Science Disproves Evolution

[align=center]
Ape-Men? 6
[/align]

Another study, which examined the inner ear bone of australopithecine, used to maintain balance, showed a striking similarity to those of chimpanzees and gorillas, but great differences from those of humans (n). Likewise, their pattern of dental development corresponds to chimpanzees, not humans (o). Claims were madeâ??based on one australopithecine fossil (a 3.5-foot-tall, long-armed, 60-pound adult called Lucy)â??that all australopithecines walked upright in a human manner. However, studies of Lucyâ??s entire anatomy, not just a knee joint, now show that this is very unlikely. She likely swung from the trees (p) and was similar to pygmy chimpanzees (q). The australopithecines are probably extinct apes (r).

n. â??Among the fossil hominids, the australopithecines show great-ape-like proportions [based on CAT scans of their inner ears] and H. erectus shows modern-human-like proportions.â?� Fred Spoor et al., â??Implications of Early Hominid Labyrinthine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion,â?� Nature, Vol. 369, 23 June 1994, p. 646. [Many H. erectus bones are probably those of H. sapiens.]

o. â??The closest parallel today to the pattern of dental development of [australopithecines] is not in people but in chimpanzees.â?� Bruce Bower, â??Evolutionâ??s Youth Movement,â?� Science News, Vol. 159, 2 June 2001, p. 347.

p. William L. Jungers, â??Lucyâ??s Limbs: Skeletal Allometry and Locomotion in Australopithecus Afarensis,â?� Nature, Vol. 297, 24 June 1982, pp. 676â??678.

Jeremy Cherfas, â??Trees Have Made Man Upright,â?� New Scientist, Vol. 93, 20 January 1983, pp. 172â??178.

Jack T. Stern Jr. and Randall L. Susman, â??The Locomotor Anatomy of Australopithecus Afarensis,â?� American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 60, March 1983, pp. 279â??317.

q. Adrienne Zihlman, â??Pigmy Chimps, People, and the Pundits,â?� New Scientist, Vol. 104, 15 November 1984, pp. 39â??40.

r. â??At present we have no grounds for thinking that there was anything distinctively human about australopithecine ecology and behavior. ... [T]hey were surprisingly apelike in skull form, premolar dentition, limb proportions, and morphology of some joint surfaces, and they may still have been spending a significant amount of time in the trees.â?� Matt Cartmill et al., â??One Hundred Years of Paleoanthropology,â?� American Scientist, Vol. 74, Julyâ??August 1986, p. 417.

â??The proportions calculated for africanus turned out to be amazingly close to those of a chimpanzee, with big arms and small legs. ... â??One might say we are kicking Lucy out of the family tree,â?? says Berger.â?� James Shreeve, â??New Skeleton Gives Path from Trees to Ground an Odd Turn,â?� Science, Vol. 272, 3 May 1996, p. 654.

â??There is indeed, no question which the Australopithecine skull resembles when placed side by side with specimens of human and living ape skulls. It is the apeâ??so much so that only detailed and close scrutiny can reveal any differences between them.â?� Solly Zuckerman, â??Correlation of Change in the Evolution of Higher Primates,â?� Evolution as a Process, editors Julian Huxley, A. C. Hardy, and E. B. Ford (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1954), p. 307.

â??We can safely conclude from the fossil hominoid material now available that in the history of the globe there have been many more species of great ape than just the three which exist today.â?� Ibid., pp. 348â??349.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 26. Ape-Men?

[align=center]
Ape-Men? 7
[/align]

For about 100 years the world was led to believe that Neanderthal man was stooped and apelike. This false idea was based upon some Neanderthals with bone diseases such as arthritis and rickets (s). Recent dental and x-ray studies of Neanderthals suggest that they were humans who matured at a slower rate and lived to be much older than people today (t). Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon man are now considered completely human. Artistsâ?? drawings of â??ape-men,â?� especially their fleshy portions, are often quite imaginative and are not supported by the evidence (u).

Furthermore, the techniques used to date these fossils are highly questionable.

s. Francis Ivanhoe, â??Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?â?� Nature, Vol. 227, 8 August 1970, pp. 577â??578.

William L. Straus Jr. and A. J. E. Cave, â??Pathology and the Posture of Neanderthal Man,â?� The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 32, December, 1957, pp. 348â??363.

Bruce M. Rothschild and Pierre L. Thillaud, â??Oldest Bone Disease,â?� Nature, Vol. 349, 24 January 1991, p. 288.

t. Jack Cuozzo, Buried Alive: The Startling Truth about Neanderthal Man (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 1998).

Jack Cuozzo, â??Early Orthodontic Intervention: A View from Prehistory,â?� The Journal of the New Jersey Dental Association, Vol. 58, No. 4, Autumn 1987, pp. 33â??40.

u. Boyce Rensberger, â??Facing the Past,â?� Science 81, October 1981, p. 49.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 26. Ape-Men?

Poor, poor science. Neanderthals were a distinct species of Hominid. We are also a modern version of hominid. If you want the straight story on Neanderthal you need to read The Neanderthals - Changing the Image of Mankind by Erik Trinkhaus and Pat Shipman, the recognized authorities on Neanderthals. Not junk scientists. :thumbsup:

Anthropology 101 should set any rational person straight on the theory of evolution. We are in a long line of primates descended from the tree shrew. :D

[align=center]
Fossil Man
[/align]

Bones of modern-looking humans have been found deep in undisturbed rocks that, according to evolution, were formed long before man began to evolve. Examples include the Calaveras skull (a), the Castenedolo skeletons (b), Reckâ??s skeleton (c), and others (d). Remains such as the Swanscombe skull, the Steinheim fossil, and the Vertesszöllos fossil present similar problems (e). Evolutionists almost always ignore these remains.

a. J. D. Whitney, â??The Auriferous Gravels of the Sierra Nevada of California,â?� Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology of Harvard College, Vol. 6, 1880, pp. 258â??288.

Bowden, pp. 76â??78.

Frank W. Cousins, Fossil Man (Emsworth, England: A. E. Norris & Sons Ltd., 1971), pp. 50â??52, 82, 83.

W. H. B., â??Alleged Discovery of An Ancient Human Skull in California,â?� American Journal of Science, Vol. 2, 1866, p. 424.

Edward C. Lain and Robert E. Gentet, â??The Case for the Calaveras Skull,â?� Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 33, March 1997, pp. 248â??256.

For many years, a story circulated that the Calaveras skull, buried 130 feet below ground, was a practical joke. This tidy explanation conveniently overlooks the hundreds of human bones and artifacts (such as spearheads, mortars and pestles, and dozens of bowls made of stone) found in that part of California. These artifacts have been found over the years under undisturbed strata and a layer of basaltic lava. See, for example:

Whitney, pp. 262â??264, 266, 274â??276.

G. Frederick Wright, Man and the Glacial Period (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1897), pp. 294â??301.

George F. Becker, â??Antiquities from under Tuolumne Table Mountain in California,â?� Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, Vol. 2, 20 February 1891, pp. 189â??200.

b. Bowden, pp. 78â??79.

Cousins, pp. 48â??50, 81.

Sir Arthur Keith correctly stated the dilemma evolutionists face with the Castenedolo skeletons:

â??As the student of prehistoric man reads and studies the records of the â??Castenedoloâ?� find, a feeling of incredulity rises within him. He cannot reject the discovery as false without doing an injury to his sense of truth, and he cannot accept it as a fact without shattering his accepted beliefs.â?� Arthur Keith, The Antiquity of Man (London: Williams and Norgate, Ltd., 1925), p. 334.

However, after examining the strata above and below the Castenedolo skeletons, and after finding no indication that they were intrusively buried, Keith surprisingly concluded that the enigma must be resolved by an intrusive burial. He justified this by citing the unfossilized condition of the bones. However, these bones were encased in a clay layer. Clay would prevent water from transporting large amounts of dissolved minerals into the bone cells and explain the lack of fossilization. Fossilization depends much more on chemistry than age.

c. Bowden, pp. 183â??193.

d. Ibid., pp. 79â??88.

e. Fix, pp. 98â??105.

J. B. Birdsell, Human Evolution (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1972), pp. 316â??318.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 27. Fossil Man

Christian pseudo science. No human ancestor bones or our relative hominds from which we derived are older then approximately 4.5 million years. Give or take a hundred thousand or so years. :thumbsup:

[align=center]
Chemical Elements of Life 1
[/align]

The chemical evolution of life is ridiculously improbable. What could improve the odds? One should begin with an earth having high concentrations of the key elements comprising life, such as carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen [a]. However, the closer one examines these elements, the more unlikely evolution appears.

Carbon. Rocks that supposedly preceded life have very little carbon [b]. One must imagine a toxic, carbon-rich atmosphere to supply the needed carbon if life evolved. For comparison, todayâ??s atmosphere holds only 1/80,000 of the carbon that has been on the earthâ??s surface since the first fossils formed.

Oxygen. No evolutionary theory has been able to explain why earthâ??s atmosphere has so much oxygen. Too many substances should have absorbed oxygen on an evolving earth [c]. Besides, if the early earth had oxygen in its atmosphere, compounds (called amino acids) needed for life to evolve would have been destroyed by oxidation [d]. But if there had been no oxygen, there would have been no ozone (a form of oxygen) in the upper atmosphere. Without ozone to shield the earth, the sunâ??s ultraviolet radiation would quickly destroy life [e]. The only known way for both ozone and life to be here is for both to come into existence simultaneouslyâ??in other words, by creation.

a. The four most abundant chemical elements, by weight, in the human body are oxygen (65%), carbon (18%), hydrogen (10%), and nitrogen (3%).

b. Carbon is only the 18th most abundant element, by weight, in the earthâ??s crust. Furthermore, almost all carbon is tied up in organic matter, such as coal and oil, or in sediments deposited after life began, such as limestone or dolomite.

c. â??The cause of the initial rise in oxygen concentration presents a serious and unresolved quantitative problem.â?� Leigh Van Valen, â??The History and Stability of Atmospheric Oxygen,â?� Science, Vol. 171, 5 February 1971, p. 442.

d. Since 1930, knowledgeable evolutionists have realized that life could not have evolved in the presence of oxygen. If no oxygen was in the atmosphere as life evolved, how did the atmosphere get its oxygen?

Cyanobacteria break down carbon dioxide and water and release oxygen. In 1987, William J. Schopf claimed that he and his graduate student had discovered fossils of 3.4-billion-year-old cyanobacteria. This, he said, is how the atmosphere gained its oxygen after these bacteriaâ??shielded by a shallow sea from ultraviolet radiationâ??evolved. Evolutionists eagerly accepted this long-awaited discovery as a key part of their theory of how life evolved.

Schopfâ??s former graduate student and other experts have now charged Schopf with withholding evidence that those fossils were not cyanobacteria. Most experts feel betrayed by Schopf, who now accepts that his â??specimens were not oxygen-producing cyanobacteria after all.â?� [See Rex Dalton, â??Squaring Up over Ancient Life,â?� Nature, Vol. 417, 20 June 2002, pp. 782â??784.] A foundational building block in the evolution storyâ??that had become academic orthodoxyâ??has crumbled.

e . Hitching, p. 65.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 28. Chemical Elements of Life

[align=center]
Chemical Elements of Life 2
[/align]

Nitrogen. Clays and various rocks absorb nitrogen. Had millions of years passed before life evolved, the sediments that preceded life should be filled with nitrogen. Searches have never found such sediments [f].

Basic chemistry does not support the evolution of life [g].

f. â??If there ever was a primitive soup [to provide the chemical compounds for evolving life] , 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. Indeed to the contrary, the very oldest of sediments ... are extremely short of nitrogen.â?� J. Brooks and G. Shaw, Origin and Development of Living Systems (New York: Academic Press, 1973), p. 359.

â??No evidence exists that such a soup ever existed.â?� Abel and Trevors, p. 3.

g. â??The acceptance of this theory [lifeâ??s evolution on earth] and its promulgation by many workers [scientists and researchers] who have certainly not always considered all the facts in great detail has in our opinion reached proportions which could be regarded as dangerous.â?� Ibid., p. 355.

Certainly, ignoring indisputable, basic evidence in most scientific fields is expensive and wasteful. Failure to explain the evidence to students betrays a trust and misleads future teachers and leaders.

Readers should consider why, despite the improbabilities and lack of proper chemistry, many educators and the media have taught for a century that life evolved on earth. Abandoning or questioning that belief leaves only one strong contenderâ??creation. Questioning evolution in some circles invites ostracism, much like stating that the proverbial emperor â??has no clothes.â?�

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 28. Chemical Elements of Life

14C doesn't have a half life of 5000 years either!!!!!!!!!! :bigsmoke:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gypski

14C doesn't have a half life of 5000 years either!!!!!!!!!! :bigsmoke:

---

LMFAO - YECFAIL

I wonder if Pahu has noticed yet that all these links are rel="nofollow" so no Google Juice for you my friend :D

Seems like the whole purpose of this thread (or spamfest) is to try and gain traffic from this site.

Pahu also posts this junk all over the web

Seems like he has a full time job of it? Paid for by the Creation institute or some crap I would guess.

[align=center]
Proteins 1
[/align]

Living matter is composed largely of proteins, which are long chains of amino acids. Since 1930, it has been known that amino acids cannot link up if oxygen is present. That is, proteins could not have evolved from chance chemical reactions if the atmosphere contained oxygen. However, the chemistry of the earthâ??s rocks, both on land and below ancient seas, shows the earth had oxygen before the earliest fossils formed [a]. Even earlier, solar radiation would have broken water vapor into oxygen and hydrogen. Some hydrogen, the lightest of all chemical elements, would then have escaped into outer space, leaving behind excess oxygen [b].

a. An authoritative study concluded that the early biosphere contained oxygen before the earliest fossils (bacteria) formed. Iron oxides were found that â??imply a source of oxygen enough to convert into insoluble ferric material the ferrous solutions that must have first formed the flat, continuous horizontal layers that can in some sites be traced over hundreds of kilometers.â?� Philip Morrison, â??Earthâ??s Earliest Biosphere,â?� Scientific American, Vol. 250, April 1984, pp. 30â??31.

To form proteins, amino acids must also be highly concentrated in an extremely pure liquid [c]. However, the early oceans or ponds would have been far from pure and would have diluted amino acids, so the required collisions between amino acids would rarely occur [d]. Besides, amino acids do not naturally link up to form proteins. Instead, proteins tend to break down into amino acids [e].
Charles F. Davidson, â??Geochemical Aspects of Atmospheric Evolution,â?� Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 53, 15 June 1965, pp. 1194â??1205.

Steven A. Austin, â??Did the Early Earth Have a Reducing Atmosphere?â?� ICR Impact, No. 109, July 1982.

â??In general, we find no evidence in the sedimentary distributions of carbon, sulfur, uranium, or iron, that an oxygen-free atmosphere has existed at any time during the span of geological history recorded in well-preserved sedimentary rocks.â?� Erich Dimroth and Michael M. Kimberley, â??Precambrian Atmospheric Oxygen: Evidence in the Sedimentary Distributions of Carbon, Sulfur, Uranium, and Iron,â?� Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Vol. 13, No. 9, September 1976, p. 1161.

â??What is the evidence for a primitive methane-ammonia atmosphere on earth? The answer is that there is no evidence for it, but much against it.â?� Philip H. Abelson, â??Chemical Events on the Primitive Earth,â?� Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 55, June 1966, p. 1365.

b. R. T. Brinkmann, â??Dissociation of Water Vapor and Evolution of Oxygen in the Terrestrial Atmosphere,â?� Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 74, No. 23, 20 October 1969, pp. 5355â??5368.

c. â??It is difficult to imagine how a little pond with just these components, and no others [no contaminants], could have formed on the primitive earth. Nor is it easy to see exactly how the precursors would have arisen.â?� Francis Crick, Life Itself (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), p. 85.

d. â??But when multiple biopolymers must all converge at the same place at the same time to collectively interact in a controlled biochemical cooperative manner, faith in â??self-organizationâ?? becomes â??blind belief.â?? No empirical data or rational scientific basis exists for such a metaphysical leap.â?� Abel and Trevors, p. 9.

e. â??I believe this [the overwhelming tendency for chemical reactions to move in the direction opposite to that required for the evolution of life] to be the most stubborn problem that confronts usâ??the weakest link at present in our argument [for the origin of life].â?� George Wald, â??The Origin of Life,â?� p. 50.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 29. Proteins

[align=center]
Proteins 2
[/align]

Furthermore, the proposed energy sources for forming proteins (earthâ??s heat, electrical discharges, or solar radiation) destroy the protein products thousands of times faster than they could have formed [f]. The many attempts to show how life might have arisen on earth have instead shown (a) the futility of that effort [g], (b) the immense complexity of even the simplest life [h], and (c) the need for a vast intelligence to precede life.

f. â??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.â?� D. E. Hull, â??Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Spontaneous Generation,â?� Nature, Vol. 186, 28 May 1960, p. 694.

Pitman, p. 140.

Duane T. Gish, Speculations and Experiments Related to Theories on the Origin of Life, ICR Technical Monograph, No. 1 (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1972).

g. â??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, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.â?� Crick, p. 88.

Francis Crick, a Nobel Prize winner and the co-discoverer of the DNA molecule, did not give up. He reasoned that if life could not have evolved on earth, it must have evolved somewhere else in our galaxy and been transported to earthâ??an old theory called panspermia. Just how life evolved on a distant planet is never explained. Crick proposed directed panspermiaâ??that an advanced civilization sent bacteria to earth. Crick (p. 15) recognized that â??it is difficult to see how viable spores could have arrived here, after such a long journey in space, undamaged by radiation.â?� He mistakenly thought that a spacecraft might protect the bacteria from cosmic radiation. Crick grossly underestimated the problem. [See Eugene N. Parker, â??Shielding Space Travelers,â?� Scientific American, Vol. 294, March 2006, pp. 40â??47.]

h. Robert Shapiro, Origins (New York: Bantam Books, 1986).

The experiments by Harold Urey and Stanley Miller are often mentioned as showing that the â??building blocks of lifeâ?� can be produced in the laboratory. Not mentioned in these misleading claims are:

These â??building blocksâ?� are merely the simpler amino acids. The most complex amino acids have never been produced in the laboratory.

Most products of these chemical reactions are poisonous to life.

Amino acids are as far from a living cell as bricks are from the Empire State Building.

Half the amino acids produced have the wrong handedness.

Urey and Millerâ??s experiments contained a reducing atmosphere, which the early earth did not have, and components, such as a trap, that do not exist in nature. (A trap quickly removes chemical products from the destructive energy sources that make the products.)

All of the above show why intelligence and design are necessary to produce even the simplest components of life.

â??The story of the slow paralysis of research on lifeâ??s origin is quite interesting, but space precludes its retelling here. Suffice it to say that at present the field of origin-of-life studies has dissolved into a cacophony of conflicting models, each unconvincing, seriously incomplete, and incompatible with competing models. In private even most evolutionary biologists will admit that science has no explanation for the beginning of life.â?� [/i] Behe, â??Molecular Machines,â?� pp. 30â??31.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 29. Proteins

[align=center]
The First Cell 1
[/align]

If, despite virtually impossible odds, proteins arose by chance processes, there is not the remotest reason to believe they could ever form a membrane-encased, self-reproducing, self-repairing, metabolizing, living cell (a).

a . â??Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. ... We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully â??designedâ?? to have come into existence by chance.â?� Dawkins, pp. 1, 43.

Yet, after such acknowledgments, Dawkins, an avowed atheist and perhaps the worldâ??s leading Darwinian, tries to show that life came about by chance without an intelligent designer. Dawkins fails to grasp the complexity in life.

â??The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.â?� Denton, p. 264.

â??Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of whichâ??a functional protein or geneâ??is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artefacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of twentieth-century technology. It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate.â?� Ibid., p. 342.

â??We have seen that self-replicating systems capable of Darwinian evolution appear too complex to have arisen suddenly from a prebiotic soup. This conclusion applies both to nucleic acid systems and to hypothetical protein-based genetic systems.â?� Shapiro, p. 207.

â??We do not understand how this gap in organization was closed, and this remains the most crucial unsolved problem concerning the origin of life.â?� Ibid., p. 299.

â??More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.â?� Klaus Dose, â??The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers,â?� Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1988, p. 348.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 30. The First Cell

[align=center]
The First Cell 2
[/align]

There is no evidence that any stable states exist between the assumed naturalistic formation of proteins and the formation of the first living cells. No scientist has ever demonstrated that this fantastic jump in complexity could have happenedâ??even if the entire universe had been filled with proteins (b).

b . â??The events that gave rise to that first primordial cell are totally unknown, matters for guesswork and a standing challenge to scientific imagination.â?� Lewis Thomas, foreword to The Incredible Machine, editor Robert M. Pool (Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Book Service, 1986), p. 7.

â??No experimental system yet devised has provided the slightest clue as to how biologically meaningful sequences of subunits might have originated in prebiotic polynucleotides or polypeptides.â?� Kenyon, p. A-20.

Experts in this field hardly ever discuss publicly how the first cell could have evolved. However, the worldâ??s leading evolutionists know this problem exists. For example, on 27 July 1979, Luther D. Sunderland taped an interview with Dr. David Raup, Dean of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. This interview was later transcribed and authenticated by both parties. Sunderland told Raup, â??Neither Dr. Patterson [of the British Museum (Natural History)] nor Dr. Eldredge [of the American Museum of Natural History] could give me any explanation of the origination of the first cell.â?� Dr. Raup replied, â??I canâ??t either.â?�

â??However, the macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture. The available facts do not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose on this planet.â?� David E. Green and Robert F. Goldberger, Molecular Insights Into the Living Process (New York: Academic Press, 1967), pp. 406â??407.

â??Every time I write a paper on the origins of life I swear I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts, though I must confess that in spite of this, the subject is so fascinating that I never seem to stick to my resolve.â?� Crick, p. 153.

This fascination explains why the â??origin of lifeâ?� topic frequently arisesâ??despite so much evidence showing that it cannot happen by natural processes. Speculations abound.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 30. The First Cell

[align=center]
Barriers, Buffers, and Chemical Pathways
[/align]

Living cells contain thousands of different chemicals, some acidic, others basic. Many chemicals would react with others were it not for an intricate system of chemical barriers and buffers. If living things evolved, these barriers and buffers must also have evolvedâ??but at just the right time to prevent harmful chemical reactions. How could such precise, almost miraculous, events have happened for each of millions of species (a)?

All living organisms are maintained by thousands of chemical pathways, each involving a long series of complex chemical reactions. For example, the clotting of blood, which involves 20â??30 steps, is absolutely vital to healing a wound. However, clotting could be fatal, if it happened inside the body. Omitting one of the many steps, inserting an unwanted step, or altering the timing of a step would probably cause death. If one thing goes wrong, all the earlier marvelous steps that worked flawlessly were in vain. Evidently, these complex pathways were created as an intricate, highly integrated system (b).

a. This delicate chemical balance, upon which life depends, was explained to me by biologist Terrence R. Mondy.

b. Behe, pp. 77â??97.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 31. Barriers, Buffers, and Chemical Pathways

[align=center]
Genetic Distances 1
[/align]

Similarities between different forms of life can now be measured with sophisticated genetic techniques.

Proteins. â??Genetic distancesâ?� can be calculated by taking a specific protein and examining the sequence of its components. The fewer changes needed to convert a protein of one organism into the corresponding protein of another organism, supposedly the closer their relationship. These studies seriously contradict the theory of evolution {a}.

An early computer-based study of cytochrome c, a protein used in energy production, compared 47 different forms of life. This study found many contradictions with evolution based on this one protein. For example, according to evolution, the rattlesnake should have been most closely related to other reptiles. Instead, of these 47 forms (all that were sequenced at that time), the one most similar to the rattlesnake was man (b). Since this study, experts have discovered hundreds of similar contradictions (c).

a. Dr. Colin Pattersonâ??Senior Principal Scientific Officer in the Palaeontology Department at the British Museum (Natural History)â??gave a talk on 5 November 1981 to leading evolutionists at the American Museum of Natural History. He compared the amino acid sequences in several proteins of different animals. The relationships of these animals, according to evolutionary theory, have been taught in classrooms for decades. Patterson explained to a stunned audience that this new information contradicts the theory of evolution. In his words, â??The theory makes a prediction; weâ??ve tested it, and the prediction is falsified precisely.â?� Although he acknowledged that scientific falsification is never absolute, he admitted â??evolution was a faith,â?� he was â??duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way,â?� and â??evolution not only conveys no knowledge but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is harmful to systematics [the science of classifying different forms of life].â?� â??Prominent British Scientist Challenges Evolution Theory,â?� Audio Tape Transcription and Summary by Luther D. Sunderland, personal communication. For other statements from Pattersonâ??s presentation see: Tom Bethell, â??Agnostic Evolutionists,â?� Harperâ??s Magazine, February 1985, pp. 49â??61.

â??... it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies ...â?� Christian Schwabe, â??On the Validity of Molecular Evolution,â?� Trends in Biochemical Sciences, July 1986, p. 280.

â??It appears that the neo-darwinian hypothesis is insufficient to explain some of the observations that were not available at the time the paradigm [the theory of evolution] took shapeâ?¦.One might ask why the neo-darwinian paradigm does not weaken or disappear if it is at odds with critical factual information. The reasons are not necessarily scientific ones but rather may be rooted in human nature.â?� Ibid., p. 282.

â??Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often donâ??t resemble those drawn up from morphology.â?� Trisha Gura, â??Bones, Molecules ... or Both?â?� Nature, Vol. 406, 20 July 2000, p. 230.

b. Robert Bayne Brown, Abstracts: 31st International Science and Engineering Fair (Washington D.C.: Science Service, 1980), p. 113.

Ginny Gray, â??Student Project â??Rattlesâ?? Science Fair Judges,â?� Issues and Answers, December 1980, p. 3.

While the rattlesnakeâ??s cytochrome c was most similar to manâ??s, manâ??s cytochrome c was most similar to that of the rhesus monkey. (If this seems like a contradiction, consider that City B could be the closest city to City A, but City C might be the closest city to City B.)

c. â??As morphologists with high hopes of molecular systematics, we end this survey with our hopes dampened. Congruence between molecular phylogenies is as elusive as it is in morphology and as it is between molecules and morphology.â?� Colin Patterson et al., p. 179.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 32. Genetic Distances

it seems pahus science was around at the time of creation. everythings dated in the mid 80s. did we settle this argument?

[align=center]
Genetic Distances 2
[/align]

DNA and RNA. Comparisons can be made between the genetic material of different organisms. The list of organisms that have had all their genes sequenced and entered in databases, such as â??GenBank,â?� is doubling each year. Computer comparisons of each gene with all other genes in the database show too many genes that are completely unrelated to any others {d}. Therefore, an evolutionary relationship between genes is highly unlikely. Furthermore, there is no trace at the molecular level for the traditional evolutionary series: simple sea life, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals {e}. Each category of organism appears to be almost equally isolated {f}.

{d}. Gregory J. Brewer, â??The Imminent Death of Darwinism and the Rise of Intelligent Design,â?� ICR Impact, No. 341, November 2001, pp. 1â??4.
Field, pp. 748â??753.

{e}. Denton, p. 285.

{f}. â??The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the proteinsâ?? amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them in any sort of evolutionary series.â?� Ibid., p. 289.

â??Thousands of different sequences, protein and nucleic acid, have now been compared in hundreds of different species but never has any sequence been found to be in any sense the lineal descendant or ancestor of any other sequence.â?� Ibid., pp. 289â??290.

â??Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by intermediates. Thus molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology.â?� Ibid., p. 290.

â??There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been available one century ago it would have been seized upon with devastating effect by the opponents of evolution theory like Agassiz and Owen, and the idea of organic evolution might never have been accepted.â?� Ibid., pp. 290â??291.

â??In terms of their biochemistry, none of the species deemed â??intermediateâ??, â??ancestralâ?? or â??primitiveâ?? by generations of evolutionary biologists, and alluded to as evidence of sequence in nature, show any sign of their supposed intermediate status.â?� Ibid., p. 293.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 32. Genetic Distances

[align=center]
Genetic Distances 3
[/align]

Humans vs. Chimpanzees. Evolutionists say that the chimpanzee is the closest living relative to humans. For two decades (1984â??2004), evolutionists and the media claimed that human DNA is about 99% similar to chimpanzee DNA. These statements had little scientific justification, because they were made before anyone had completed the sequencing of human DNA and long before the sequencing of chimpanzee DNA had begun.

Chimpanzee and human DNA have now been completely sequenced and rigorously compared. The differences, which total about 4%, are far greater and more complicated than evolutionists suspected (g). Those differences include about â??thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertions/deletions, and various chromosomal rearrangements (h).â?� Although itâ??s only 4%, a huge DNA chasm separates humans from chimpanzees.

Finally, evolutionary trees, based on the outward appearance of organisms, can now be compared with the organismsâ?? genetic information. They conflict in major ways (i).

g. After sequencing just the first chimpanzee chromosome, surprises were apparent.

â??Surprisingly, though, nearly 68,000 stretches of DNA do differ to some degree between the two speciesâ?¦Extra sections of about 300 nucleotides showed up primarily in the human chromosomeâ?¦Extra sections of other sizesâ??some as long as 54,000 nucleotidesâ??appear in both species.â?� Bruce Bower, â??Chimp DNA Yields Complex Surprises,â?� Science News, Vol. 165, 12 June 2004, p. 382.

â??Indeed, 83% of the 231 coding sequences, including functionally important genes, show differences [even] at the amino acid sequence levelâ?¦.the biological consequences due to the genetic differences are much more complicated than previously speculated.â?� H. Watanabe et al., â??DNA Sequence and Comparative Analysis of Chimpanzee Chromosome 22,â?� Nature, Vol. 429, 27 May 2004, pp. 382, 387.

h. Tarjei S. Mikkelsen et al., â??Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome and Comparison with the Human Genome,â?� Nature, Vol. 437, 1 September 2005, p. 69.

i. â??Instead, the comparisons [using DNA] have yielded many versions of the tree of life that differ from the rRNA tree and conflict with each other as well.â?� Elizabeth Pennisi, â??Is It Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?â?� Science, Vol. 284, 21 May 1999, p. 1305.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 32. Genetic Distances

[align=center]
Genetic Information 1
[/align]

The genetic information in the DNA of each human cell is roughly equivalent to a library of 4,000 books (a).

a. Carl Sagan showed, using straight-forward calculations, why one cellâ??s worth of genetic information is the equivalent of 4,000 books of printed information. Each of Saganâ??s 4,000 books had 500 pages with 300 words per page. {See Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden (New York: Random House, 1977), p. 25.}

Each book would have a volume of about 50 cubic inches. An adult humanâ??s body contains about 10^14 (10 to the 14th power) cells. Somewhat less than 1,000 cubic miles have been eroded from the Grand Canyon. Therefore, we can say that if every cell in one personâ??s body were reduced to its 4,000 books, it would fill the Grand Canyon 78 times.

The Moon is 240,000 miles from Earth. If the DNA in a human cell were stretched out and connected, it would be more than 7 feet long. If all this DNA in one personâ??s body were placed end-to-end, it would extend to the Moon 552,000 times.

The DNA in a human cell weighs 6.4 x 10^-12 (10 to the â??12 power) grams. [See Monroe W. Strickberger, Genetics, 2nd edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1976), p. 54.] Probably less than 50 billion people have lived on earth. If so, one copy of the DNA of every human who ever livedâ??enough to define the physical characteristics of all those people in excruciating and microscopic detailâ??would weigh less than the weight of one aspirin.

â??...there is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over....There is enough storage capacity in the DNA of a single lily seed or a single salamander sperm to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica 60 times over. Some species of the unjustly called â??primitiveâ?? amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1,000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.â?� Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, pp. 116â??117.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 33. Genetic Information

[align=center]
Genetic Information 2
[/align]

If matter and life (perhaps a bacterium) somehow arose, the probability that mutations and natural selection produced this vast amount of information is essentially zero (b). It would be analogous to continuing the following procedure until 4,000 books were produced (c):

a. Start with a meaningful phrase.
b. Retype it, but make some errors and insert a few letters.
c. See if the new phrase is meaningful.
d. If it is, replace the original phrase with it.
e. Return to step â??b.â?�

b. â??Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is insensibly different from zero.â?� Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 3

â??No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong attempts. The same is true for living material.â?� Ibid., p. 148.

Not mentioned by Hoyle and Wickramasinghe is the simple fact that even a few correct words typed by the hordes of monkeys would decay long before a complete sentence of Shakespeare was completed. Correspondingly, a few correct sequences of amino acids would decay long before a complete protein was completed, not to mention all the thousands of proteins that must be in their proper place in order to have a living cell (minus, of course, its DNA).

â??From the beginning of this book we have emphasized the enormous information content of even the simplest living systems. The information cannot in our view be generated by what are often called â??naturalâ?? processes, as for instance through meteorological and chemical processes occurring at the surface of a lifeless planet. As well as a suitable physical and chemical environment, a large initial store of information was also needed. We have argued that the requisite information came from an â??intelligenceâ??, the beckoning spectre.â?� Ibid., p. 150.

â??Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate.â?� [/color][/i] Ibid., p. 141.

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe go on to say that our own intelligences must reflect some sort of vastly superior intelligence, [color=blue][i] â??even to the extreme idealized limit of God. â?� They believe life was created by some intelligence somewhere in outer space and later was transported to Earth. Ibid., p. 144.

â??All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.â?� Lee Spetner, Not by Chance (Brooklyn, New York: The Judaica Press, Inc., 1996), p. 138.

c. Murray Eden, as reported in â??Heresy in the Halls of Biology: Mathematicians Question Darwinism,â?� Scientific Research, November 1967, p. 64.

â??It is our contention that if â??randomâ?? is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural lawsâ??physical, physico-chemical, and biological.â?� Murray Eden, â??Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,â?� Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 33. Genetic Information

[align=center]
Genetic Information 3
[/align]

To produce just the enzymes in one organism would require more than 10^40,000 trials (d). (To begin to large 10^40,000 is, realize that the visible universe has fewer than 10^80 atoms in it.)

Since 1970, evolutionists have referred to large segments of DNA as â??junk DNA,â?� because it supposedly had no purpose and was left over from our evolutionary past. We now know this â??junkâ?� explains much of the complexity of organisms. Use of the term â??junk DNAâ?� reflected past ignorance (e).

d. â??The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)2,000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.â?� Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 24.

â??Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one part in 10^40,000 must be judged superior to random shuffling [of evolution]. The theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40,000 of being the correct explanation of the many curious facts discussed in preceding chapters. Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.â?� Ibid., p. 130.

After explaining the above to a scientific symposium, Hoyle said that evolution was comparable with the chance that â??a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.â?� Fred Hoyle, â??Hoyle on Evolution,â?� Nature, Vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p. 105.

e. â??The failure to recognize the importance of introns [so-called junk DNA] may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.â?� John S. Mattick, as quoted by W. Wayt Gibbs, â??The Unseen Genome: Gems among the Junk,â?� Scientific American, Vol. 289, November 2003, pp. 49â??50.

â??What was damned as junk because it was not understood may, in fact, turn out to be the very basis of human complexity.â?� Ibid., p. 52.

[color=blue][i] â??Noncoding RNAs (ncRNAs) [so-called junk RNA] have been found to have roles in a great variety of processes, including transcription regulation, chromosome replication, RNA processing and modification, messenger RNA stability and translation, and even protein degradation and translocation. Recent studies indicate that ncRNAs are far more abundant and important than initially imagined.â?� Gisela Storz, â??An Expanding Universe of Noncoding RNAs,â?� Science, Vol. 296, 17 May 2002, p. 1260.

â??The term â??junk DNAâ?? is a reflection of our ignorance.â?� Gretchen Vogel, â??Why Sequence the Junk?â?� Science, Vol. 291, 16 February 2001, p. 1184.

â??...non-gene sequences [what evolutionists called â??junk DNAâ??] have regulatory roles.â?� John M. Greally, â??Encyclopaedia of Humble DNA,â?� Nature, Vol. 447, 14 June 2007, p. 782.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 33. Genetic Information

[align=center]
Genetic Information 4


The Elephant in the Living Room[/align]

Writer George V. Caylor interviewed Sam, a molecular biologist. George asked Sam about his work. Sam said he and his team were scientific â??detectives,â?� working with DNA and tracking down the cause of disease. Here is their published conversation.

G: â??Sounds like pretty complicated work.â?�
S: â??You canâ??t imagine how complicated!â?�
G: â??Try me.â?�
S: â??Iâ??m a bit like an editor, trying to find a spelling mistake inside a document larger than four complete sets of Encyclopedia Britannica. Seventy volumes, thousands and thousands of pages of small print words.â?�
G: â??With the computer power, you can just use â??spell checkâ??!â?�
S: â??There is no â??spell checkâ?? because we donâ??t know yet how the words are supposed to be spelled. We donâ??t even know for sure which language. And itâ??s not just the â??spelling errorâ?? weâ??re looking for. If any of the punctuation is out of place, or a space out of place, or a grammatical error, we have a mutation that will cause a disease.â?�
G: â??So how do you do it?â?�
S: â??We are learning as we go. We have already â??readâ?? over two articles in that encyclopedia, and located some â??typoâ??sâ??. It should get easier as time goes by.â?�
G: â??How did all that information happen to get there?â?�
S: â??Do you mean, did it just happen? Did it evolve?â?�
G: â??Bingo. Do you believe that the information evolved?â?�
S: â??George, nobody I know in my profession truly believes it evolved. It was engineered by â??genius beyond genius,â?? and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book. Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise. A bit like Neil Armstrong believing the moon is made of green cheese. He's been there!â?�
G: â??Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?â?�
S: â??No. It all just evolved.â?�
G: â??What? You just told me â?? ?â?�
S: â??Just stop right there. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold on to two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you donâ??t believe in evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lecturesâ??everything would stop. Iâ??d be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldnâ??t earn a decent living.â?�
G: â??I hate to say it, Sam, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.â?�
S: â??The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankindâ??s worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the â??elephant in the living roomâ??.â?�
G: â??What elephant?â?�
S: â??Design. Itâ??s like the elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up an enormous amount of space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isnâ??t there!â?�
George V. Caylor, â??The Biologist,â?� The Ledger, Vol. 2, Issue 48, No. 92, 1 December 2000, p. 2. (On The Right Side with George Caylor) Printed with permission.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 33. Genetic Information

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pahu78

d. â??The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)2,000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.â?� Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p. 24.

â??Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one part in 10^40,000 must be judged superior to random shuffling [of evolution]. The theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40,000 of being the correct explanation of the many curious facts discussed in preceding chapters. Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.â?� Ibid., p. 130.

After explaining the above to a scientific symposium, Hoyle said that evolution was comparable with the chance that â??a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.â?� Fred Hoyle, â??Hoyle on Evolution,â?� Nature, Vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p. 105.

---

I think this argument is enough to prove that life could NOT appear by itself just by chance.

Even if we suppose that all life evolved from a single virus, which is way simpler than the simplest cell, still the probability of it being formed by pure chance is still way too small.

The smallest known virus has like 3000 DNA-units, and so the chance of it appearing by chance is 1 in 4^3000 or 1 in 10^1800, which is still an awesomely small probability, which can be considered null for all the practical purposes.

As it is said above:

"such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident."

Anyway... i wonder what kind of absurd arguments the hard-headed evolutionists would use to reply this...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coelho

Anyway... i wonder what kind of absurd arguments the hard-headed evolutionists would use to reply this...

---

They wouldn't need ANY arguments, Abiogenesis has nothing to with evolution especially natural selection - this is comparing Apples & Skyscrapers.

This thread would actually be funny if it wasn't so redundantly stupid.

Most of this thread unfortunately is being supported by people not even remotely qualified to discuss it. Pahu doesn't even know what he's copy-pasting and although that makes it sort of funny at the same time it gets a bit tiring that this isn't actually a discussion.

I won't add the whole article here but two can certainly play the copy-paste game. You can read the whole page (and you really should, dear reader) over on Talk Origins. As we have now branched off into Astronomy (Fred Hoyle wasn't a biologist) and Abiogenesis I figured why the hell not...

Problems with the creationists' "it's so improbable" calculations

1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coelho

I think this argument is enough to prove that life could NOT appear by itself just by chance.

---

Coelho - you might want to read this article:
Self-Reproducing Molecules Reported by MIT Researchers

It's all about self-replicating molecules & this isn't even new science.

Granted it gets rejected by creationists but then again they usually leave common sense at the door anyway - but I know you are a Physics dude so you should be able to get your head around it no problemo. For more information rty searching for "aminoadenosine triacid ester" - that should give you plenty of references.

This isn't 'absolute proof' of anything, especially abiogenesis but it is a bloody good start and imho a lot better than the usual 'goddidit' argument peddled by creation "science" (an oxymoron if I ever saw one) or ID or whatever-the-fuck they have rebadged it into this week.

Delta, you're doing it wrong. If you want to play the copy-paste game you have to have the overwhealming bulk of your post be stuff you didn't write, and you have to make like six posts in a row like that.
You over-thought it methinks. :P

[align=center]
DNA Production and Repair
[/align]

DNA cannot function without at least 75 preexisting proteins (a) but proteins are produced only at the direction of DNA (b). Because each needs the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the other (c). The components of these manufacturing systems must have come into existence simultaneously. This implies creation.

Nor can DNA function without a system to decode it, without a system to transcribe it into messenger RNA, and without preexisting ribosomes and enzymes. Again, creation.

When a cell divides, its DNA is copied, sometimes with errors. Each animal and plant has machinery that identifies and corrects most errors (d); if it did not, the organism would deteriorate and become extinct. If evolution happened, which evolved first, DNA or its repair mechanism? Each requires the other.

(a). Ribosomes, complex structures that assemble proteins, have about 55 different proteins. More than twenty additional proteins are required to attach the 20 different types of amino acids to transfer RNA. DNA binding proteins and other proteins, specifically enzymes, also participate in the process.

(b). Richard E. Dickerson, â??Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life,â?� Scientific American, Vol. 239, September 1978, p. 73.

â??The amino acids must link together to form proteins, and the other chemicals must join up to make nucleic acids, including the vital DNA. The seemingly insurmountable obstacle is the way the two reactions are inseparably linkedâ??one canâ??t happen without the other. Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein.â?� Hitching, p. 66.

(c). â??The origin of the genetic code presents formidable unsolved problems. The coded information in the nucleotide sequence is meaningless without the translation machinery, but the specification for this machinery is itself coded in the DNA. Thus without the machinery the information is meaningless, but without the coded information the machinery cannot be produced! This presents a paradox of the â??chicken and eggâ?? variety, and attempts to solve it have so far been sterile.â?� John C. Walton, (Lecturer in Chemistry, University of St. Andrews, Fife, Scotland), â??Organization and the Origin of Life,â?� Origins, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1977, pp. 30â??31.

â??Genes and enzymes are linked together in a living cellâ??two interlocked systems, each supporting the other. It is difficult to see how either could manage alone. Yet if we are to avoid invoking either a Creator or a very large improbability, we must accept that one occurred before the other in the origin of life. But which one was it? We are left with the ancient riddle: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?â?� Shapiro, p. 135.

â??Because DNA and proteins depend so intimately on each other for their survival, itâ??s hard to imagine one of them having evolved first. But itâ??s just as implausible for them to have emerged simultaneously out of a prebiotic soup.â?� Carl Zimmer, â??How and Where Did Life on Earth Arise?â?� Science, Vol. 309, 1 July 2005, p. 89.

(d). Tomas Lindahl and Richard D. Wood, â??Quality Control by DNA Repair,â?� Science, Vol. 286, 3 December 1999, pp. 1897-1905.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 34. DNA Production and Repair

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Esoteric416

Delta, you're doing it wrong. If you want to play the copy-paste game you have to have the overwhealming bulk of your post be stuff you didn't write, and you have to make like six posts in a row like that.
You over-thought it methinks. :P

---

Lulzy! :thumbsup:

I think I need to use more Blue too...

[align=center]
Handedness: Left and Right 1
[/align]

Genetic material, DNA and RNA, is composed of nucleotides. In living things, nucleotides are always â??right-handed.â?� (They are called right-handed, because a beam of polarized light passing through them rotates like a right-handed screw.) Nucleotides rarely form outside life, but when they do, half are left-handed, and half are right-handed. If the first nucleotides formed by natural processes, they would have â??mixed-handednessâ?� and therefore could not evolve lifeâ??s genetic material. In fact, â??mixedâ?� genetic material cannot even copy itself (a).

Each type of amino acid, when found in nonliving material or when synthesized in the laboratory, comes in two chemically equivalent forms. Half are right-handed, and half are left-handedâ??mirror images of each other. However, amino acids in life, including plants, animals, bacteria, molds, and even viruses, are essentially all left-handed (b) â??except in some diseased or aging tissue (c). No known natural process can isolate either the left-handed or right-handed variety. The mathematical probability that chance processes could produce merely one tiny protein molecule with only left-handed amino acids is virtually zero (d).

A similar observation can be made for a special class of organic compounds called sugars. In living systems, sugars are all right-handed. Based on our present understanding, natural processes produce equal proportions of left-handed and right-handed sugars. Because sugars in living things are right-handed, random natural processes apparently did not produce life.

If any living thing took in (or ate) amino acids or sugars with the wrong handedness, the organismâ??s body could not process it. Such food would be useless, if not harmful. Because evolution favors slight variations that enhance survivability and reproduction, consider how advantageous a mutation might be that switched (or inverted) a plantâ??s handedness. â??Invertedâ?� (or wrong-handed) trees would proliferate rapidly, because they would no longer provide nourishment to bacteria, mold, or termites. â??Invertedâ?� forests would fill the continents. Other â??invertedâ?� plants and animals would also benefit and would overwhelm the balance of nature. Why do we not see such species with right-handed amino acids and left-handed sugars? Similarly, why are there not more poisonous plants? Why donâ??t beneficial mutations let most carriers defeat their predators? Beneficial mutations are rarer than most evolutionists believe.

(a). â??Equally disappointing, we can induce copying of the original template only when we run our experiments with nucleotides having a right-handed configuration. All nucleotides synthesized biologically today are righthanded. Yet on the primitive earth, equal numbers of right- and left-handed nucleotides would have been present. When we put equal numbers of both kinds of nucleotides in our reaction mixtures, copying was inhibited.â?� Leslie E. Orgel, â??The Origin of Life on the Earth,â?� Scientific American, Vol. 271, October 1994, p. 82.

â??There is no explanation why cells use L [left-handed] amino acids to synthesize their proteins but D [right-handed] ribose or D-deoxyribose to synthesize their nucleotides or nucleic acids. In particular, the incorporation of even a single L-ribose or L-deoxyribose residue into a nucleic acid, if it should ever occur in the course of cellular syntheses, could seriously interfere with vital structure-function relationships. The well-known double helical DNA structure does not allow the presence of L-deoxyribose; the replication and transcription mechanisms generally require that any wrong sugar such as L-deoxyribose has to be eliminated, that is, the optical purity of the D-sugars units has to be 100%.â?� Dose, p. 352.

(b). An important exception occurs in a component in cell membranes of eubacteria. There the amino acids are right-handed. This has led many to conclude that they must have evolved separately from all other bacteria. Because evolving the first living cell is so improbable, having it happen twice, in effect, compounds the improbability. [See Adrian Barnett, â??The Second Coming: Did Life Evolve on Earth More Than Once?â?� New Scientist, Vol. 157, No. 2121, 14 February 1998, p. 19.]

(c). Recent discoveries have found that some amino acids, most notably aspartic acid, flip (at certain locations in certain proteins) from the normal left-handed form to the right-handed form. Flipping increases with age and correlates with disease, such as Alzheimerâ??s disease, cataracts, and arteriosclerosis. As one ages, flipping even accumulates in facial skin, but not other skin. [See Noriko Fujii, â??D-Amino Acid in Elderly Tissues,â?� Biological and Pharmaceutical Bulletin, Vol. 28, September 2005, pp. 1585â??1589.]

If life evolved, why did this destructive tendency to flip not destroy cells long before complete organisms evolved?

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 35. Handedness: Left and Right

1. The amino acids that are used in life, like most other aspects of living things, are very likely not the product of chance. Instead, they likely resulted from a selection process. A simple peptide replicator can amplify the proportion of a single handedness in an initially random mixture of left- and right-handed fragments (Saghatelian et al. 2001; TSRI 2001). Self-assemblies on two-dimensional surfaces can also amplify a single handedness (Zepik et al. 2002). Serine forms stable clusters of a single handedness which can select other amino acids of like handedness by subtituting them for serine; these clusters also incorporate other biologically important molecules such as glyceraldehyde, glucose, and phosphoric acid (Takats et al. 2003). An excess of handedness in one kind of amino acid catalyzes the handedness of other organic products, such as threose, which may have figured prominently in proto-life (Pizzarello and Weber 2004).

2. Amino acids found in meteorites from space, which must have formed abiotically, also show significantly more of the left-handed variety, perhaps from circularly polarized UV light in the early solar system (Engel and Macko 1997; Cronin and Pizzarello 1999). The weak nuclear force, responsible for beta decay, produces only electrons with left-handed spin, and chemicals exposed to these electrons are far more likely to form left-handed crystals (Service 1999). Such mechanisms might also have been responsible for the prevalence of left-handed amino acids on earth.

3. The first self-replicator may have had eight or fewer types of amino acids (Cavalier-Smith 2001). It is not all that unlikely that the same handedness might occur so few times by chance, especially if one of the amino acids was glycine, which has no handedness.

4. Some bacteria use right-handed amino acids, too (McCarthy et al. 1998).

Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.

Creationism however has ZERO evidence to support it.

[align=center]
Handedness: Left and Right 2
[/align]

No known natural process can isolate either the left-handed or right-handed variety. The mathematical probability that chance processes could produce merely one tiny protein molecule with only left-handed amino acids is virtually zero (d).

A similar observation can be made for a special class of organic compounds called sugars. In living systems, sugars are all right-handed. Based on our present understanding, natural processes produce equal proportions of left-handed and right-handed sugars. Because sugars in living things are right-handed, random natural processes apparently did not produce life.

If any living thing took in (or ate) amino acids or sugars with the wrong handedness, the organismâ??s body could not process it. Such food would be useless, if not harmful. Because evolution favors slight variations that enhance survivability and reproduction, consider how advantageous a mutation might be that switched (or inverted) a plantâ??s handedness. â??Invertedâ?� (or wrong-handed) trees would proliferate rapidly, because they would no longer provide nourishment to bacteria, mold, or termites. â??Invertedâ?� forests would fill the continents. Other â??invertedâ?� plants and animals would also benefit and would overwhelm the balance of nature. Why do we not see such species with right-handed amino acids and left-handed sugars? Similarly, why are there not more poisonous plants? Why donâ??t beneficial mutations let most carriers defeat their predators? Beneficial mutations are rarer than most evolutionists believe.

d. Many researchers have attempted to find plausible natural conditions under which [left-handed] L-amino acids would preferentially accumulate over their [right-handed] D-counterparts, but all such attempts have failed. Until this crucial problem is solved, no one can say that we have found a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. Instead, these isomer preferences point to biochemical creation.â?� Kenyon, p. A-23.

Evolutionists who work in this field are continually seeking a solution. From time to time someone claims that it has been solved, but only after checking the details does one find that the problem remains. In Germany, in 1994, a doctoral candidate, Guido Zadel, claimed he had solved the problem. Supposedly, a strong magnetic field will bias a reaction toward either the left-handed or right-handed form. Origin-of-life researchers were excited. Zadelâ??s doctorate was awarded. At least 20 groups then tried to duplicate the results, always unsuccessfully. Later, Zadel admitted that he had dishonestly manipulated his data. [See Daniel Clery and David Bradley, â??Underhanded â??Breakthroughâ?? Revealed,â?� Science, Vol. 265, 1 July 1994, p. 21.]

James F. Coppedge, Evolution: Possible or Impossible? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), pp. 71â??79.

A. E. Wilder-Smith, The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1981), pp. 15â??32, 154â??160.

Dickerson, p. 76.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 35. Handedness: Left and Right

[align=center]
Improbabilities
[/align]

To claim life evolved is to demand a miracle. The simplest conceivable form of single-celled life should have at least 600 different protein molecules. The mathematical probability that even one typical protein could form by chance arrangements of amino acid sequences is essentially zero (a)â??far less than 1 in 10^450.To appreciate the magnitude of 10^450, realize that the visible universe is about 10^28 inches in diameter.

From another perspective, suppose we packed the entire visible universe with a â??simpleâ?� form of life, such as bacteria. Next, suppose we broke all their chemical bonds, mixed all their atoms, then let them form new links.If this were repeated a billion times a second for 20 billion years under the most favorable temperature and pressure conditions throughout the visible universe, would one bacterium of any type reemerge? The chances (b) are much less than one in 10^99,999,999,873. Your chances of randomly drawing one preselected atom out of a universe packed with atoms are about one chance in 10^112â??much better.

(a) Coppedge, pp. 71â??72.

â??Whether one looks to mutations or gene flow for the source of the variations needed to fuel evolution, there is an enormous probability problem at the core of Darwinist and neo-Darwinist theory, which has been cited by hundreds of scientists and professionals. Engineers, physicists, astronomers, and biologists who have looked without prejudice at the notion of such variations producing ever more complex organisms have come to the same conclusion: The evolutionists are assuming the impossible. Even if we take the simplest large protein molecule that can reproduce itself if immersed in a bath of nutrients, the odds against this developing by chance range from one in 10^450 (engineer Marcel Goulay in Analytical Chemistry) to one in 10^600 (Frank Salisbury in American Biology Teacher).â?� Fix, p. 196.

â??I donâ??t know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the Earth. Astronomers will have a little difficulty at understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so, the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The â??othersâ?? are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations of biblical miracles.â?� Fred Hoyle, â??The Big Bang in Astronomy,â?� New Scientist, Vol. 92, 19 November 1981, p. 526.

â??The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is impossible in probability. ... A practical person must conclude that life didnâ??t happen by chance.â?� Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory and Molecular Biology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), p. 257.

(b) Harold J. Morowitz, Energy Flow in Biology: Biological Organization as a Problem in Thermal Physics (New York: Academic Press, 1968), pp. 2â??12, 44â??75.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 36. Improbabilities

pahu78... yer a nutter

[align=center]
Metamorphosis 1
[/align]

Many animals experience an amazing transformation that refutes evolution. One example is the monarch butterfly. As a 2-week-old caterpillar, it builds a chrysalis around itself. Then its complex organs disintegrate. From an evolution perspective, this should cause its extinctionâ??a thousand times over. Two weeks later, a beautiful butterfly emerges with different and even more remarkable capabilities. Some people might believe that a complex machine, such as an automobile, evolved by natural processes, but if they saw that machine disintegrate and quickly reemerge as an airplane, only the most naive and unscientific would still believe that natural processes could produce such marvelous designs.

Most insects (87%) undergo complete metamorphosis. It begins when a larva (such as a caterpillar) builds a cocoon around itself. Then its body inside disintegrates into a thick, pulp-like liquid. Days, weeks, or months later, the adult insect emergesâ??one that is dramatically different, amazingly capable, and often beautiful, such as a butterfly. Food, habitat, and behavior of the larva also differ drastically from the adult.
Evolution claims that:

Mutations slightly alter an organismâ??s genetic material which later generations inherit. On rare occasions the alterations are beneficial, enabling the offspring to reproduce more of themselves and the improved genetic material. [Supposedly] after many generations, dramatic changes, even new organs, accumulate.

If this were true, each organism must be able to reproduce and must be superior, in some sense, to its ancestors. How then could metamorphosis evolve in many stages (a)?

a. â??Certainly it [metamorphosis] demonstrates the absurdity of invoking natural selection by successive mutation to explain such an obviously, yet subtly programmed, process. Why on that basis, should the ancestral insect have survived the mutations that projected it into the chrysalid stage, from which it could not yet develop into an adult? Where was natural selection then? How could pre-programmed metamorphosis, in insect, amphibian or crustacean, ever have evolved by chance? Indeed, how could development have evolved piece-meal? The ball is in the evolutionistâ??s court, tangled in a net of inexplicability.â?� Michael Pitman, â??Adam and Evolutionâ?� (London: Rider & Company, 1984), p. 71.

â??Apart from the many difficulties in understanding how such a radical change [as metamorphosis] comes about, there is the larger question of why it should happen? Can there really be an evolutionary advantage in constructing one sort of organism and then throwing it away and starting again?â?� Taylor, p. 177.

â??There is no evidence of how such a remarkable plan of life [metamorphosis] ever came about ...â?� Peter Farb, â??The Insects,â?� Life Nature Library (New York: Time Incorporated, 1962), p. 56.

â??Does any one really believe that the ancestors of butterflies were as adults just masses of pulp enveloped in cases, having no means of procuring external nourishment? If not, it is for the evolutionist to explain how the process of metamorphosis became intercalated in the life-history of the caterpillar.â?� Douglas Dewar, â??The Transformist Illusionâ?� (Murfreesboro, Tennessee: DeHoff Publications, 1957), p. 213.

Finding how metamorphosis evolved in one species, genus, family, order, or class is just the first question. Because many different larva-to-adult patterns exist, many other explanations are also needed.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 37. Metamorphosis

[align=center]
Metamorphosis 2
[/align]

What mutations could improve a larva? Certainly none that destroyed its nerves, muscles, eyes, brain, and most other organs, as occurs within a cocoon. So, even if a larva improved, it later ends up as â??mush.â?� From an evolutionary standpoint, liquefying complex organs is a giant step backwards. As Michael Pitman wryly noted:

â??Maggots will more or less dissolve themselves when developing into a fly. Was the process pre-programmed from the first â??production runâ?�? Or was the ancestral fly a dissolved maggot? (b)â?�

The millions of changes inside the thick liquid never produce something survivable or advantageous in the outside world until the adult completely forms. How did the genetic material for both larva and adult develop? Which came first, larva or adult? What mutations could transform a crawling larva into a flying monarch butterfly that can accurately navigate 3,000 miles using a brain the size of a pinhead (c)? Indeed, why should a larva evolve in the first place, because it cannot reproduce (d)?

Charles Darwin wrote:

â??If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down (e).â?�
Based on metamorphosis alone, evolution â??breaks down.â?�

Obviously, the vast amount of information that directs every stage of a larvaâ??s and an adultâ??s development, including metamorphosis, must reside in its genetic material at the beginning. This fits only creation.


b. Pitman, pp. 193â??194.

c. Jules H. Poirier, From Darkness to Light to Flight: Monarchâ??the Miracle Butterfly (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1995).

d. An evolutionist might claim that larvae once reproduced, but then lost that capability. If so, why is there no sign of any remnant reproductive equipment in any of the hundreds of thousands of larva types?

e. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1927), p. 179.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 37. Metamorphosis

Please stop this spam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bhouncy

Please stop this spam.

---

No doubt. Creationism is whack.

For real. Which came first, the larva or the fly?

Everyones been asking chicken or egg for years yo. Do you get out of the house n socialize with others at all?

As far as your improbabilities arguement - yes, life is extremely improbable. Intelligent life even more so. However I think the probability of having an 'intelligent creator' is WAY WAY WAYYY more remote.

I find that the bird flu is a pretty good example of evolution. It started in birds, mutated enough that it EVOLVED into a form that could be transfered to humans. It is now a new strain, but it is also a transitional strain - because sooner or later it will mutate so it can be passed between humans without a bird source.

I dunno, creationism has no place with evolution. Sure, Ill give you creationist a break and say maybe a creator threw down a bacteria to start the whole mess we call life. We have no evidence for how life got started. But to say evolution has everything wrong is just silly!