive are the mutations that best adapt to a given eviroments survival key,most commonly access to food.So in an enviroment that has food supplies that are above the ground a long neck is the ticket to eating living and recreating...go darwin,go darwin, goooo
    Thank you for reiterating (sp)

  2. Yes Bean, I did pull that from a website because there was no reason for me to retype all of it. Moreover, I would have just posted the link, but you wouldn’t have gone there. Even if you did, you would’ve read five words and left. I never said I wrote it. And what difference does that make anyway? Side-stepper!

    Why are you afraid to discuss the origins of the universe? Because there is no plausible explanation for it outside of ID?
    But I'll play your game Here I go, copying again, but I'm giving you warning this time. I was just trying to deal with the problem of where matter came from, but since I see you don't want to go there (for whatever reason ) we'll go into biology. I'll just go ahead and give you a primitive earth and some starting materials and see what you can do with that, ok, even though I've already shown that under the theory of evolution matter couldn't just come into being. Nevermind the problem of having space, time and matter come into existence and the exact same time, as you can't have one without the other: not to mention the problem of where the physical laws that govern our universe came from
    P.S. Before I continue, I want to address the comment about Darwin being a Christian. Darwin was, for a while anyway, a devout Christian, even obtaining a degree in theology (the only degree he ever got). But he lost his faith in God completely going to the Galapagos Islands and - as far as historical record is evident - never regained it.

    Anyway, moving on:

    "It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption." —*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), p. 235—236.
    "The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith." —*J. W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.
    "Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.
    "With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past." —*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.
    Living things, had to have a beginning. Evolution of life from one species to another is not enough. There had to be a beginning of life.
    If we were to base the evolutionary theoryof the origin of life on what we will learn in the next two chapters (DNA and Probabilities, and The Cell) start—up evolution would be totally impossible. But when we consider the primitive environmental conditions that had to exist in order for life to have originated by itself on Planet Earth, the outlook for evolution becomes more hopeless.
    HOW THE THEORY TELLS IT—According to the evolutionary theory, life began in this way:
    (1) There was just the right atmosphere—and it was totally different than the one we now have. (2) The ground, water, or ocean where life began had just the right combination of chemicals in it—which it does not now have.(3) Using an unknown source of just the right amount of energy, amino acids then formed in sufficient quantities that (4) they could combine into lots of proteins and nucleotides (complex chemical compounds). (5)Recombining, they knew enough to form outer membranes, and then (6) they did some careful thinking (frankly, they exhibited an intelligence beyond that of the mental abilities of even our best scientists today) and developed a genetic code to cover thousands of different factors.
    (7) At this point, they were ready to start reproducing young. Of course, this last point reveals that all the previous six had to occur within just the lifetime of one bacteria. Since microbes and bacteria do not live very long, this first one had to think and act fast.
    *Charles Darwin did a lot of daydreaming in his letters and in his book, Origin of the Species. Here was one of his hopeful wishes, as expressed in a letter to a close friend:
    "But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes."—*Charles Darwin, in *Francis Darwin (ed.), The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (1887ed.), p. 202 [the parenthetical comment is his also].
    Throughout this set of books, you will occasionally find in statements by scientists allusions to this famous remark by *Darwin about his hoped-for "warm little pond."
    But, actually, *Darwin was totally puzzled as to how even one of the plant or animal species could have originated, much less the millions we have today. Yet he wrote a book which, according to the title, explained the problem. An ardent evolutionist refers to the problem:
    "Since Darwin's seminal work was called The Origin of Species one might reasonably suppose that his theory had explained this central aspect of evolution or at least made a shot at it, even if it had not resolved the larger issues we have discussed up to now. Curiously enough, this is not the case. As Professor Ernst Mayr of Harvard, the doyen [senior member] of species studies, once remarked, the 'book called The Origin of Species is not really on that subject', while his colleague Professor Simpson admits: 'Darwin failed to solve the problem indicated by the title of his work.'
    "You may be surprised to hear that the origin of species remains just as much a mystery today, despite the efforts of thousands of biologists. The topic has been the main focus of attention and is beset by endless controversies." —*Gordon R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 140.
    One of the greatest scientists of the last 200 years said this about the possibility of life making itself out of water and mud:
    "Mathematics and dynamics fail us when we contemplate the earth, fitted for life but lifeless, and try to imagine the commencement of life upon it. This certainly did not take place by any action of chemistry, or electricity, or crystalline grouping of molecules under the influence of force, or by any possible kind of fortuitous concourse of atmosphere. We must pause, face to face with the mystery and miracle of creation of living things."—Lord Kelvin, quoted in Battle for Creation, p. 232.
    OUR WORLD BEGINS—Evolutionary theorists tell us that long ago, our world spun off from a stellar condensation or collision of some kind. At first it was a molten mass of very hot rock. Gradually this is supposed to have cooled over a period of millions upon millions of years.
    "We think of the process of [Darwinian evolution] as having taken place in stages, from inorganic evolution to organic evolution and then to biological evolution."—*C. Ponnamperuma, The Origins of Life (1972), p. 39.
    THE PRIMITIVE ENVIRONMENT—Finally it was time for life to originate by spontaneous generation from (according to which theorist is speaking) warm wet dirt, seashore, hot and dry dirt, ocean water, desert sand, lake, poisonous chemicals or fumes, electrified mud puddle, a volcanic rim, or something else.
    It doesn't sound very pleasant, but that is how life is said to have begun. An atmosphere of some type had formed, and occasionally lightning would strike the earth.
    Scientists have tried to analyze what conditions would have had to be like in order for spontaneous generation of life from non-life to occur. They call this the "primitive environment. "
    What were conditions like at that first moment when life is supposed to have created itself by random chance out of a mud hole or sloshing sea water? Evolutionists have figured this out. Their conclusions are not only astonishing, but in this chapter we will learn—they further disprove evolution!
    The theorists tell us that the first life form developed from nothing about 4.6 billion years ago. But *Steven Jay Gould of Harvard, one of the leading evolutionary thinkers of the 1980s, maintains that there would have been very little time for this highly improbable event to have occurred:
    "We are left with very little time between the development of suitable conditions for life on the Earth's surface and the origin of life . . Life apparently arose about as soon as the Earth became cool enough to support it."—*S.J. Gould, "An Early Start," in Natural History, February 1978.
    According to the latest theories of the evolutionists, that mathematically impossible event—the formation of amino acids, protein, DNA, enzymes, and all the rest needed to form the first living creature—had to occur within an extremely short amount of time! Actually, it would all have had to occur with a single generation, a single half-hour, a single moment! Otherwise the next moment the organism would be dead. Millions of functions had to come together all at once.
    * Fred Hoyle wrote in the November 19, 1981 issue of New Scientist, that there are 2,000 complex enzymes required for a living organism, yet not a single one of these could have been formed on earth by shuffling processes in even 20 billion years!
    For additional information see quotation supplement, "1- The Primitive Environment," at the end of this chapter.
    SPONTANEOUS GENERATION—Life from non-living things is the Dark Ages error of "spontaneous generation," an error which was not fully eliminated until more than a century ago. Modern evolutionists believe in and teach spontaneous generation, but now call it "biopolesis, " so that students will not recognize that they are still advocating spontaneous generation. (The earlier name for spontaneous generation was "abiogenesis.")
    In contrast, "Biogenesis" is the scientific name for the important biological truth confirmed by Louis Pasteur and others, that life can only come from life.
    "Biogenesis is a term in biology that is derived from two Greek words meaning life and birth. According to the theory of biogenesis, living things descend only from living things. They cannot develop spontaneously from nonliving materials. Until comparatively recent times, scientists believed that certain tiny forms of life, such as bacteria, arose spontaneously from non-living substances."— * "Biogenesis, " in World Book Encyclopedia, p. B—242. (1972 edition.)
    Spontaneous generation was believed by many scientists prior to the careful experiments of Spallanzani (1780), and Pasteur (1860), which totally disproved that foolish idea. People thought that fruit flies spontaneously came forth from fruit, geese from barnacles, mice from dirty clothes, and bees from dead calves. Even Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon, *Hegel, and *Shilling believed it, but that did not make it right. Great people believing an error does not make the error truth.
    Evolution teaches spontaneous generation. Think about that for a moment. We're returning to the Dark Ages!
    "Pasteur's demonstration apparently laid the theory of spontaneous generation to rest permanently.
    "All this left a germ of embarrassment for scientists. How had life originated after all, if not through divine creation or through spontaneous generation? . .
    "They [scientists] are [today] back to spontaneous generation, but with a difference. The pre-Pasteur view of spontaneous generation was of something taking place now and quickly. The modern view is that it took place long ago and very slowly."—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov's New Guide to Science (1984), pp. 638-639.
    LIFE COMES ONLY FROM LIFE—Vegetation is placed in an open container. Seeds within the vegetation sprout. Living creatures have access to it, so they come, feed, and reproduce their young. Life continues on, but it did not originate within this jar.
    NON-LIFE CANNOT PRODUCE LIFE—Food is placed in a closed container and then heated sufficiently to kill all living organisms and their seeds. It is kept closed and no life originates within it or within the atmosphere surrounding it. Life will not originate within this jar, and if it appears to, the cause will have been insufficient initial heat to kill all life spores (mold, etc.) brought in from outside.
    In contrast, true science teaches "biogenesis," which means, in general, that life can only come from life,and, specifically, that species can only come from living parents in the same species. Speaking of Rudolf Virchow, the Encyclopedia Britannica tells us:
    "His aphorism 'omnis cellula a cellula' [every cell arises from a pre-existing cell] ranks with Pasteur's `omne vivum e vivo' [every living thing arises from a preexisting living thing] as among the most revolutionary generalizations of biology."— *Encyclopedia Britannica, 1973 Edition, Volume 23, p. 35.
    " 'Every cell from a cell.'—Rudolf Virchow, German pathologist 'Every living thing from a living thing.' 'Spontaneous generation is a chimera [illusion].'—Louis Pasteur, French chemist and microbiologist."—Quotations in Isaac Asimov's Book of Science and Nature Quotations (1988), p. 193.
    In the year 1860, Louis Pasteur, a creationist, concluded experiments a year after the publication of *Darwin's Origin of the Species, showing that broth in sterile flasks did not spoil. Microbes from outside could not get in, and germs could not generate spontaneously inside the flasks although both broth and air inside were ready to support them. His work demolished the ancient idea, held at least since the time of the Greeks, that flies spontaneously create themselves out of manure, fruit flies from fruit, and frogs from pond water.
    Pasteur's concept, called the law of biogenesis, holds that life only comes from living material of the same kind. This law is taught in every basic biology class in our schools. But, down the hall in the historical biology class, the students are taught a totally opposite "principle," a fundamental error of evolution: living things originated from non-living materials..
    For additional information see quotation supplement, "2 — Spontaneous Generation," at the end of this chapter.
    INSTANT SUCCESS NECESSARY—In order for life to arise from non-life, there would have to be instant success. All the parts would suddenly have to be there, and all would have to function with essential perfection.
    In the next chapter (chapter 10), we will learn that, in order for life to occur, DNA a protein would have to link up with ease into long, extremely complicated coded strings. In addition, thousands of other complicated chemical combinations would have to be accomplished within a few moments. How long could you live without a beating heart? how long without blood? And on it goes, item after item. The situation would be no different for the simplest of life forms. Everything would have to be in place—suddenly—instantly. In structure, arrangement, coordination, coding, chemical makeup, feeding, elimination, respiration, circulation, and all the rest,—everything would have to be perfect!
    IMMEDIATE REPRODUCTION NEEDED—Biologists are deeply concerned how that first living cell could have originated, but *Montalenti goes a step beyond that point and says "what really matters, to start life is . . the faculty of reproduction." (*G. Montalenti, Studies in the Philosophy of Biology (1974), p. 13.) What good would one cell be if it did not have all the needed DNA coding and fission ability to divide, or the reproduction ability—and a mate—to produce offspring?
    CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND LABORATORIES—Complicated chemical compounds are prepared in well-equipped laboratories, staffed by intelligent, highly skilled workers. They do not work with the sand in the back lot, but with shipments of specialized chemicals which arrive at their loading dock.
    About all that most evolutionists offer for the original primitive environment for the first amino acids, proteins, etc., is dirt or sea water. Yet when scientists want to synthesize amino acids, they go to a very well-equipped laboratory, with instruments, gauges, apparatus, chemicals, and machines costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. They use high-temperatures, special solutions, sparking devices, and glass traps. They do not go down to the sea shore and start sloshing around in sea water in the hope of producing those amino acids.
    Because they are intelligent and trained, they know to do it in laboratories fitted out with expensive equipment and jars of chemicals; yet, according to evolutionary theory, sea water somehow did it by itself.
    CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND THE LAW OF MASS ACTION—Evolutionists recognize that, if a life form suddenly appeared from nothing, it would probably have had to do it in an ancient sea. It is generally felt that water would have had to be present.
    But "the Law of Mass Action" would immediately neutralize the procedure and ruin the outcome. This is because chemical reactions always proceed In a direction from highest to lowest concentration(assuming that the exact amount of energy is even present to perform that reaction). (assuming that the exact amount of energy is even present to perform that reaction).
    "It is therefore hand to see how polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization."—*Richard E. Dickerson, "Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life, "Scientific American, September 1978, p. 75.
    We are told that amino acids miraculously formed themselves out of sea water. But the sea water, needed to make the amino acids, would prevent them from forming into protein, lipids, nucleic acids and polysaccharides! Even if some protein could possibly form, the law of mass action would immediately become operative upon it. The protein would hydrolyze with the abundant water and return back into the original amino acids! Those, in turn, would immediately break down into separate chemicals—and that would be the end of it.
    "Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis . . [This fact is] the most stubborn problem that confronts us." —*George Wald, "The Origin of Life," Scientific American, August 1954, pp. 49-50.
    The law of mass action would constitute a hindrance to protein formation in the sea as well as to the successful formation of other life-sustaining compounds, such as lipids, nucleic acids, and poly-saccharides. If any could possibly form in water, they would not last long enough to do anything.
    This law applies to chemical reactions which are reversible,—and thus to all life compounds. Such reactions proceed from reactant substances to compounds produced in the manner normally expected. But these reactions tend to reverse themselves more easily and quickly.
    " 'All molecules result from an electrochemical tendency to neutralization. They are therefore expressions of tendencies toward stability.' Unhappily for materialists, however, life is characteristically unstable, and 'it is incredible that the complex of substances, all tending towards a state of stability, would produce the permanent chemical instability which is characteristic of animate matter.' Thus it is inconceivable that an organic compound should ever be formed in the absence of life: 'No condition of inorganic matter is even thinkable in which carbon, oxygen and hydrogen could combine to form a sugar rather than water and carbon dioxide."—*"Review of R. Shubert-Soldem's Book, Mechanism and Vitalism," in Discovery, May 1962, p. 44.
    Not just a few, but hundreds of thousands of amino acids had to miraculously make themselves out of raw sea water devoid of any life. But the amino acids would separate and break up immediately and not remain in existence long enough to figure out how to form themselves into the complex patterns of DNA and protein. The problem here is that, as soon as the chemical reaction occurred, that made the amino acids, the excess water would have had to be removed immediately.
    "Dehydration [condensation] reactions are thermodynamically forbidden in the presence of excess water."—*J. Keosian, The Origin of Life, p. 74.
    CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND CONCENTRATION—Evolutionists generally recognize that only warm sea water, by the edge of some ancient sea, could provide the needed environment (although admittedly a very poor one) for amino acids to appear. But we never find the concentrations of chemicals in sea water that would be needed for amino acid synthesis. All the elements are there, but not in the proper concentrations. Most of what is in sea water—is just water!
    "it is commonly assumed today that life arose in the oceans. . But even if this soup contained a goodly concentration of amino acids, the chances of their forming spontaneously into long chains would seem remote. Other things being equal, a dilute hot soup would seem a most unlikely place for the first polypeptides to appear. The chances of forming tripeptides would be about one-hundredth that of forming dipeptides, and the probability of forming a polypeptide of only ten amino acid units would be something like 1/1020. The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all [mathematical] probability."—*H.F. Blum, Time's Arrow and Evolution (1968), p. 158.
    For additional information see quotation supplement, "3 - The Primitive Ocean," at the end of this chapter.
    CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND PRECIPITATES—Even if water loss could occur, enzyme inhibitors would neutralize the results. The problem here is that a powerfully concentrated combination of chemicalized "primitive water" would be needed to produce the materials of life,—but those very chemicals would inhibit and quickly destroy the chemical compounds and enzymes formed.
    "It is clear that enzymes were not present in the primordial soup. Even if they were formed, they would not have lasted long since the primeval soup was by definition a conglomeration of nearly every conceivable chemical substance. There would have been innumerable enzyme inhibitors present to inhibit an enzyme as soon as it appeared. Thus, such molecules could not have formed; however, even with the assumption that they had formed, they could not have remained."—David and Kenneth Rodabaugh, Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1990, p. 107.
    Even if they could survive the other problems, many organic products formed in the ocean would be removed and rendered inactive as precipitates. For example, fatty acids would combine with magnesium or calcium; and arginine (an amino acid), chlorophyll and porphyrins would be absorbed by clays.
    Many of the chemicals would react with other chemicals, to form non-biologically useful products. Sugars and amino acids, for example, are chemically incompatible when brought together.
    The chemical compounds within living creatures were meant to be inside them, and not outside. Outside, those compounds are quickly destroyed, if they do not first destroy one another.
    CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND FLUID CONDENSATION—In addition to synthesis problems, there are also condensation problems. Fats, sugars, and nucleic acids can come from the proteins only by very careful removal of fluid, amid other equally complicated activities conducted by the laboratory technicians. Those experts spent years in college learning how to do this, yet it is expected that the sea water earlier did it by itself, using native ingenuity.
    Without water loss, proteins cannot form in water.
    "One well-known problem in the formation of polymerized proteins in water is that water loss is necessary for this process. Living organisms solve this problem with the presence of enzymes and the molecule ATP. It is clear the enzymes were not present in the primordial soup."—David and Kenneth Rodabaugh, Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1990, p. 107.
    CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND WATER—So most of the chemicals needed by life could not arise in a watery environment, such as sea water. In fact, the lab technicians do their work with fluids other than water! They do not use sea water or even regular water to make dead amino acids. (That which they synthesize is always dead; it never has life in it.)
    "Beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions; water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex molecules."— *Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 65.
    CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND ENERGY—And then there is the problem of an energy source. Scientists know that there had to be some form of energy to work the chemical transformations. They generally think it would have had to have been a bolt of lightning, since there were no wall outlets back in the beginning to plug electrical cords into. But anything struck by lightning is not enlivened, but killed!
    "[Arrhenius] contends that if actual lightning struck rather than the fairly mild [electrical] discharges used by Miller [in making the first synthetic amino acids], any organics that happened to be present could not have survived."—*Report in Science News, December 1, 1973, p. 340.
    CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND OXYGEN—As we consider all the conditions necessary for a primitive environment in which amino acids and other biological chemicals could form, we encounter many problems. One of these is the atmosphere. It is a well-known fact among biochemists that the chemicals of life will decompose if oxygen is in the air.
    "First of all, we saw that the present atmosphere, with its ozone screen and highly oxidizing conditions, is not a suitable guide for gas-phase simulation experiments."— *A.L Oparin, Life: Its Nature, Origin and Development, p. 118.
    Living plants and animals only have certain proportions of the 92 elements within their bodies. These elements are arranged in special chemical compounds. Chemists say they have been "reduced." When these particular chemicals are left in the open air, they decompose, or, as the chemists say, they "oxidize." (A similar process occurs when iron is left in a bucket of water; it rusts.)
    In the presence of oxygen, these chemicals leave the reduced (or chemical combination) state, and break down to individual chemicals again. A similar example would be this: Paper will burn in the presence of oxygen and change back into its member chemicals. Without oxygen, that chemical change cannot occur.
    "The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing conditions [that is, with no free oxygen in the atmosphere]. "—*Stanley L. Miller and Leslie E. Orgel (1974), p. 33.
    "With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have gotten started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays."— *Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 65.
    Later in this chapter, as well as in the chapter appendix, we go into greater depth on atmospheric problems associated with the primitive environment.
    For additional information see quotation supplement, "4 - Fighting it out over Early Atmosphere, " at the end of this chapter.
    CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND SUPPLY—There simply would not be enough other chemicals available to accomplish the needed task.
    Since most biochemicals contain nitrogen, it has been discovered by Gish, a biochemist, that there never has been enough concentration of nitrogen in the air and water for amino acids to form by themselves. It does not occur naturally in rich enough concentrations.
    Similar studies have been made on the availability of phosphorus by *Bernal. There would not have been enough phosphorus available for the many chemical combinations needed. Phosphorus is needed for DNA and other high-energy compounds. But phosphorus concentrations are too low.
    Even worse news: *Carl Sagan found that adenosine triphosphate (high energy phosphate) could not possibly form under the prebiological conditions.
    CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND RICH MIXTURESSince such a rich mixture of chemicals would have had to be required for the alleged formation of the first living molecule, there ought to be places in the world where such rich mixtures are found today, but they do not exist.
    "If there ever was a primitive soup, then we would expect to find at least somewhere on this planet either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various nitrogenous organic compounds, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, and the like, or alternatively in much metamorphosed sediments we should find vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes. . In fact, no such materials have been found anywhere on earth . . There is, in other words, pretty good negative evidence that there never was a primitive organic soup on this planet that could have lasted but a brief moment."—*J. Brooks and *G. Shaw, Origins and Development of Living Systems (1973), p. 360.
    PROTEIN SYNTHESIS—Protein is a basic Constituent of all life forms. It is composed of amino acids. There are 20 essential amino acids, none of which can produce the others. How were these made? How could they make themselves? First, let us examine the simplest of them: glycine.
    *Hull figured out that, due to inadequate chemicals and reaction problems, even glycine could not form by chance. There was only a 10-27 (minus 27) concentration of the materials needed to make it. If one glycine molecule was formed, it would have to hunt through 1029 other molecules in the ocean before finding another glycine to link up with! This would be equivalent to finding one person in a crowd that is 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 times larger than all the people on earth!
    But what about the other nineteen amino acids? Checking out the others, *Hull found that it was even less possible for them to form. After careful research, the scientist discovered that as the complexity of each molecule increased, the possibility of its forming decreased. The concentration needed for glucose, for example, would be 10-134. That is an extremely high improbability!
    "The conclusion from these arguments presents the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is not fatal, to the theory of spontaneous generation. First, thermodynamic calculations predict vanishingly small concentrations of even the simplest organic compounds. Secondly, the reactions that are invoked to synthesize such compounds are seen to be much more effective in decomposing them."—*D. Hull, "Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Spontaneous Generation, " in Nature, 186 (1960), pp. 693-694.
    "In other words, the theoretical chances of getting through even this first and relatively easy stage [getting amino acids] in the evolution of life are forbidding."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 65.
    But there is still more:
    PROTEINS AND HYDROLYSIS— Even if protein had been made by chance from nearby chemicals in the ocean, the water in the primitive oceans would have hydrolyzed the protein. The chemicals that had combined to make protein, would immediately reconnect with other nearby chemicals in the ocean water, and self-destruct the protein! The tendency would be for the chemicals to form more simple organic molecules, such as aldehydes and amines, than the more complex amino acids. These aldehydes and amines would automatically react with the amino acids, making them unusable for protein construction. A research team at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, said that this complication would make the successful making of just one protein totally impossible, mathematically. It would be 1 chance in 10157. They concluded that no proteins were ever produced by chance on this earth.
    PROTEINS AND SPONTANEOUS DISSOLUTION—Evolutionists bank on the fact that, somehow, somewhere, in some way—a small bit of inorganic matter formed some amino acids. Yet even if such an impossible event could have happened—it would rapidly have disintegrated away!
    "In the vast majority of processes in which we are interested, the point of equilibrium lies far over toward the side of dissolution. That is to say, spontaneous dissolution [automatic self-destruct process] is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis [accidental put-together process] . . The situation we must face is that of patient Penelope waiting for Odysseus, yet much worse: each night she undid the weaving of the proceeding day, but here a night could readily undo the work of a year or a century."—*G. Wald, "The Origin of Life," in The Physics and Chemistry of Life (1955), p. 17.
    Automatic dissolution is always easier than accidental once -in-a-thousand -lifetimes putting-together. Regarding this massive obstacle to the initial formation of life, *Wald says it is "the most stubborn problem that confronts us." (Ibid.) Randy Wysong, in his excellent book, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, provides us with a clarification of what is involved in this immense hurdle to the initial formation of life:
    "It is conceivable that wind might blow a pile of toothpicks dumped from a picnic table into an arrangement resembling a model airplane. Given enough time, it could happen. But if that freak event does happen, would it remain, if still subject to time and gale winds? Would it even complexify [later become more complex]? Isn't time not only the creator, but more efficiently the enemy of the freak event? Will time not surely destroy the order fortuitously created?"—R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, p. 141.
    FATTY ACID SYNTHESIS—Scientists are not able to even theorize how fatty acids could have originally come into existence.
    "No satisfactory synthesis of fatty acids is at present available. The action of electric discharges on methane and water gives fairly good yields of acetic and propionic acids, but only small yields of the higher fatty acids. Furthermore, the small quantities of higher fatty acids that are found are highly branched."—*S. Miller, and *L. Orgel, The Origins of Life on the Earth (1974), p. 98 .
    OTHER SYNTHESES—There is more to a living being than merely chemical compounds, proteins, and fatty acids.
    There are also enzymes, which scientists in laboratories do not know how to produce. Yet there are thousands of enzymes in a typical animal!
    Then there are the massive DNA and other coding problems. Has any scientist ever synthesized a new animal code? No, he would have no idea how to successfully accomplish the task. The emphasis here is on "successful." If he could interject a new code, it would only damage the organism. The list of necessities goes on and on. But what about life itself? One minute after it dies, an animal still has all its chemicals, proteins, fatty acids, enzymes, codes, and all the rest. But it no longer has life. Scientists cannot produce life; why then should they expect rocks and seawater to have that ability?
    ATMOSPHERE WITHOUT OXYGEN—Could a non-oxygen atmosphere ever have existed on Planet Earth? It surely seems like an impossibility, yet evolutionary theorists have decided that the primitive environment had to have a "reducing atmosphere," that is, one without any oxygen. Now, the theorists do not really want such a situation, but they know that it would be totally impossible for the chemical compounds needed for life to be produced outside in the open air. If oxygen was present, amino acids, etc., could not have been formed. So, in desperation, they have decided that at some earlier time in earth's history, there was no oxygen in the air! And then later it got it somehow!
    "At that time, the 'free' production of organic matter by ultraviolet light was effectively turned off and a premium was placed on alternative energy utilization mechanisms. This was a major evolutionary crisis. I find it remarkable that any organism survived it."—*Carl Sagan, The Origins, p. 253.
    But there is a special reason why they would prefer to avoid a reducing atmosphere: There is no evidence anywhere in nature that our planet ever had a non-oxygen atmosphere! And there is no theory that can explain how it could earlier have had a reducing atmosphere—which later transformed itself into an oxidizing one! As *Urey himself admitted, a non-oxygen atmosphere is just an assumption—a flight of imagination—in an effort to accommodate the theory.
    "This problem practically disappears if Oparin's assumptions in regard to the early reducing character of the atmosphere are adopted."—*Harold Urey, "On the Early Chemical History of the Earth and the Origin of Life, " in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 38 (1952), p. 352.
    *Stanley Miller was one of the pioneers in laboratory synthesis of non-living amino acids in bottles with a non-oxygen (reducing) atmosphere. (He was afterward hailed by the press as having "created life." Miller later said this:
    "These ideas are of course speculation, for we do not know that the earth had a reducing atmosphere when it was formed."—*Stanley L. Miller, "Production of some Organic Compounds under possible Primitive Conditions, " in Journal of the American Chemical Society, 77 (1955), p. 2351.
    A "reducing atmosphere" could have had carbon dioxide, methane, hydrogen, ammonia, nitrogen, and water. An oxidizing atmosphere, such as now exists, would have carbon dioxide, water, nitrogen, and oxygen.
    But a reducing atmosphere could not have existed earlier on our planet, and especially not when life was supposed to spontaneously generate. Here are some of the reasons against a reducing atmosphere:
    (1) Oxidized Iron. Early rocks have partly or totally oxidized iron in them (ferric oxide). Oxidized rocks existed at the time when spontaneous generation is supposed to have taken place. That proves that the atmosphere had oxygen at that time.
    (2) Water means Oxygen. You will notice, above, that a reducing atmosphere would have had water in it in order for life to form. There would have had to be water in the atmosphere if there was water on the earth! Water vapor would continually be arising from the oceans. In the air, that atmospheric water would be split into hydrogen and oxygen. If our planet once had no oxygen, it could not have had water either!
    Referring to that fact, one scientist said it would be very unlikely for a reducing atmosphere to have existed when biopoiesis (spontaneous generation of life from non-life) is supposed to have occurred.
    "Appreciable oxygen concentrations might have evolved in the earth's atmosphere before the evolution of widespread photosynthesizing (oxygen producing) organisms. It does not seem that early evolution could have proceeded in such an atmosphere."—"R.T. Brinkman, "Dissociation of Water Vapor and Evolution of Oxygen in the Terrestrial Atmosphere, " in Journal of Geophysical Research, 74 (1969), p. 5366.
    (3) No Life without it. Did you catch another point in the above quotation? It would have been impossible for living things to survive, much less evolve, in a reducing atmosphere! How long would animals live without oxygen to breath? How long would plants live without carbon dioxide? Without it, they could not make chlorophyll. When plants take in carbon dioxide, they give out oxygen. But a reducing atmosphere has neither oxygen nor carbon dioxide! Therefore no plants could either live or be available for food.
    (4) DeadlyPeroxides. In addition, a reduction atmosphere could form, through the photolysis of water, into peroxides, which are deadly to living creatures.
    "The hypothesis of an early methane-ammonia atmosphere is found to be without solid foundation and indeed is contradicted."—*P. Abelson, "Some Aspects of Paleobiochemistry, " in Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 69 (1957), p. 275.
    (5) NoOzone Layer. Scientists know that spontaneous generation of life from non-life could not have occurred in the presence of oxygen, but if there was no oxygen in the atmosphere, there would be no ozone there either. Without the ozone layer, ultraviolet light would destroy whatever life was formed.
    (6) Ultraviolet Light. Ironically,it could do more: Just as oxygen in the air would destroy the chemicals of life, ultraviolet light beaming in through a sky unshielded by ozone would do the same!
    Recent studies of the ozone layer have revealed that, without it, most living organisms now on our planet would die within an hour, and many within a second or two!
    (7) Not With or Without. Evolutionists are locked into a situation here that they cannot escape from. Spontaneous generation could not occur with oxygen—or without it!With it there would be rapid oxidation of life chemical compounds and amino acids into separate chemicals; without it there would be deadly ultraviolet light destroying both the life chemicals and the life formed from them.
    Either way, amino acids would not have formed, or would quickly break down back into chemicals. On this point alone, it would be impossible for life to originally have formed out of non-life on Planet Earth.
    FORMULA FOR THE PRIMITIVE ATMOSPHERE—The present atmosphere—the air which we breathe—is composed of carbon dioxide (C02), nitrogen (N2), oxygen (O2), and water (H20).
    The generally postulated primitive atmosphere would have had to have been composed of almost totally different chemicals: methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), ammonia (NH2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen (H2), and water (H20).
    INSTANT ATMOSPHERIC CHANGE!—As you might imagine, all this bad news brought evolutionary origins to something of a crisis; especially the problem about the atmosphere.
    The response on the part of intransigent evolutionists was to come up with the really wild theory that at the very instant when life was created on earth,—at that instant it just so happened that the entire world changed its atmosphere! It dramatically shifted suddenly from reducing to oxidizing!That piece of amino acid which had made itself in the restless oceans, was now able to make itself into part of a protein. (Forget about the fact that the Law of Mass Action would quickly destroy the amino acid before it could form protein; forget about the fact that the very presence of oceans made the atmosphere non-reducing before life began.)
    But this possibility collapsed when a "University of Chicago study found that the plants could not suddenly have made all that oxygen,—and it had nowhere else to come from! If all the plants NOW on earth were suddenly formed on Day One of living things on our planet, it would still take them 5,000 years to produce as much oxygen as we now have!
    However, the plants were not there at that time, and whatever plants might have been there would all have died soon after, since they themselves need oxygen for their own cellular respiration.
    In order to avoid the problem of mass action degradation of amino acids formed in sea water, someone else suggested that the amino acids were made in dry clays and rocks. But in that environment either the oxygen or ultraviolet light would immediately destroy those amino acids.
    UNUSUAL CHEMICALS—Men began to beat their brains against the wall, trying to figure out a way for those amino acids to form by themselves in the primitive environment.
    *Sidney Fox suggested that the amino acids were made on the edges of volcanoes, *Melvin Calvin decided that dicyanimide (a compound not naturally occurring in nature) did the job, and *Shramm declared that phosphorus pentoxide in a jar of ether ether did it! Another research worker came up with an even more deadly solution: hydrogen cyanide—as the environment in which all the amino acids made themselves.
    But again tragedy struck: It was discovered that the volcanic heat would ruin the amino acids as soon as they were formed. Phosphorus pentoxide is a novel compound that could not possibly be found in earth's primitive atmosphere. The hydrogen cyanidewould require an atmosphere of ammonia, which geological evidence shows never existed in our atmosphere. Dicyanimidewould not work, because the original mixture in which the first amino acids were made had to have a more alkaline pH.
    But on it still goes, one conjecture after another; always searching for the magic mixture and fairyland environment needed to make life out of nothing.
    "Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts."—*Francis Crick, Life Itself (1981), p. 153. (Crick received a Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA.)
    THE MILLER EXPERIMENT—It was *Stanley Miller in 1953 who first produced amino acids from chemicals. We want to know how he did it, for THAT is the way the so-called "primitive environment" would have had to do it by merest chance:
    The laboratory apparatus he used to accomplish this consisted of two confluently interconnected, chemical flasks (or bottles), arranged one above the other. The lower flask was heated and contained boiling water. The upper flask contained a mixture of gases including ammonia, methane, hydrogen and water vapor. (The upper flask had the presumed "primitive atmosphere," since it was known that if oxygen was present, the experiment would be a failure.)
    First, he boiled a mixture of water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen gases in the upper bottle, while a small electric spark continually played over them all. (that was supposed to be equivalent to a gigantic lightning bolt in the primitive environment which might strike the spot once every so many years, instantly destroying everything it touched.) The lower bottle of water was kept boiling in order to keep the mixture in the upper bottle stirred up and circulating. (the "primitive ocean" must have been pretty hot!) There was a trap in the bottom of the glass apparatus to catch any soluble organic products, so they would not be broken down after formation by the spark (chemists knew that the Law of Mass Action would almost immediately have destroyed the amino acids which were formed, without a trap to catch them quickly. (The "primitive ocean" must have had similar bottle traps in it.)
    After a week of this, the fluid in the traps were chemically analyzed—and were found to have microscopic traces of a few L and D (right- and left-handed) nitrogen-containing compounds—"amino acids," they called them—which had been formed. (Of course, if both L and D amino acids were formed by chemical action—as they always are when formed outside of living cells—it would be impossible for the amino acid which formed to be usable for life purposes.)
    Newspapers around the world heralded the news: "Life has been created!" But no life had been created, just a few biochemical compounds. Remember that neither nitrogen compounds nor amino acids are, of themselves, living things. Just because they are in living things, does not make them living things.
    In summary then, *Stanley Miller's experiment was one of the early origin-of-life attempts. It used a reducing atmosphere (with no oxygen in it). A significant part of his experiment was a "cold trap." This was a glass cup at the bottom of the tubing which caught the products of the weeklong water-chemical-spark activity. The purpose of the trap was to keep the reaction going in the right direction. If it had not been there, the simple amino acids would have been destroyed faster than they could be made!
    "'This is the primitive atmosphere,' said Stanley Miller, the chemistry professor at the University of California at San Diego, as he pointed to the transparent mixture of gases inside the globe. `And this represents the primitive ocean,' he said, indicating a pool of water in the bottom of his apparatus."—*Rick Gore, "Awesome Worlds Within a Cell, " National Geographic Society, September 1976, p. 390.
    What does that carefully contrived experiment have to say about the possibility of a man doing it out in the field with the random chemicals found in dirt, and the three things that would ruin the outcome: death-dealing lightning, oxidizing oxygen, and hydrolyzing water? And where would the continual spark come from in nature? There is none available, other than from lightning or molten lava. Lightning does not create life; it destroys it! And fiery volcanic magma is no better.
    "In 1953 two scientists, Harold Urey and Stanley Miller, performed one of the most striking experiments of the twentieth century. In a pressure vessel they mixed simple molecules simulating the primordial atmosphere of Earth. Then they zapped the vessel with electricity to simulate lightning bolts . .
    "The notion that biological substances could arise from a purely natural process made scientists cheer and gave the clergy chills. But on reflection, less had happened than met the eye. Though the goo in Urey and Miller's beaker contained ingredients used by life, it did not come to life. It was just interesting goo. Now as then, nobody has any idea what makes chemicals start living. The origin of life is perhaps the leading unknown of contemporary science."—*G. Easterbrook, "Are We Alone?" in The Atlantis, 262(2):32 (1988).
    What does that complicated lab experiment have to say about the possibility of nature doing it by accident—without the help of man? Outdoors, it could not be done without his help, or with it.
    "What we ask is to synthesize organic molecules without such a machine. I believe this to be the most stubborn problem that confronts us the weakest link at present in our argument. I do not think it by any means disastrous, but it calls for phenomena and faces, some of which are as yet only partly understood and some probably still to be discovered."— *G. Wald, "The Origin of Life," in the Physics and Chemistry of Life (1955), p. 9.
    The test tube attempts to "create life" have only resulted in dismal failure.
    "In 1953, at the University of Chicago, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey mixed ammonia, water vapor, hydrogen and methane to simulate Earth's early atmosphere, then crackled lightning—like electrical sparks through it . .
    "Unfortunately, as Margolis admits, ‘no cell has yet crawled out of a test tube,' and thousands of similar experiments have produced gooey organic tars, but no recognizable life. Decades of persistent failure to 'create life' by the 'spark in the soup' method (or to find such productions in nature) have caused some researchers to seek other approaches to the great enigma. [Panspermia theories are then discussed.]"—*Richard Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 274.
    NOT THE RIGHT AMINO ACIDSNot only do the Miller-type experiments not produce the proper "handedness" of amino acids (left-handed amino acids only, instead of both-handed ones), but that type of experiment—which has been repeated many times in the decades since Miller first did it—consistently does not produce just the crucial amino acids needed for life. Out of the hundreds of possible combinations, there are 20 essential amino acids, and laboratory synthesis of amino acids produce only a few of them—along with a lot of non-essential or even useless ones.
    "In considering Miller's 1953 experiment and subsequent experiments where amino acids were formed through applying heat to elements alleged to be in the primordial atmosphere, the author mentions: (1) that these amino acids were racemic (both D and L forms) and thus proteins formed from these would not support life; (2) the majority of amino acids [formed by laboratory synthesis] do not belong to the 20 amino acids that occur in natural protein molecules."—David and Kenneth Rodabaugh, "Book Review," Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1990, p. 107.
    THE OPARIN EXPERIMENT—Somewhat before *Miller, *A.I. Oparin, a Russian chemist, attempted something similar. He had a "coacervate hypothesis" which he believed would eventually produce living cells. "Coacervates" are like fat droplets in a bowl of soup. He carefully kept all oxygen away from the soup and the bowl, and he hoped that, given enough time, they would join together and, somehow, life would enter into them!
    Oparin discovered that coacervates are highly unstable. The thin outer film breaks easily. Collections of them break apart easily. They quickly unite with other nearby molecules. There would be no selectivity as to molecules absorbed. Harmful as well as helpful ones would be as easily absorbed. No reputable chemist today considers Oparin's theory to be of any value.
    THE FOX EXPERIMENTSAfter Miller's experiment, *Sydney Fox in 1960 worked out a different arrangement, but he began his with amino acids already formed! He claims that his method is how it was done in the primitive environment. This should have been good news for the evolutionary world, but when we learn his complicated procedure, we can understand why few scientists have any faith in the possibility that the Fox procedure was done by chance in the ocean, near a volcano, or in a mud puddle.
    Here is how nature, armed with time and chance, is expected to have produced that first dead amino acid:
    "Typical panpolymerization: Ten grams of L-glutamic acid [a left amino acid] was heated at 175-180 C. [347°356°F.] until molten (about 30 minutes), after which period it had been largely converted to lactum. At this time, 10 g. [352 av. oz.) of DL-aspartic acid and 5 g. [.176 av. oz.] of the mixture of the sixteen basic and neutral (BN) amino acids were added. The solution was then maintained at 170° + or -2° under an atmosphere of nitrogen for varying periods of time. Within a period of a few hours considerable gas had been evolved, and the color of the liquid changed to amber. The vitreous mixture was rubbed vigorously with 75 ml. [4.575 cu. in.] of water, which converted it to a yellow-brown granular precipitate. After overnight standing, the solid was separated by filtration. This was washed with 50 ml. [3.05 cu. in.] of ethanol, and as substance S dialytically washed in moving Multidialysers in water for 4 days, the water being changed thrice daily. (The term dialytic washing indicates dialytic treatment of a suspension.) In some preparations, the solid was dissolved completely in sodium bicarbonate solution and then dialyzed. The dialysis sacs were made of cellulose tubing, 27/32 in., to contain 50 ml. [3.05 cu. in.]. The nondiffusible material was ninhydrin-negative before the fourth day. The non-aqueous contents of the dialysis sac were mainly solid A and a soluble fraction B recovered as solid by concentration in a vacuum dissicator. The mother liquor of S was also dialyzed for 4 days, and then dried to give additional solid C."—*S. W. Fox and *K. Harada in Journal of the American Chemical Society, 82 (1980). p. 3745.
    There may be some words and chemical processes in the above description with which you are unfamiliar, but it is clear that what those men did required an exceedingly complex procedure, superior intelligence, high-level training, a well-equipped laboratory, and many, many days of hard work carried out according to an elaborate plan.
    We commend *Sydney Fox and his associates for their remarkable intelligence and excellent lab equipment, and the university scientists who trained them so well to perform such experiments, but we can make no such commendation of sand, gravel, and seawater which is supposed to have done the same thing by itself.
    Fox began with a quantity of left-only (no right) amino acids and made sure no sugars were present, since they would nullify each other. Then he underwent a lot of tedious work that requires a high degree of intelligence, careful planning, and many adjustments with pH, temperature, cooking time, etc., as he proceeded with a staff of assistants to help him succeed:
    Fox is modest about his abilities, for he says that random events, in a broad sea or on the slopes of a volcano, could have done it as easily. But HE began with pure, left-handed amino acids; he did not begin with pebbles, mud, and water.
    Fox then heated the amino acids for 10 hours 150-1800C [302-3560F]. He said that this originally happened for 10 hours in a dry spot on the edge of an ancient volcano, so 150-1800C [302-3560F] for 10 hours with a total lack of moisture would be necessary.
    Where would you find such conditions in nature? *Stanley Miller, who first synthesized amino acids in a laboratory later stated that his own experiment could not possibly have been done by chance outside of a modern laboratory. Others agree.
    "The degree to which experimental conditions actually simulate primitive earth conditions is very often the subject of considerable controversy among workers in the field [of biochemistry]."—*A.I. Oparin, Life: Its Nature, Origin, and Development, p. 33.
    The tiniest living organism (a bacteria) has many specific functional parts, with each part dependent on the other. There is a purpose to everything within it. Can all that be made in non-oxygen containers, cold traps, 10 hours of hot, dry heat, or subjection to a week of sparking?
    "Such experiments are no more than exercises in organic chemistry."—*P. Mora, "The Folly of Probability, "in Origins of Prebiological Systems and their Molecular Matrices, Ed. S. W. Fox (1965), p. 41.
    Three key ingredients are (1) proper chemicals in exacting amounts, (2) a continuous energy source (such as a continuous spark), and (3) quick-dry apparatus. As soon as the amino acids are made, they must be immediately dried out. (Living tissue never contains dried-out amino acids or comes from it.)*Fox tells us the reaction must be "hot and dry" (Origins of Prebiological Systems and their Molecular Matrices, p. 378).
    "To keep a reaction going according to the law of mass action, there must be a continuous supply of energy and of selected matter (molecules) and a continuous process of elimination of the reaction products. "—*P. More, "The Folly of Probability, " in Origins of Prebiological systems and their Molecular Matrices, Ed. S. W. Fox (1965), p. 43.
    And there is a fourth key ingredient: careful organization with specific purposes by intelligent, highly-trained minds doing the work on the chemicals. No one tosses the chemicals into a pan in the laboratory, walks off, and hopes it will all produce amino acids by itself.. No one tosses the chemicals into a pan in the laboratory, walks off, and hopes it will all produce amino acids by itself.
    A living organism is not just dried out ocean soup. It is highly integrated, complex, and purposive. It also has life, which no man can produce.
    LIFE NICHE LIMITS—A new way to consider an old fact has surfaced in recent years. It is called "life niches" or "niche spaces. " Consider for a moment a bacterium. Certain conditions are necessary so it can live. Scientists tell us to imagine that the bacterium is located inside a cube-shaped box. The height of the box is the range of one condition necessary for its life; the depth indicates the span of another specification, and the width indicates a third life-requirement range. If one of the three ranges narrows too much, the bacterium will die. For example, if its heart stops beating.
    Certain things must occur, keep occurring, and occur right—in order for an organism to keep living. When one of them narrows too much, it dies.
    Now, let us turn to reality. The conditions of life are far more than three things. Instead of the scientist's "life niche box," let us visualize a vertical bar graph. Each bar measures one range of tolerances, within which a human being can continue to live. How many bars are there? BILLIONS of them! One set of hundreds of thousands of bars measures factors in the bone marrow that must be exactly right in order for us to produce blood and remain alive. Another set of hundreds of thousands—perhaps millions—of factors concern conditions in the pituitary. And on it goes. How long is the entire bar graph of required life specifications needed for you and me to keep living? it probably reaches to the moon and back.
    How long is the bar graph for that bacterium? Probably three-quarters of the distance to the moon, all of it filled—side by side—with bar graphs.
    Now for the punch line: Each bar on the graph had to be in place for that bacterium to first exist. None of them could come later. And it is the same for every other form of life.
    But there is more: From the very beginning, that bacterium had to have a mate. So the impossible had to occur in a gender duplicate for every life form made.
    And there is still more: That bacterium had to have its proper food supply immediately. Its food was organic—living,—so its food had to have its own bar graph of specifications reaching almost to the moon!
    In addition, many life forms are interrelated, forming a dietetic chain. So now we have many different life forms, each depending on one another, and each with its own lengthy bar graph of needs.
    COMPLICATED AND INTERRELATED REQUIREMENTS—There are far more requirements for life to successfully evolve than one might at first think. Indeed, the more thought we give to the matter, the more we realize that only the ignorant could conceive of a random self-origination and evolving of living creatures.
    1—Symbiotic Relationships. There are many instances in which quite different life forms rely on one another. Neither the yucca plant nor the pronuba moth could exist without one another. The fig tree and the fig gall wasp are another interdependent team. The cow could not digest its food without certain bacteria in its stomach, and neither could the termite. In the beehive, the queen, workers, and drones are totally dependent on one another. How could all this have been initiated? There really is no way it could come about by accident. Those organized and interrelated patterns had to be there from the start.
    2 — Immune Systems. All animals and some plants have extremely complicated immune systems to protect them. Yet they had to have those immune patterns—dating back to the beginning. If not, they would never have survived long enough to develop them. Each immune system can identify bacteria, viruses, and toxins—and recognize whether each is safe or harmful. Each system has a complete, complex pattern for organizing a variety of soldiers to eliminate such problems as soon as possible. In fact, each invasion is indelibly remembered by the soldiers, so they can better protect the body the next time. The immune system could not slowly evolve; it had to completely be there to begin with.
    3 — Fantastic Technology. There are technological wonders all through nature that are astounding. Consider the miniature sonar systems of porpoises and whales, the frequency-modulated radar (sonar) system of the bat, the aerodynamic capabilities of the hummingbird, the precise navigational systems of birds and fish. On and on we could go. Yet that technology was there to begin with.
    On the very first day of his existence, the little hummingbird had to have that long beak to dip sugar water out of the flowers. The flowers had to be there also. The hummer had to have an extremely fast metabolic system, able to live on such a powerful solution. It had to have extremely fast wings, in order to hover over flower after flower, all day long.
    4 — Sexual Reproduction.If animals evolved, as the theory teaches, then those random accidents, known as "natural selection," had to do amazing things. It was necessary, from the very beginning, for both a male and a female of each species to be there—or that species would quickly perish. Evolutionists cannot explain why sexual reproduction exists. Evolution could be accomplished so easily without it! Yet nearly all plants and animals continue on from generation to generation because of it. Both the male and female of each species had to evolve totally independently of the other—and yet at each "phase of evolution," the two were matching partners. This pairing of the species could neither originate nor evolve by evolutionary means.
    CONCLUSION—We have viewed the desolate attempts to figure out a way to produce living tissue, plants, and animals out of sloshing water and sand. Oddly enough, this desperate research is said to have begun with *Charles Darwin, but ironically, Darwin only theorized about evolution across species by natural selection; he never discussed the origins of life.
    "Darwin never really did discuss the origin of species in his On the Origin of Species."—*David Kitts, "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 488.
    Reputable scientists tell us that life could neither originate nor continue without intelligence being involved.
    "Any living thing possesses an enormous amount of 'intelligence' . . Today, this 'intelligence' is called 'information,' but it is still the same thing . . This 'intelligence' is the sine qua non of life. If absent, no living being is imaginable. Where does it come from? This is a problem which concerns both biologists and philosophers, and, at present, science seams incapable of solving it."—*Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 3.
    But evolutionists are hopeful that they will yet solve the problem. *Carl Sagan, a leading science (and science fiction) writer says that the people on Mars may help get us straightened out on this matter. Sagan has been speculating about extraterrestrial life for many years, and is hopeful that Martian life will convince people once and for all that life has evolved:
    "If it turns out that there is life there as well, then, I would say, it would convince large numbers of people that the origins of life exist."—*Science News symposium entitled, "Life on Mars: What Could It Mean?" Vol. 109, June 5 & 12, 1978, pp. 378-379.
    Trying to find self-originated life on other planets, is but to ignore the solidly researched fact that it could not originate by itself right on our own. Scientists who have spent a lifetime trying to figure out the origins of life on our planet openly state their conclusion:
    "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle."—*Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature (1981), p. 88.
    "The present laws of physics... are insufficient to describe the origin of life. To him this opens the way to teleology, even, by implication, to creation by an intelligent agent. . If he thinks he has shown conclusively that life cannot have originated by chance, only two rational alternatives remain. The first is that it did not arise at all and that all we are studying is an illusion."—*S. W. Fox, The Origins of Prebiological Systems and Their Molecular Matrices (1965), pp. 35-55.
    A Nobel Prize laureate and a confirmed evolutionist made this comment:
    "All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did."—*Harold C. Urey, quoted in Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 1962, p. 4.
    THE MAGIC FORMULA—The formula for the evolutionary origin and development of life goes something like this:
    Is this modern science, or is it a fairy tale? It is an astounding thought that all modern biological, genetic, and geological science is keyed to such a mythical formulation.
    One evolutionist explains in philosophical rhetoric how it all happened:
    "Randomness caught on the wing, preserved, reproduced . . and thus converted into order, rule, necessity. A totally blind process can by definition lead to anything; it can even lead to vision itself."—*Bur, quoted in *Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity (1972), p. 98.
    That may sound good, but it is neither true nor scientific. If randomness can produce such living wonders as are all about us, even human eyesight, than highly-intelligent scientists, working in well-equipped laboratories, ought to be able to produce eyes, ears, and entirely new species in a few month's time.
    The Great Evolutionary Myth Is that randomness plus time can do anything; the truth is that randomness, with or without time, can accomplish almost nothing. And those changes which it does accomplish will quickly be blotted out by the next random action or two--that is, if they are constructive changes. If they are erosional, they will remain much longer. Throughout inorganic nature we see randomness producing decay, washing away, and inertness; we do not find it building houses, and then installing the plumbing ion them.
    "All the facile speculations and discussions published during the last ten to fifteen years explaining the mode of origin of life have been shown to be far too simple-minded and to bear very little weight. The problem in fact seems as far from solution as it ever was."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 68.
    THE EVOLUTIONARY ORIGIN OF LIFE IN A NUTSHELL—Origin of life by random means is an impossibility of the impossibilities. After what you have learned in this chapter, it should now be fairly easy for you to see, in the following evolutionary five-step theoretical program of events, that it consists of little more than arm-chair guessing combined with Alice in Wonderland hopefulness:
    "Evolution Model for the Origin of Life on the Earth:
    "According to the evolution model, the story of life on the earth began some five billion years ago and gradually unfolded through a series of five stages:
    "Stage 1. Evolutionists have imagined that the atmosphere of the early earth was quite different from the present atmosphere. In contrast to the present oxidizing atmosphere, which contains 21 percent free oxygen (02), 78 percent nitrogen (N2), and 1 percent of other gases, supposedly the early earth was surrounded by a reducing atmosphere made up mostly of methane (CH4), ammonia (NH2), hydrogen (H2), and water vapor (H20).
    "Stage 2. Because of ultraviolet light, electric discharge, and high-energy particle bombardment of molecules in a reducing atmosphere, stage 2 came about with the formation of small organic molecules such as sugars, amino acids, and nucleotides.
    "Stage 3. Presuming all of this happened billions of years ago in a reducing atmosphere, then stage 3 is imagined during which combinations of various small stage 2 molecules resulted in formation of large polymers such as starches, proteins, and nucleic acids (DNA).
    "Stage 4. These large molecules supposedly joined together into gel-like globs called coacervates or microspheres. Possibly these coacervates attracted smaller molecules so that new structures, called proto-cells, might have foamed.
    "Stage 5. Evolutionists believe that, finally at least one of these globs absorbed the right molecules so that complex molecules could be duplicated within new units called living cells. These first cells consumed molecules left over from earlier states, but eventually photosynthesis appeared in cells, in some way, and oxygen was released into the atmosphere. As the percentage of oxygen in the early atmosphere increased, most of the known forms of life on the earth today began to appear. Because of the presence of oxygen, these early life forms destroyed all the molecules from earlier stages, and no more chemical evolution was possible."—John N. Moors, "Teaching about Origin Questions: Origin of Life on Earth, " in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1985, page 21.
    APPLYING MATH TO IT—"Sir Fred Hoyle, the famous British mathematician and astronomer, teamed up with *Chandra Wickramasinghe in an analysis of the origin of life and the possibility that it could possibly have begun by chance.
    Hoyle started out on this project as an evolutionist, and Wickramasinghe as a Buddhist. Hoyle ended up as leaning toward a belief that God created everything.
    They mathematically determined that the likelihood that a single cell could originate in a primitive environment, given 4.6 billion years in which to do it—was one chance in 1040000!That is one chance in 1 with 40 thousand zeros after it! Speaking about these early environment controversies, they said this:
    "The tactic is to argue that although the chance of arriving at the biochemical system of life as we know it is admitted to be utterly minuscule [extremely small], there is in Nature such an enormous number of other chemical systems which could also support life—that any old planet like the Earth would inevitably arrive sooner or later at one or another of them.
    "This argument is the eeriest nonsense, and if it is to be imbibed at all it must be swallowed with a jorum of strong ale."—*Fred Hoyle and *Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 28.
    Everything would suddenly have to be there all at once. It would all have to work perfectly, and it would have to split and divide into new cells immediately, and reproduce offspring quickly. Living forms are too awesome to relegate to the tender mercies of time and chance. It took special design, special thinking, special power to make living beings.

  3. Quote Originally Posted by canadian champ
    Thank you for reiterating (sp)
    I love to reiterate(that is the correct spelling)I assure you my reiterence was not a coincidence and was in complete concurance being careful to avoid redundance with just a touch of tumidity.This thread is becoming a bit scary. If I may be so BOLD. Dorthea Brande quotes, on the Anabolic Minds forum, I am impressed! It is pleasure to read the veritable whos who of non-scientist listed on this thread. If Malthus and Darwin are not roasting in hell, they surely are rolling in their respective graves.I firmly believe that it is possible to mock organized religious theories and still believe in a universal life force(god). Considering that the evolution theory is proven by deconstruction methods and that Christianity is the most practised religion; it would be a logical corrallary that practising Christianity is a dominate trait.It is also reasurring that any demographic of people who devoutly follow any belief system tend to out live the atheists."Me think he doth protest too much"-Iago(ofcourse he had his reasons) Merry Christmas(in an original pagan winter solstace kind of way) everyone, especially the good folk in Dover PA!

  4. Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
    So, if the source of the information isn't good enough for YOU there is nothing that can be done about that now is there?
    you are correct

    Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
    Did you even bother to read the citations in my first post? A few of those citations were even from recent school text books, lol. Then again, I guess the author of that article was correct when he said some people will never get past the fact that we can't ever prove that instance, we're only 99.999...9% sure (basically, the limit of 100%) of evolution.
    Prove about evolution for ME doesn't even come close to 99.999...9%, in fact the more I learn the less I believe in it, but I was proved about God 100%.

    Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemind00
    And, if a person can't believe tangible evidence provided by living people (some deceased, but their work is still here) how does anybody expect us to believe that God created anything?
    I'm not trying to make you believe in God, I wish I could, but you made your choice. Anyway I won't plug this thread anymore, because it's not what you, guys, disscuss here.

  5. I do believe in God, just don't believe that the bible should be taken literally

  6. Ahh, I see, I didn't know that.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by Bean
    I saved a special reply just for you. Because you're OBVIOUSLY not getting it. There's no hostility here... just exhaustion from having to say the same thing to people trying to spread misinformation (like you).
    So far you've used the words "stupid" and "idiot" and probably a variety of others to describe anyone who disagrees with you. Sounds hostile to me, but your upbringing may have been different. And, since I've said several times I don't believe in ID and do believe evolution occurs, perhaps you could explain what I'm missing.

    As has been stated. MANY complex organs and limbs and such have been documented to evolve. Fossil records are there... nothing ID has can discount that. Yes there are some that havent been found, for whatever reason; be it severe climate changes causing records to be destroyed, or just too much decay.
    Many times? Give me one example. Should be easy if there are so many. And not a limb that cchanges slightly over time, not guess work where some organ looks similar to another therefore it evolved.

    And you've missed the boat completely again. You're trying to argue the 'mechanism' for how things evolve and saying its all incorrect. You obviously havent read very much
    Well, I have read all of Gould's books except full house, which you apparently have as well. Panda's Thumb was my favorite.

    Evolution is fact. PERIOD. Only the mechanisms can be debated. IF you want to debate HOW something evolves so specialized then go ahead. But the 'purpose' for it which ID wants to keep throwing up in the air is nothing but ADAPTATION to some external event. USUALLY climate change and/or food supply. Fossil records and geologic evidence show this. And not just ONE little record either; which is how ID and other Creationist offshoots like to discredit evolution... there are THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of studies that illustrate this to be true. What other evidence does someone need?
    I never said ID was correct. Learn to read. I said it does raise some questions that are interesting. I've pointed out that the common example they use of the birds wing is faulty reasoning because it assumes a purpose to the 'design' of the wing. I then pointed out in another post that the MECHANISM of evolution, my example of the eye, is the weak part of evolution and where they level their attacks. So it seems you're disagreeing with someone who agrees with you overall. A point of semantics as well, nothing is FACT period. There is always uncertainty to varying degrees. I suspect you're one of those fundamentalists of a different stripe I mentioned earlier. WHATEVER an ID proponent's reasons for leveling criticism, valid criticism is valid criticism. The lack of a mechanism for evolution and lack of a mechanism for the very formation of life are SERIOUS weaknesses in evolutionary theory. Once more, and please read this before you respond, THIS DOESN'T LOGICALLY NECESSITATE DIVINE INTERVENTION. It's merely a question that needs to be answered.

    Fossils are all there. Evolved during a severe climate shift towards the cold. They have complete fossil records; hell even complete mammoths still with their hair. And these mammoths (many different varieties mind you) kept living for a very long time. Some species died out; some didnt. Some branches evolved into Modern African and Asian Elephants.
    How? Despite your ranting, the FACT that the mechanism of HOW this happens can't be explained with any certainty is a bit of a weakness in the theory I would say. In fact, the statement "we know it happens we just don't know how" sounds suspicously like "The Lord works in mysterious ways." Oh yeah, the fossils are there. The thing is they showed Darwin was wrong because transitional forms weren't found and the evolution he thought would be gradual actually came in surges, hence punctuated equilibrium.

    What causes those surges, or is it just a wave like phenomena that's an artifact of constant mutuation at varying rates? Can you tell me? Has anyone figured out the DNA clock yet, or has the idea of constant rate mutation been abandoned? Despite the fact that the bird's wing is a bad example, the idea of irreducable complexity needs to be dealt with. If an organ is only useful in its current form and if there is no evidence how it or its components served the ancestors of whatever species it is in question, that's a problem. Has anyone found any precambrian species that are in any way relatable to modern forms of life, or are we still dealing with sponges and bacterial mats? No matter how much time has passed, 3.5 billion year or whatever, explaining how modern animals with their varied DNA and characteristics evolved from single cell bacteria or bacterial mats is, I think, a trickier problem that you seem to think.
    Last edited by CDB; 12-24-2005 at 06:01 PM.

  8. Science refuses to consider alternative explanations to their unanswered quandaries if they oppose divergent aspects of evolution.
    I know ID or creationism is not science, I know, but the scientific community should at least hold to their admitted processes of deducing the answers to problems and admit when another explanantion makes more sense than their own, regardless of whether or not the alternative lies within the realm of "science."
  9. Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCrownedOne
    Science refuses to consider alternative explanations to their unanswered quandaries if they oppose divergent aspects of evolution.
    I know ID or creationism is not science, I know, but the scientific community should at least hold to their admitted processes of deducing the answers to problems and admit when another explanantion makes more sense than their own, regardless of whether or not the alternative lies within the realm of "science."
    I think you are correct.That is the limitation of the scientific method.There are truths that cannot be accepted as such,because they are yet to be proven through the given methodology.Technology allows us to prove things more quickly and efficiently,Yet it is lead by the very progressive thinking that it tries to disavow(science sometimes unproves things equally well). It is unfortunate that where as the ID community has room for the unexplained,which they refer to as miracles,the scientific community by definition can not acknowledge the unexplained.I think that instict is our greatest evolutionary trait,yet science and society(both secular and religious) chooses to ignore it.

  10. How is analyzing data and coming to the conclusion that the subject shows the charactaristics of design and therefore a designer somehow not scientific? If you ascribe God status to the designer perhaps you have stepped outside the boundaries of what can rightfully be considered science but Not simply because there appears to be unknown forces at work. What if it turned out that we were designed by a highly advanced alien race who have been using this planet for genetic experimentation & manipulation? (far fetched I know) Would this scenario cease to be considered scientific?
    Recent log:

  11. Quote Originally Posted by CDB

    I then pointed out in another post that the MECHANISM of evolution, my example of the eye, is the weak part of evolution and where they level their attacks. So it seems you're disagreeing with someone who agrees The lack of a mechanism for evolution and lack of a mechanism for the very formation of life are SERIOUS weaknesses in evolutionary theory.
    I have already covered both of these issues in above posts. Either respond to them or cease from repeating the same issues.

  12. To respond to the eye thing: There is no advantage to evolving only 1 part or non-functional parts of an irreducibly complex system such as an eye. All systems must be in place simultaneously to function and therefore gain some sort of advantage in the natural selection model. Like the mousetrap example. Without all the parts of the mousetrap working together as a whole it is useless to catch mice. Try building one without a base or a spring or a trigger or a hammer and you will find you have a useless invention. Now apply this to all the parts of the human eye. Retina, cone, lens and so on and so on. IMHO
    Recent log:

  13. Quote Originally Posted by bpmartyr
    How is analyzing data and coming to the conclusion that the subject shows the charactaristics of design and therefore a designer somehow not scientific? If you ascribe God status to the designer perhaps you have stepped outside the boundaries of what can rightfully be considered science but Not simply because there appears to be unknown forces at work. What if it turned out that we were designed by a highly advanced alien race who have been using this planet for genetic experimentation & manipulation? (far fetched I know) Would this scenario cease to be considered scientific?
    It is not the design or the pattern recognition by the observer,both of which can be tested and proven.It is the assignment of a force outside of nature(or mankind)as the "designer" which has not to date been "proven",which makes ID unscientific.Just because a theory is not scientific, does not mean it is false. Even Fox Moulder would agree that "the truth is out there"

  14. Quote Originally Posted by bpmartyr
    To respond to the eye thing: There is no advantage to evolving only 1 part or non-functional parts of an irreducibly complex system such as an eye. All systems must be in place simultaneously to function and therefore gain some sort of advantage in the natural selection model. Like the mousetrap example. Without all the parts of the mousetrap working together as a whole it is useless to catch mice. Try building one without a base or a spring or a trigger or a hammer and you will find you have a useless invention. Now apply this to all the parts of the human eye. Retina, cone, lens and so on and so on. IMHO
    This is simply not true. A light sensitive spot that can distinguish light from dark can orient an organism. What you are saying is true of the complex eye, but no one is suggesting that the complex eye came into existence as it is.

  15. Quote Originally Posted by canadian champ
    This is simply not true. A light sensitive spot that can distinguish light from dark can orient an organism. What you are saying is true of the complex eye, but no one is suggesting that the complex eye came into existence as it is.
    What is not true about it and why?

    Nobody said a light sensitive spot could not orient an organism.

    What I am saying about the complex eye is that it is irreducibly complex and must have came into existance as it is.
    Recent log:

  16. Quote Originally Posted by bpmartyr
    What I am saying about the complex eye is that it is irreducibly complex and must have came into existance as it is.
    I disagree. It did not have to come into existance as is, and I described an alternate method in a previous post.


  17. So how could the light sensitive cell be reduced to a simpler form? It must be reduced if it is to have evolved.

  18. Quote Originally Posted by canadian champ
    I disagree. It did not have to come into existance as is, and I described an alternate method in a previous post.

    In a previous post you state: "You are asking the wrong questions, "What are they adapting to? What necessitates the eye?"
    As I said before, the mutations are random and if they confer an advantage to that organism, selective pressures (such as survival, prey avoidance, sexual selection, etc) can select for it and thus it may become a main stay in the environment. Nothing neccesitates the eye, but being able to distinguish light from dark is an advantage for many creatures. Certain fish that live in total darkness do not have functional eyes. Why? If random mutations caused the development of sight, this creature would not have any advantage over blind fish. Thus, everntually this mutation will be weened out.

    Assuming this to be true, I stated earlier that there are no advantages to the organism to keeping only partial parts of the irreducibly complex whole. A light sensitive spot is one thing but to say that the spot then formed a rod, which gave no advantage and then a cone, again no advantage, and so on and so on for all the intricate parts and process that make up the human eye seems to be a bit of a stretch of the imagination. If what you say is true, these individual parts would have been weened out by natural selection long before they could have eventually come together and become somehow beneficial to the organism.

    I have never seen a plausable example of the "alternate method" of which you speak. Enlighten me.

    And please understand, I do not want to "argue" this. I enjoy debating it and appreciate everyones willingness to do so without "strawman" tactics and non sequitur or ad hominem posts.
    Recent log:

  19. Keep in mind im not trying to be a perv in this post.

    When we are talking about neccesity, what neccessitates a penis? "We" were reproducing before as single cells just fine. Why change?

    Everything about our genitals would have to come into being simultaneosly. What would neccesitate testicles if you dont have a penis? And a penis and testicles would not form if there were not a mode of transportation for the "goods".(not to mention that the testicles do more than just produce sperm) And a vas defferens is not going to form if there is not a penis and testicles.(there are many more complex parts but I have proved my point without mentioning them). And also what is so unique about the genitals which is part of why I brought them up is that the male and female genitals go together perfectly. They have to have come to be perfectly to function in both the male and the female. And there is no such thing as an animal or a human without genitals completely intact. period

    As said earlier "everything would have to come into existance perfectly at once."

  20. Also some funny things evolutionists say without realizing what they are doing.

    A "Law" is something that has to be enforced.
    The "Law of Gravity" is enforced by God.
    So if you choose to believe in evolution I would suggest you drop the "Law" part and just call it Gravity.(otherwise you contradict yourself)
    (Yet we can,for the lack of a better word,"escape" this "Law" with faith and walk on water or float in the air........if we have faith that is.

    Also you all (from what I have seen) call yourself "Human Beings."
    A "Being: was, is, and will be for eternity. As soon as a "Being" "isn't", it is obviously not a Being. (so i guess you could say that sentence i just typed "doesn't work").
    So again if you choose to believe in evolution I would suggest that you drop the "Being" part and just call yourself a "Human" or homosapien.(agian if you dont you contradict yourself)

  21. Quote Originally Posted by canadian champ
    This is simply not true. A light sensitive spot that can distinguish light from dark can orient an organism. What you are saying is true of the complex eye, but no one is suggesting that the complex eye came into existence as it is.
    And I saw no suggestion for a mechanism of how this happened in your posts. Yes, the ability to tell light from dark would confer an advantage to some species over others. And yes, I would say it's most likely possible that a basic method of doing so could have evolved through natural selection and evironmental pressure. How it went from that basic structure to a more advanced one isn't explainable. Yes, varying forms of the eye exist which would suggest it developed over time. But the jump from light sensitive cells to the complex organ most animals have today is a big one and not one that can necessarily be accounted for by random mutation and natural selection over time. Possibly so? Yes. Probably so? Yes. But until how it is so is proven, perhaps Darwinists could show a little more grace to those who question the idea. Going from the ability to tell light from dark to mutations that produce the varying forms of the eye is a very big leap, and one that can't necessarily be proven by looking at the activity of bacteria in a dish.

    Which is all moot anyway, as far as arguing with me personally. I don't doubt evolution happens, I'm just saying its mechanisms and therefore its status as proven fact are a little shakier than most admit. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, just that a lot more studying is needed to see what in fact does happen. Simply applying the same theory of simple organisms to complex ones and saying the timeframe has to be stretched out isn't enough in my opinion. Countless versions of mutations have been observed in nature, in humans and other species, brought about by random events, radiation exposure, etc. Why hasn't one single example confered an advantage, why hasn't one single mutation been beneficial? What causes the surge of mutation and new species that seems to appear regularly in the fossil record? Random mutation over time and natural selection in response to environmental pressure don't have any special characteristics that would seem to lead to anything other than slow, even evolution over time. The fossil record that we have doesn't seem to show this.

    Some of my favorite columnists said it best:

    The main problem I have with people arguing for Darwinian evolution – by which I mean the theory that all current species share a common ancestor – is that they very often treat a certain fact as evidence for evolution even though they rely on the theory of evolution in the first place to arrive at this judgment. To avoid misunderstanding: I am not accusing the average scientist of making up data or of presenting a faulty chain of reasoning (although this may happen too). Rather, I am saying that a scientist will state a true fact in support of evolution, even though this fact is consistent with non-evolutionary theories." - Bob Murphy

    One difference between faith and science is that science allows with reasonable grace the questioning of theory. A physicist who doubts, say, the theory of general relativity will be expected to show good cause for his doubt. He won’t be dismissed in chorus as delusional and an enemy of truth.

    "By contrast, he who doubts the divinity of Christ, the prophethood of Mohammed, or the sanctity of natural selection will be savaged. It is the classic emotional reaction of the True Believer to whom dissent is not just wrong but intolerable. Which is unfortunate. If the faithful of evolution spent as much time examining their theory as they do defending it, they might prove to be right, or partly right, or discover all manner of interesting things heretofore unsuspected." - Fred Reed

    Now, I consider the evidence that 1) all of the creatures living on the Earth today evolved, over many, many millions of years, from a common ancestor, to be about as conclusive as we can ever expect an empirical case to be. Furthermore, I think there is little cause to doubt that 2) random mutation and natural selection do take place, or that their effects can transform the character of living forms across generations. But Neo-Darwinism asserts something far stronger than simply the conjunction of those two propositions, namely, that 3) life is nothing more than the chance outcome of random mutation and natural selection, and that evolution can be completely explained on the basis of those two mechanisms. The support for 3) is much, much thinner than is that for 1) or 2). And, I think if you examine the arguments typically presented by Neo-Darwinists, you will discover that they repeatedly offer evidence for 1) or 2) as if it were evidence for 3), probably, I suspect, because they have confused the joint assertion of 1) and 2) with the assertion of 3) themselves." - Gene Callahan

  22. Quote Originally Posted by bpmartyr
    To respond to the eye thing: There is no advantage to evolving only 1 part or non-functional parts of an irreducibly complex system such as an eye. All systems must be in place simultaneously to function and therefore gain some sort of advantage in the natural selection model. Like the mousetrap example. Without all the parts of the mousetrap working together as a whole it is useless to catch mice. Try building one without a base or a spring or a trigger or a hammer and you will find you have a useless invention. Now apply this to all the parts of the human eye. Retina, cone, lens and so on and so on. IMHO
    The problem with irreducable complexity is that something with a purpose always has to be used to demonstrate the example. For example, the mousetrap has a purpose, every piece was designed for a specific reason. While a portion of our eye has a purpose in its current context that doesn't mean that was always its purpose, or that it couldn't have been used for something else in the past, or that a different less developed version of it wasn't used for something in the past. Irreducable complexity has more merrit I think in probability. What is the probability that so many mutations and changes over time, that so many seperate and distinct pieces of an organ could be developed randomly and yet come together in such a functional and complex relationship? The most common answer is that it happened, therefore it can't be that improbable. The same could be said of winning the lottery, it has to be viewed in context though.

    And despite assertions that this is explained, it isn't. Yes, varying forms of the eye have been seen over time. This would suggest some development. However, the evolution of a specialized group of cells for telling light from dark to even the most basic example of a current eye can't be explained. How did the vitreous humor evolove? How did the lens evolve? How did the optic nerve and the brain's ability to distiguish between so many different wavelengths evolve? Micro evolution can explain how something becomes more and more specialized over time, but not how it can transform from something simple to something massively complex, almost completely different from its original form. It can explain why a species might shrink or grow in size. It can explain why certain colors of animal might be more likely to survive and breed. It can explain how the eye gets better over time. It can't explain how the complex organ itself came into being.

    Canadian and Bean claim that people who question this don't take the timeframe into account or don't understand this or that. I would say they don't realize the seeming enormity and complexity of what they are claiming and the proof that such a claim would require. We'd need a little more than an incomplete fossil record to prove this.

  23. Quote Originally Posted by bpmartyr
    A light sensitive spot is one thing but to say that the spot then formed a rod, which gave no advantage and then a cone, again no advantage, and so on and so on for all the intricate parts and process that make up the human eye seems to be a bit of a stretch of the imagination. If what you say is true, these individual parts would have been weened out by natural selection long before they could have eventually come together and become somehow beneficial to the organism.

    I have never seen a plausable example of the "alternate method" of which you speak. Enlighten me.
    Exactly. Proof is claimed but never presented. How did cones, rods, tears, the muscles that focus the lens, the various layers of tissue, the cornea, the iris, the nerve connections, the systems in the brain that make use of this sensory data, etc., evolve? Everything about the eye would have had to evolve. Evolutionists claim nothing simply popped into existence as is. However, that is exactly what they are saying. Unless it is shown that all these complex pieces can evolve over time and through natural selection, that is from simpler forms of the eye we get all the various modern complex parts through these processes, then some of them will literally have to have poofed into existence through random mutation, have been recognized through natural selection as useful, and then incorporated into the existing sight system, either in their current role or in another role until each particular part 'found' its current role.

    The probability of something like this happening not only with the eye but with every specialized organ we see in every species today seems astronomical. Now, it seems to have happened that way in my opinion. Unlike other people who have evolution as their world view I just don't deny that the problem of how it happened is fairly enormous, and can't simply be solved by drawing phyllogeny trees that are really nothing but guess work.

  24. The problem isn't proving that the eye evolved from light sensitive organisms, but proving the mechanism. And, you're asking how...This was addressed in my first post, this is where many people get confused. They can prove we evolved as primates, but they cannot prove how we broke off into different primate branch.

    And, intelligent design doesn't do much for the eye (since we're on topic). If it were designed intelligently, it would be as flawed as it is. here is a nice little excerpt:

    "Another way to respond to the theory of intelligent design is to carefully examine complex biological systems for errors that no intelligent designer would have committed. Because intelligent design works from a clean sheet of paper, it should produce organisms that have been optimally designed for the tasks they perform. Conversely, because evolution is confined to modifying existing structures, it should not necessarily produce perfection. Which is it?
    The eye, that supposed paragon of intelligent design, offers an answer. We have already sung the virtues of this extraordinary organ, but we have not considered specific aspects of its design, such as the neural wiring of its light-sensing units. These photoreceptor cells, located in the retina, pass impulses to a series of interconnecting cells that eventually pass information to the cells of the optic nerve, which leads to the brain.
    An intelligent designer, working with the components of this wiring, would choose the orientation that produces the highest degree of visual quality. No one, for example, would suggest that the neural connections should be placed in front of the photoreceptor cells—thus blocking the light from reaching them—rather than behind the retina. Incredibly, this is exactly how the human retina is constructed. . .
    A more serious flaw occurs because the neural wiring must poke directly through the wall of the retina to carry the nerve impulses produced by photoreceptor cells to the brain. The result is a blind spot in the retina—a region where thousands of impulse-carrying cells have pushed the sensory cells aside....
    None of this should be taken to suggest that the eye functions poorly. It is a superb visual instrument that serves us exceedingly well.... The key to the intelligent design theory . . . is not whether an organ or system works well but whether its basic structural plan is the obvious product of design. The structural plan of the eye is not."

  25. Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
    The problem isn't proving that the eye evolved from light sensitive organisms, but proving the mechanism. And, you're asking how...This was addressed in my first post, this is where many people get confused. They can prove we evolved as primates, but they cannot prove how we broke off into different primate branch.
    True, but without a mechanism the claim is is nothing more than an observation that seems to fit the facts as we know them. The problem there is that the facts can fit other ideas too, some more plausible than others obviously. There are plenty of problems with ID from a logical standpoint. But even a lunatic can come up with something interesting every now and then. Irreducable complexity used not as inference for a designer but as a statement on general probability is an interesting question. What evolution seems to say is that every single complex organic system that exists is the product of random mutation and incorporation or weening of those mutations over time. A lot of time. I just don't think that's enough, not to explain how a single celled organism became the varied life we see around us today, all plants and all animals. It is what the evidence suggests but there just seems to be a major piece or pieces missing somewhere. I don't think a creator is necessary, but I also don't think a random series of events can necessarily be all that's behind life as it exists today, not of the nature that's currently put forward.

    How about a multitude of creators though? Not in terms of gods but of the species themselves. What role does the relative intelligence of each species play in evolution? Given the fact that humans aren't exactly the most wonderfully suited animals for living in the wild, I'd say this is an unaddressed question. Our young are weak, our senses are poor, our bodies are delicate, our defenses are poor, our upright posture leaves our vital and reproductive organs exposed, we have an unfortunate habit of killing our own kind in vast numbers relatively frequently, etc. It would seem an ill suited or at least odd resume for the most dominant species in the history of this planet.

    And, intelligent design doesn't do much for the eye (since we're on topic). If it were designed intelligently, it would be as flawed as it is. here is a nice little excerpt:
    All true and good. I just think Darwinists are a bit ridiculous in their assertions of how solid evolution is. As I said to Bean, "We know it happens just not how it happens," sounds too much like "The Lord works in mysterious ways" to me. Does the theory seem to fit observable fact so far? Yes. That doesn't mean it's the only idea that can fit those facts. And while ID assumes a lot and puts forward conclusions that aren't necessary based on the evidence, that doesn't mean Darwinists couldn't be a little more open to criticism rather than derriding everyone who has the slightest disagreement with the theory as a religious zealot and borderline lunatic. I mean in one sentence evolution is compared to gravity regarding levels of certainty, but in the next it's admitted that gravity can actually be tested and observed in the here and now and macro evolution of complex organisms can't. Observed facts that are consistent with a theory don't necessarily prove the theory, especially when the conclusion is already presumed to be known.

    And broad support of the scientific community doesn't mean anything in the end. Scientists are human, and just as fallible as any others. I'm sure we all know what most of them think of steroid use, does that broad, shared opinion make it true? Or, do their preconceived notions about steroid use make them rather selective as to how evidence is selected and evaluated? Some, hell most I've seen, of the studies supposedly 'proving' liver toxicity of oral steroids involve megadosing over ridiculous periods of time. Do the same thing with any drug and you'll likely get results showing toxicity. But few if any of those scientists are yelling to take Tylenol or Advil off store shelves, but would likely **** an electon microscope if steroids were more widely available, even if only by prescription.

    If a scientist came out and said "We know steroids melt your liver, we're just not sure as to how yet," would you just take that on faith? That's my take on a lot of people who support evolution. They believe it but actually haven't given much though to it and what it implies. And that's just basically replacing one religion with another, and even if it's called 'science' for most people it's just as much based on faith as Christianity.


Similar Forum Threads

  1. Not really a powerlifter but heres my max bench video.
    By Konvicted in forum Powerlifting/Strongman
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 09-11-2008, 02:24 AM
  2. is something wrong with this site it says im not logged in but
    By Outside Backer in forum General Chat
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-26-2005, 05:33 PM
  3. Not an Anabolic, but ?? about Clen vs ECA
    By Guido in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 08-01-2005, 05:14 PM
  4. Noobie here....well not really.
    By JTrans in forum General Chat
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-15-2004, 10:27 PM
  5. M1T not really working??
    By WannaGro in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-13-2004, 04:26 PM
Log in
Log in