Science Disproves Evolution

[TopsyTurvy]

11 pages and I've yet to see how science has disproved evolution.

[Pahu]

Ape-Men? 4


The first confirmed limb bones of Homo habilis were discovered in 1986. They showed that this animal clearly had apelike proportions (k) and should never have been classified as manlike (Homo) (l).

The australopithecines, made famous by Louis and Mary Leakey, are quite distinct from humans. Several detailed computer studies of australopithecines have shown that their bodily proportions were not intermediate between those of man and living apes (m).

k. Donald C. Johanson et al., “New Partial Skeleton of Homo Habilis from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania,” Nature, Vol. 327, 21 May 1987, pp. 205–209.

l. “We present a revised definition, based on verifiable criteria, for Homo and conclude that two species, Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis, do not belong in the genus [Homo].” Bernard Wood and Mark Collard, “The Human Genus,” Science, Vol. 284, 2 April 1999, p. 65.

m. Dr. Charles Oxnard and Sir Solly Zuckerman, referred to below, were leaders in the development of a powerful multivariate analysis technique. A computer simultaneously performs millions of comparisons on hundreds of corresponding dimensions of the bones of living apes, humans, and the australopithecines. Their verdict, that the australopithecines are not intermediate between man and living apes, is quite different from the more subjective and less analytical visual techniques of most anthropologists. To my knowledge, this technique has not been applied to the most famous australopithecine, commonly known as “Lucy.”

“...the only positive fact we have about the Australopithecine brain is that it was no bigger than the brain of a gorilla. The claims that are made about the human character of the Australopithecine face and jaws are no more convincing than those made about the size of its brain. The Australopithecine skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian as opposed to human that the contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white.” Zuckerman, p. 78.

“Let us now return to our original problem: the Australopithecine fossils. I shall not burden you with details of each and every study that we have made, but ... the conventional wisdom is that the Australopithecine fragments are generally rather similar to humans and when different deviate somewhat towards the condition in the African apes, the new studies point to different conclusions. The new investigations suggest that the fossil fragments are usually uniquely different from any living form ...” Charles E. Oxnard (Dean of the Graduate School, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and from 1973 to 1978 a Dean at the University of Chicago), “Human Fossils: New Views of Old Bones,” The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 41, May 1979, p. 273.

Charles E. Oxnard, “The Place of the Australopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt?” Nature, Vol. 258, 4 December 1975, pp. 389–395.

“For my own part, the anatomical basis for the claim that the Australopithecines walked and ran upright like man is so much more flimsy than the evidence which points to the conclusion that their gait was some variant of what one sees in subhuman Primates, that it remains unacceptable.” Zuckerman, p. 93.

“His Lordship’s [Sir Solly Zuckerman’s] scorn for the level of competence he sees displayed by paleoanthropologists is legendary, exceeded only by the force of his dismissal of the australopithecines as having anything at all to do with human evolution. ‘They are just bloody apes,’ he is reputed to have observed on examining the australopithecine remains in South Africa.” Lewin, Bones of Contention, pp. 164–165.

“This Australopithecine material suggests a form of locomotion that was not entirely upright nor bipedal. The Rudolf Australopithecines, in fact, may have been close to the ‘knuckle-walker’ condition, not unlike the extant African apes.” Richard E. F. Leakey, “Further Evidence of Lower Pleistocene Hominids from East Rudolf, North Kenya,” Nature, Vol. 231, 28 May 1971, p. 245.
[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1127769]

[mark01234]

Instantaneous complexity—Each entire living creature had to be totally assembled instantly, in order for it to begin living. If this was not done, parts would decay before other parts were made. All aspects had to be there together, all at once.

Mathematically impossible—Mathematicians have found that the likelihood of DNA, enzymes, amino acids, and proteins being randomly assembled by the chance methods offered by evolutionary theory is impossible.

Intelligently designed—Everything in creation—from the largest galaxy to the smallest atom—reveals the fact that it was planned, designed, and constructed by an Intelligent Being of the highest intellect and capabilities.

Complicated interrelated functions of separate systems—All of the various structures and organs in every living thing are marvelously interrelated. In order to maintain its existence, each part depends on many others.

[Pahu]

Ape-Men? 5


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 made—based on one australopithecine fossil (a 3.5-foot-tall, long-armed, 60-pound adult called Lucy)—that all australopithecines walked upright in a human manner. However, studies of Lucy’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. “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.” Fred Spoor et al., “Implications of Early Hominid Labyrinthine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion,” Nature, Vol. 369, 23 June 1994, p. 646. [Many H. erectus bones are probably those of H. sapiens.]

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

p. William L. Jungers, “Lucy’s Limbs: Skeletal Allometry and Locomotion in Australopithecus Afarensis,” Nature, Vol. 297, 24 June 1982, pp. 676–678.

Jeremy Cherfas, “Trees Have Made Man Upright,” New Scientist, Vol. 93, 20 January 1983, pp. 172–178.

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

q. Adrienne Zihlman, “Pigmy Chimps, People, and the Pundits,” New Scientist, Vol. 104, 15 November 1984, pp. 39–40.

r. “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.” Matt Cartmill et al., “One Hundred Years of Paleoanthropology,” American Scientist, Vol. 74, July–August 1986, p. 417.

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

“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 ape—so much so that only detailed and close scrutiny can reveal any differences between them.” Solly Zuckerman, “Correlation of Change in the Evolution of Higher Primates,” Evolution as a Process, editors Julian Huxley, A. C. Hardy, and E. B. Ford (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1954), p. 307.

“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.” Ibid., pp. 348–349.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1127769]

[Pahu]

Ape-Men? 6


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. Artists’ drawings of “ape-men,” 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. [See http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...iences25.html]

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

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

Bruce M. Rothschild and Pierre L. Thillaud, “Oldest Bone Disease,” 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, “Early Orthodontic Intervention: A View from Prehistory,” The Journal of the New Jersey Dental Association, Vol. 58, No. 4, Autumn 1987, pp. 33–40.

u. Boyce Rensberger, “Facing the Past,” Science 81, October 1981, p. 49.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1127769]

[TopsyTurvy]

Why does mark01234 get banned for spam but Pahu's creationist spam prevail?

Confusing.

[Betrade]

I have one question about the random formation of life.

Everything from DNA, RNA and all other microbial life forms and cells require a membrane to develop inside of or it dies almost as fast as it could form. It has to be protected from the outside elements.

So, which came first, the cell or the membrane that protects it from the degradation that would result if it's not encapsulated inside??

Has science explained this yet and if so, has anyone actually proven any theories about it??

[Pahu]

I have one question about the random formation of life.

Everything from DNA, RNA and all other microbial life forms and cells require a membrane to develop inside of or it dies almost as fast as it could form. It has to be protected from the outside elements.

So, which came first, the cell or the membrane that protects it from the degradation that would result if it's not encapsulated inside??

Has science explained this yet and if so, has anyone actually proven any theories about it??

This is similar to the "chicken/egg" question that science cannot answer, but creation does: the chicken came before the egg.

In the case of the membrane, it was created at the same time as the rest of the cell.

[TopsyTurvy]

This is similar to the "chicken/egg" question that science cannot answer, but creation does: the chicken came before the egg.

In the case of the membrane, it was created at the same time as the rest of the cell.

Eggs were around long before chickens. Science answered it so you simply don't know what you're talking about.

[TopsyTurvy]

I have one question about the random formation of life.

Everything from DNA, RNA and all other microbial life forms and cells require a membrane to develop inside of or it dies almost as fast as it could form. It has to be protected from the outside elements.

So, which came first, the cell or the membrane that protects it from the degradation that would result if it's not encapsulated inside??

Has science explained this yet and if so, has anyone actually proven any theories about it??

This explains it far better than I could.

[Pahu]

Fossil Man

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), Reck’s skeleton (c), and possibly 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, “The Auriferous Gravels of the Sierra Nevada of California,” Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology of Harvard College, Vol. 6, 1880, pp. 258–288.

Bowden, pp. 76–78.

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

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

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

Cousins and Whitney state that the Calaveras was fossilized. This does not mean that it was preflood. Fossilization depends on chemistry much more than time.

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. Thes e artifacts have been found over the years under undisturbed strata and a layer of basaltic lava. See, for example:

Whitney, pp. 262–264, 266, 274–276.

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

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

b. Bowden, pp. 78–79.

Frank W. Cousins, Fossil Man (Emsworth, England: A. E. Norris & Sons Ltd., 1971),pp. 48–50, 81.

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

“As the student of prehistoric man reads and studies the records of the “Castenedolo” 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.” 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. 183–193.

d. Ibid., pp. 79–88.

e. Fix, pp. 98–105.

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

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...iences31.html]

[Panzerkampfwagen]

This explains it far better than I could.

Is that the vid about bubbles?

[Pahu]

Chemical Elements of Life 1

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. One must imagine a toxic, carbon-rich atmosphere to supply the needed carbon if life evolved. For comparison, today’s atmosphere holds only 1/80,000 of the carbon that has been on the earth’s surface since the first fossils formed.

Oxygen. No evolutionary theory has been able to explain why earth’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 sun’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 simultaneously—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 earth’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. “The cause of the initial rise in oxygen concentration presents a serious and unresolved quantitative problem.” Leigh Van Valen, “The History and Stability of Atmospheric Oxygen,” 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. [See http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1009442] 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 bacteria—shielded by a shallow sea from ultraviolet radiation—evolved. Evolutionists eagerly accepted this long-awaited discovery as a key part of their theory of how life evolved.

Schopf’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 “specimens were not oxygen-producing cyanobacteria after all.” [See Rex Dalton, “Squaring Up over Ancient Life,” Nature, Vol. 417, 20 June 2002, pp. 782–784.] A foundational building block in the evolution story—that had become academic orthodoxy—has crumbled.

e . Hitching, p. 65.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1009402]

[Pahu]

Chemical Elements of Life 2

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. “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.” J. Brooks and G. Shaw, Origin and Development of Living Systems (New York: Academic Press, 1973), p. 359.

“No evidence exists that such a soup ever existed.” Abel and Trevors, p. 3.

g. “The acceptance of this theory [life’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.” 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 contender—creation. Questioning evolution in some circles invites ostracism, much like stating that the proverbial emperor “has no clothes.”

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1009402]

[Šñøü†ê®]

Instantaneous complexity—Each entire living creature had to be totally assembled instantly, in order for it to begin living. If this was not done, parts would decay before other parts were made. All aspects had to be there together, all at once.

Mathematically impossible—Mathematicians have found that the likelihood of DNA, enzymes, amino acids, and proteins being randomly assembled by the chance methods offered by evolutionary theory is impossible.

Intelligently designed—Everything in creation—from the largest galaxy to the smallest atom—reveals the fact that it was planned, designed, and constructed by an Intelligent Being of the highest intellect and capabilities.

Complicated interrelated functions of separate systems—All of the various structures and organs in every living thing are marvelously interrelated. In order to maintain its existence, each part depends on many others.

Excellent points. The number of generations needed for a horse to evolve would be such that the entire Earth would be covered with bones from previous generations. "Evolution" as a buzzword accepted by kids (under 30 somethings) today for the origins of life forms is a substitute for thinking which is the objective of the establishment so they can sell the kids stupid crap they don't need but is easy to make.

[Panzerkampfwagen]

Herpa derp

Well done.

[Pahu]

Proteins 1

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 together 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 earth’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 “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.” Philip Morrison, “Earth’s Earliest Biosphere,” Scientific American, Vol. 250, April 1984, pp. 30–31.

Charles F. Davidson, “Geochemical Aspects of Atmospheric Evolution,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 53, 15 June 1965, pp. 1194–1205.

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

“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.” Erich Dimroth and Michael M. Kimberley, “Precambrian Atmospheric Oxygen: Evidence in the Sedimentary Distributions of Carbon, Sulfur, Uranium, and Iron,” Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Vol. 13, No. 9, September 1976, p. 1161.

“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.” Philip H. Abelson, “Chemical Events on the Primitive Earth,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 55, June 1966, p. 1365.

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

c. “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.” Francis Crick, Life Itself (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), p. 85.

d. “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 ‘self-organization’ becomes ‘blind belief.’ No empirical data or rational scientific basis exists for such a metaphysical leap.” Abel and Trevors, p. 9.

e. “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 us—the weakest link at present in our argument [for the origin of life].” George Wald, “The Origin of Life,” p. 50.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...iences34.html]

[Pahu]

Proteins 2


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).

c. “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.” Francis Crick, Life Itself (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), p. 85.

d. “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 ‘self-organization’ becomes ‘blind belief.’ No empirical data or rational scientific basis exists for such a metaphysical leap.” Abel and Trevors, p. 9.

e. “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 us—the weakest link at present in our argument [for the origin of life].” George Wald, “The Origin of Life,” p. 50.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...iences34.html]

[Pahu]

Proteins 3


The proposed energy sources for forming proteins (earth’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. “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. E. Hull, “Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Spontaneous Generation,” 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. “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.” 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 earth—an old theory called panspermia. Just how life evolved on a distant planet is never explained. Crick proposed directed panspermia—that an advanced civilization sent bacteria to earth. Crick (p. 15) recognized that “it is difficult to see how viable spores could have arrived here, after such a long journey in space, undamaged by radiation.” He mistakenly thought that a spacecraft might protect the bacteria from cosmic radiation. Crick grossly underestimated the problem. [See Eugene N. Parker, “Shielding Space Travelers,” Scientific American, Vol. 294, March 2006, pp. 40–47.]

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

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

Organic molecules in life are of two types: proteins and nucleic acids (DNA and RNA). Nucleic acids, which are incredibly complex, were not produced, nor would any knowledgeable person expect them to be produced.

The protein “building blocks” were merely the simpler amino acids. The most complex amino acids have never been produced in the laboratory.

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 Miller’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.

“The story of the slow paralysis of research on life’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.” Behe, “Molecular Machines,” pp. 30–31.

Rick Pierson, “Life before Life,” Discover, August 2004, p. 8.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...iences34.html]

[Pahu]

The First Cell 1

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 . “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 ‘designed’ to have come into existence by chance.” Dawkins, pp. 1, 43.

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

“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.” Denton, p. 264.

“Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which—a functional protein or gene—is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? 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.” Ibid., p. 342.

“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.” Shapiro, p. 207.

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

“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.” Klaus Dose, “The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers,” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1988, p. 348.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown<br>
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp2912804]