Photo Credit: http://1StopPicture
s.comPhoto Credit: http://1StopPicture
s.com
( Previous Chapter | Next Chapter | Intro Page )
WORD PAGE NW TRANSLATION PHONETIC PRONUNCIATION(S) abiotic 40 ay'beye otic adaptation 31 a-dap'tay-shun adenine 45 A-duhn-een' amazon 28 a-muh'zahn, -zuhn amino 33 uh' meeno ammonia 32 uh'moh-nyuh amoebas 28 uh-mee'buh arctic 28 ahrk'tik, ahr-tik bacterium 38 bay'duh Bada 35 bak-TIR-ee-uhm Behe 44 bee-hee Bernal 42 bern'ahl biochemist 28 bie-oh ke'mist biophysicist 30 bie'-oh-fi-zuh-sist, bie'-oh-fiz-sist biotic 40 bie-ah-tik carbon 32 kahr-buhn catalyst 45 ka-tuhl-uhst Christian 30 kris'chen, krish'- chromosome 42 kroh'muh-sohm, -zohm cytosine 45 sie'tuh-seen dendrology 43 den-drah'luh-jee deoxyribonucleic 45 dee'ahk-see rie-boh-nu'klee-ik, -nyu'klay- -'klay-ik dialect 46 die'uh-lekt dioxide 37 die'ahk-sied Dose 37 dohs Duve 30 doo'vuh embellish 28 im'be-lish enzyme 41 en'ziem espoused 48 is-pouzd, is-pousd everglade 28 eh'ver-glayd Francesco 30 fran'ches-kuh, fron'ches-koh Frankenstein 35 frang'kuhn-stien, -steen geneticist 43 juh-neh'tuh-sist Giertych 43 gyer'tik guanine 45 gwah'neen helix 45 hee'liks Hoyle 41 hoi'l, hoi'uhl hypothesis 43 hie'po theh-sis impasse 48 im'pas, im-pas' implausible 38 im-plo'zi-bil Jaques 30 zhahk, zhak Klaus 37 kloz Louis 32 loo-ee' laureate 30 lair'ee-uht, lor'-, lahr'- Maciej 43 mu'tsi-ej maggot 31 ma'get Mainz 40 mients membrane 42 mem'brayn methane 34 meh'thayn, mee'thayn meteorite 38 mee'tee-e-riet microbe 31 mie'krohb mitochondrion 42 mie-tuh-kahn'dree-uhn molecules 32 mah'li-kyl, -kyul Monod 30 mo'noh mythological 30 mi-thuh-lah'ji-kuhl Nobel 30 noh-bel', noh'bel nucleic 34 nu'klee-ik, nu'klay-ik, nyu- nucleolus 42 noo'klee-uh-luhs, nyoo- nucleotide 34 noo'klee-uh-tied, nyoo- Oparin 32 ah-pah'reen orchestration 28 or-kuh-stray'-shuhn ozone 37 oh'zohn panorama 28 pa'nuh-ra-muh, pa'nuh-rah-muh Pasteur 32 pas-tuhr', pah-steur' physician 31 fuh-zi'shuhn plausible 39 plo'zuh-buhl prebiotic 33 pre-bie-ah'tik primeval 30 prie-mee'vuhl protein 41 proh'teen, proh'tee-uhn quasi-religious 30 kway'zie, kway'sie, kwah'zee, kwah'see : ri-li'-juhs Redi 30 ray'dee, re'dee Rensberger 48 rehns'buhr-guhr ribonucleic 46 rie-boh-nu-klee'ik, -nyu-, -klay'- ribosomes 42 rie'buh-sohm sahara 28 suh-har'uh, suh-hahr'uh speculative 48 spe'kyuh-luh-tiv, -lay- spontaneous 31 spontaneously 31 spahn-tay'nee-uhs Sproul 30 sprool sterilized 32 ster'uh-liezd succinctly 46 suhk-sing'tlee, suh-singk'tlee symphony 28 sim'-foh-nee, -fuh- synthesis 40 sin'thuh-suhs, sint'- synthesized 38 sin'thuh-siez, sint'- theoretical 33 thee-uh're-ti-kuhl, thi-uh-re'-, thi-re'- thymine 45 thie'meen ultraviolet 33 uhl-truh'vie-luht, -vie-uh-luht Urey 34 yur'ee Woese 48 wohz ( Pronunciation KEY )
Colleagues from both the University of Minnesota and the University of Toronto conducted grassland experiments on 147 plots of land, each plot measuring 3 by 3 meters square. The plots of land were weeded according to the number of different plant species that were experimentally allowed to grow on each designated section. Some plots were allowed one type of plant, others two, three, and up to the count of 24. Typically such land would have 40 or 50, but this being a relatively new type of experiment the numbers were kept low. It was found that the plots which allowed for no diversity save one type of plant had less ground coverage than those with more. The percentages increased dramatically past the count of 10, after which effects were not measurable. However the researchers recognize that larger plots of land are necessary in order to understand the effects over ten, and so are now working on plots of land 13 by 13 meters square. But these preliminary results are interesting, in that the cohabitation of diversity among even relatively simple plant life is important to their production. And since this is true, then wouldn't a person wonder just how the diversity of all life came about, when it is all such an interwoven, interdependant whole?
The diversity of life adds to the questions asked here. Because if life came from a single organism that slowly changed from one kind to another, as many proponents explain, then the surprising places where life is found would cause such a simple explantion to be convoluted in trying to model it against the reality. Here's a twist that would make this even further difficult: It is well known today that if a ship carrying millions of barrels of oil breaks up due to running aground or breaking apart in a stormy sea, that pollution is the unavoidable result. The Exxon Valdez dumped 24 million liters of crude oil into Alaska's Prince William Sound in 1989. Now, 12 years later, the local natural habitat is still undergoing recovery from this man made disaster. Yet in comparison, in the gulf of Mexico there have been natural oil leaks from the sea bed recorded as far back as 1902 at a rate of 40 million gallons per decade. Why does the one man made leak create havoc on the enviornment, and the natural one doesn't? After all, the one (the Valdez) was based on the 'superiority' of human intelligence, whereas the other is supposedly based on random chances of nature. Amazing enough, living around the vents at the bottom of the sea bed are tube worms, clams, and mussels that live in sybiosis with certain bacteria in their cell walls, which provide useful energy despite the lack of sunlight by oxidizing reduced compounds, such as hydrogen sulfide. Even this community is enhanced with exotic species of fish, crustaceans and other forms of ocean life, despite their location being a virtual desert between them and the more shallow homes of their distant biologically classified 'cousins'. So, if the natural consequences (read: disaster) of the Exxon Valdez was based on the intelligence of man, then what should be understood when it comes to genuine success in the realm nature? That it was an accident?
Even Charles Darwin recognized that the term "chance" does not sufficiently offer the necessary description of what was required to bring about life. In fact he went so far as to describe scientists ignorance on the matter:
I HAVE hitherto sometimes spoken as if the variations so common and multiform in organic beings under domestication, and in a lesser degree in those in a state of nature had been due to chance. This, of course, is a wholly incorrect expression, but it serves to acknowledge plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation.It would take Note1101033 years for quantum fluctuations to topple a can of soda resting on a level surface. The universe is 1010 years old. In other words, the universe has not existed long enough for quantum fluctuations to topple even a single can of soda. Arrive at your own conclusion, which of the following odds are greater:
--The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, Chapter 5 - Laws of Variation. Bold and italics added
Note1: The number 101033 is so large, that if written in decimal form would fill a library much larger than the earth's volume, whereas 1010 is only 12 digits long (100,000,000,000).
Christian De Duve was co-recipient of the 1974 Nobel Laureate in Medicine for discoveries concerning the structural and functional organization of the cell. He founded the International Institute of Cellular and Molecular Pathology (in 1974 the name was changed to Christian de Duve Institute of Cellular Pathology in his tribute). In his book Vital Dust: Life as a Cosmic Imperative, de Duve ponders the paradoxical thought about life, "If it was miraculous, then life was not a necessity, and if it was a necessity, then it was not miraculous." He then promoted the idea that it was indeed a "miraculous necessity". It is interesting that he held Miller's experiments up as credible, and on this basis he developed a "tree of life" from which all living organisms developed. In his mind, chemistry eventually became living organisms that were capable of conceiving and doing mathematics, formulating concepts, recognizing beauty, and experience emotions. He then explores "what it all means" by comparing Jesuit teachings with that of biological existentionalism. In the end, although he feels himself to be scientific, he believes that the universe is meaningful because certain necessities were "built-in." But he never quite touches on by whom those necessities were "built-in."
Donald MacKay, participated in the National Physical Laboratory Symposium no. 10, Teddington, England in 1958, wrote and lectured on the subject of computers and comprehension, the challenge of the brain, the bankruptcy of determinism, and many other titles within the subject of analyitcal thought. He was quoted as saying, "The God in whom the Bible invites belief is no `Cosmic Mechanic.' Rather is He the Cosmic Artist, the creative Upholder, without whose continual activity there would be not even chaos, but just nothing."
I'm not sure if the Robert Sproul that was quoted in the publication is the one that was a past President of the University of California, or the one who proliferates in evangelical apologetics and literature.
Jaques Lucien Monod was born in a marriage between a Hugenot painter of Scottish descent and an American mother. He won the Nobel prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1965, among many other honors and earned credentials, and gained his passion for biology early in life when his father would read Darwin's books to him. He also enjoyed the arts and other sciences, his favourite recreations were music and sailing until his death in 1976.
The drive behind an anthropologist, an astronomer, a chemist, a biologist, a theoretical mathmetician, and many other careers based upon the sciences and history are all rooted in one thing: Where did we come from? Without this question as the driving force, the majority of classes taught in the schools, careers in research, and many other parts of life as we know it would collapse, or never have begun in the first place. Extremely large portions of university and goverment research budgets are directly tied to this question. How ironic, when all one has to do is pick up a single sampling of pulp and ink, where it tells us: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Genesis 1:1, King James Version But, this book wisely assumes nothing, not even that people recognize this simple truth, so the question has yet to be answered in the remainder of the book.
Here is a link to a page describing how astrophysics meets biology (astrobiology) in the quest for the building blocks of our origin.
Here is a link to the National Science Foundations budget for 2001. $4,572,000,000 is nothing to wink at.
Imagine you're in court. You are defending your claim of ownership of your home against a shrewd businessman who wants your land as part of a parking lot for his plans to build a new mall. His evidence as presented to the court is that of how he recently paid ¤10,000 to corporation 4Nbaynk for the land. And they in turn had paid ¤7,000 to land investor Kuhtemunder for the property. Further evidence is presented to the court that the investor had paid private citizen Snee Keecheet ¤6,500 for it, and he in turn had gotten it at action by WeSellAnything auctioneer for ¤3,000. While a great amount of money has changed hands, and can be traced from one entity to the other, there is a solid piece of evidence missing from the hands of the litigant. And when it's your turn as defendant you produce this evidence, which is the Title to the property in question, and it has your name on it. It is similar with many theories that explain how life came to be, that although they may be wonderfully woven as stringing along events from one point, to another, and another; but if they fail to properly introduce and define the point of origin, then they are baseless, and the basic premise upon which they are built is flawed. Encoded in all life is the Title of ownership of a creator, an intelligence beyond human comprehension and ability. Any other premise is inherently flawed. (Romans 1:20)
What is popularly and humorously chided as "Murphy's Law" was in actuality the result of Edward Murphy and his fellow engineer's studying into the certainty of failure. This was important to them since their job was that of testing the designs of devices related to aircraft pilot safety or crash survival when there was no room for failure (think: supersonic jets or spacecraft). Reliance on the laws of probability were not sufficient to ensure that there would be no failures, in fact failures were certain. It was in wanting to understand those certainties that resulted in his, and his collegues, studying the causes of failure, and how to circumvent them. Murphy's 'famous' laws were born as a result. So the avoidance of chance and probability, or certain failure, does result in serious and expensive design and engineering. And in considering that all of the failures that are most likely to have occured on the genetic road to life as we know it, in even one, let alone all of the variety of forms, where did the intelligent design come from that not only understood such laws, but that went so far as to prevent each and every certain failure? Thus it is, even in trying to explain how life came to be, the Scottish poet Robert Burns well understood the situation even in 1786:
The best laid schemes o' mice an' menOr as Job 42:3 in approximately 1473 B.C.E. more succinctly puts it:
Gang aft agley
(Are prone to go awry)
Who is this who makes dark the purpose of God by words without knowledge? For I have been talking without knowledge about wonders not to be searched out.
Bible in Basic English
A contemporary of Francesco Redi, a mid-17th century British physiologist, William Harvey, while studying the reproduction and development of the king's deer, made the discovery that every animal comes from an egg. He also discovered the true nature of the circulation of blood and the function of the heart as a pump, with his precise methods marking the beginning of study of biology in the modern sense. Thus, while the death blow to spontaneous generation was not yet complete in this century, the complexity of life began to unravel the basic premise, setting the stage for either acceptance of the miracle of life, or forcing a new twist in the 'big lie'. As history shows, many scientists chose to 'dance the twist'.
Francseco Redi was inspired by what William Harvey had written in a book on generation, wherein he speculated that insects, worms, and frogs do not arise spontaneously, but instead they arise from seeds or eggs too small to be seen.
It's interesting that anyone today can repeat the experiments that Francesco Redi did. And to us it would seem like a grade-school level experiment. However, it must be realized that Redi was pressing against the prevalent way of thinking, and although he didn't fathom completely the depth of his discovery, it had it's place in moving the collective human knowledge one step closer toward understanding the reality. You can try the experiment yourself, and you'll find that with just a cloth or a screen, you too can 'prove' that the maggots didn't come from the meat. However the meat will still rot, which leaves us with roughly the same tools as Redi, which is wondering where that stench is coming from. And if you were experimenting in your own kitchen, you'd soon find out from family members that it doesn't matter, just get it outside! However, the idea of spontaneous generation dies unwillingly and hard.
This paragraph highlights the excellent exposé of abiotic beliefs and the futility of promoting such a faithless faith. (Contrary to popular belief, theories such as evolution are not religiously neutral, as many of the naturalistic summarizations are as mythological as any stories of folklore.) From Anaximander to Aristotle to Comte de Buffon, the long philosophical chain of teachings that life can arise from mineral sources, was forever undercut by Louis Pasteur's work. He was a rare scientist who did not give in to the "higher thinking" (or refutation of Godliness and scripture) that was prevailing in christendom at the time. I have to relate this story that my high school history teacher once mentioned to the class:
While this story is unverified, it does serve to undescore the fact that although Pasteur was a great scientist in his time, he never allowed that position to become an excuse to shake loose his faith in God and the obvious.
The train was lurching forward in the late french afternoon. A lone young man sought an empty seat, and spied one near an older man who was reading a book by the light of the window. The young man sat on the bench across from the elderly, and the two sat in speechless silence for some time. After the train began to gain speed, the young man spoke through the noise made by the wheels now clattering against the tracks, "I noticed that you're reading a Bible there."
The older man looked toward the young man over the top of his book and nodded his head in acknowledgement.
"You're behind the times," the younger said boldly, then awkwardly added, "sir", in an attempt to hide his lack of respect.
The old man removed his gaze from the younger and returned to reading.
Failing to be hindered by the old man's apparent lack of interest, the young man told the older one of the praises of modern science, how 'great progress' was being made which removed the requirement for anyone to sense any reliance on the archaic stories of the old ways, including religion. For several hours he touted the wonders of chemistry, the most recent discoveries in the seas, and the progress of amazingly new technologies. Why even the very train they rode on showed evidences toward this.
The older fellow would occasionaly look up to the young man, and smile, or nod, as the occasion would fit him and the situation best. But mostly the elder fellow continued with interest more in his reading material than the younger's abundant words. This continued until the sun settled too low in the sky to provide enough light for comfortable reading. Not too long after this the young man heard the condottiere yell the name of his destination. He stood up saying, "Well, I must be going now, as it is my stop. I hope I have persuaded you enough to at least consider the wonderful things that mankind is discovering in this modern age." Then while extending his hand he added, "by the way, I did not properly introduce myself. I am Julian. And you sir?"
The old man lifted his aged hand, and speaking for the first time said, "Louis Pasteur."
If we compare Pasteur's work with the quote on the top of page 40 of the book, it's a wonder that anyone would put greater faith in theories such as evolution, than in the scriptural explanation for life. Such simple logic in truth makes it obvious that any belief in evolution is a faith much more blind than that of the scriptures. The faith of the scriptures is based upon "the evident demonstration of reality" (Hebrews 11:1) and is not based upon well contrived It is ironic however, that Pasteur's work resulted in many scientists completely avoiding the issue of the origin of life, being anxious not to offend religious feeling by probing too deeply into the subject. This prevailing fear of uncertainty, coupled with the outspokeness of T.H. Huxley, John Tyndall, and Charles Darwin led to the proliferation of ungodly hypothese regarding the physical basis for life, despite that their theories are extremely weak in providing an explanation as to how life began.
If comparisons are considered too simply, it's easy to see how a person who senses the orderliness of the complex structures in the micro world, could mistakenly interpret how this could create life. For example, researchers at the University of Texas in Austin studying the effects of oscillation, a basic function required by life, discovered that brass balls measuring less than 0.1 millimeter in radius would react in ways that showed surprising orderliness, with patterns reacting according to the rate of the vibration. At lower rates hills and valleys would raise or lower, or even be introduced with the tip of a pencil. The hills would alternate, becoming a depression at half the rate of the oscillation, then return to a hill again, while moving around the tray of brass 'sand'. Certin rules of behavior became observable, such as if two hills were too close to one another, they would repel, however if a depression were near a hill, those would attract one another. Different vibration rates would produce chains of hills and dimples, square lattices, ripples, and other patterns. These excitations differ from those in a fluid because they remain isolated. In other words, a dimple on the surface of water would create a peak which in turn would collapse and create an ever widening series of ripples across the surface. But a dimple in the brass 'sand' would vary between a hill and a dimple, then dimple to hill, while traveling around the surface according to certain rules of behavior and the rate of the oscillation, but never becoming a 'wave'.
This oscillation of the brass 'sand' is interesting, spurring theorists to try and arrive at an equation that would document the motion of the 'sand' under oscillation. It is thought that this observation might mimic molecules and atoms. However, when this effect was reported in September 1996 by the New York Times, it was, without evidence, linked to the origins of life and human individuality (or self-conscienceness) among other things. One important factor was missed when making the mental connection between the vibrating brass balls and the origins of life: The orderliness never proved anything approaching life or conscienceness. Just like a farmer who hadn't yet laid seed wouldn't assume he would get a crop of corn because he found ripples in the soil after a hard rain, why would a reporter assume that an interesting result of vibration would produce life? In both cases the seed for life is missing and hadn't yet been introduced. So a conclusion under such conditions, if offered, is pure speculation and guesswork. Such oversimplification is roughly equivalent to thinking that humans can make a blade of grass, because grass is green, and so is some paint that we can make.
The Institute for Genomic Research, based in Maryland, USA, in late 1999 had discovered that the minimum number of genes necessary to sustain life is as few as 350. Now, to simply paint the picture that the correct combination of chemistry formed the correct kind of molecules needed to sustain life, which happened to produce the correct proteins which in turn mixed with an equally remotely produced neucleotides which simulate RNA and created the necessary DNA and happened to strand all 350 or more genes into just the correct sequence that the first living cell was formed, is, quite simply, to oversimplify the matter.
Let's consider just one small component in this chain of events, the molecules necessary to life. Here are a few of the well over-simplified rules that must be followed:
Looking at proteins, hydrogen bonded water molecules have difficulty fitting into deep grooves on the enzyme surface. However certain complex molecules called ligands fit into these grooves and cause chemical reactions necessary to cell life.
This is but a glimpse at the complexity of life at the "chemical" level. But it's enough to satisfy me that there is more there than meets the eye. And it's intriguing enough to two researchers at Standford University's department of structural biology that plans are in progress to computer simulate the many complex and known rules of these chemical behaviors in order to arrive at a better understanding of the basic water based interactions within the cellular structure.
Didn't Miller read about Pasteur in grade school? Apparently he and all those who touted his work slept through that class. Stanley L. Miller is still attempting to resolve a theory that he admitted was without foundation:
Miller's experiment in 1953 fails on the following basic points, although many others come to light as new understandings of the workings of the basic compenents to life are learned:
The four anthropic principles of science (think: anthropology) all rely on the belief that
at some point in the history of the universe, conditions existed that allowed
carbon based life forms to develop. While the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP)
and the Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP) expect this to occur on it's own by some
random 'chance', the last two, Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP) and Final
Anthropic Principle (FAP), allow for the concept of some form of 'outside' assistance. However,
the last two still don't allow for the concept of a Creator. As explained by one scientist:
Comment on picture þ 42:
This process is triggered by proteases similar to interleukin-1 converting enzymes (ICE) that are normally inactive until the cell detects itself as flawed. The most obvious form of normal apoptosis is the skin, in which the cells of underlying layers are fresh and new, and the older dead cells provide a protective cover for underlying tissues. But there are other, more interesting varieties of apoptosis, such as the fluid in the eye is a result of apoptotic cells during our formation. While blood cells mature in the Thymus, and those that would be useless or dangerous by attacking the body's own tissues commit suicide before entering the bloodstream. Menstruation is the result of apoptosis of the uterus wall, without which a womans health would be in certain jeopardy.
How is it that that genetic encoding of individual cells would be programmed against individual survival in this way? If any version of evolution of species is to be correct, then how would the sacrifice be known by the individual cell to bring benefit the neighbor cells? While this might explain how the death of the individual cell benefits the organism as a whole, it does not explain how a cell would be programmed against individual preservation. Probably this is because the reality of nature is not that of heartless "survival of the fittest" or "dog eat dog". Rather natural behaviors are more like the loving principle taught by God in that they are designed to perform "with lowliness of mind, considering that the others are superior to you". (Phillipians 2:3)
In contrast to the above, soil-dwelling bacteria known as Myxococcus xanthus live in small loosely banded groups. That is until a number of them emanate signs of starvation, at which point the group bundles together by pulling each other toward a collective center. When bundled up in this manner the community goes through several processes that have been likened to a "Quarker barnraising" in order to reach the soil surface. There spore colelctive can be carried away by a passing animal, pouring rain, etc... and reaches a new area for feasting. There the hyphal community once again loosens and produces plant benefiting nutrients. In contrast to self-destruction for the preservation of a multi-celled organism, these single celled communities band together for preservation. How does each cell type know what kind of community it is in for the benefit of acting properly toward the whole? Or rather, is it more likely that the appropriate behaviors were designed into each of them?
It's interesting that scientists are able to see the flaws in the theories of their peers, but can't get the sense of their own flaws. It's like the proverbial line of standing dominoes, each one pointing out the flaws of the other, and then going about to establish their own domino of flawed theory. I used to think that one day all of those theories would come down in a rapidly succeeding flash when just the right dominoe would be triggered. However, I now realize that ever since the "Life-How Did it Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?" book was printed and distrubeted, this had already occured at the very latest. And this current book, "Is There a Creator Who Cares About You?" reduces to flat any remaining Professor Dean H. Kenyon was at first convinced that evolution was a viable theory, during which time he wrote Biochemical Predestination. Later some of his experiments and other evidence he examined lead him to conclude that life could have only come about by design. He nearly lost his job as biology professor at San Francisco State University (where he still teaches) when he started teaching that parts of Darwin's theory were under dispute by reputable scientists. In early 2000, the West Virginia chapter of the ACLU pressed for a ban on a science textbook co-authored by Dean H. Kenyon (Of Pandas and People) which is a non-religious textbook presenting the scientific case for the Theory of Intelligent Design to school teachers. His current research compares the statistical and linguistic "texture" of the two types of DNA, coding DNA and so called "junk DNA."
The New York Times on Tuesday, February 19, 2001 ran an article that expressed the surprise of biologists and other scientists, because the genetic code was expected to be somewhere around the exact number of 142,634, one gene for every expression of life necessary for the human organism. One of the jaw-dropping surprises of the recently completed humane genome progjects is that our existance is instead encoded in approximately 30,000 genes. This means that each genetic expression wears several 'hats', or provides data for several different sections of our life. So, not only do the genes work together in a manner that is well honed and programmed, but on top of that, somehow a superior form of data compression has been implemented. In comparison the labratory favorite fruit fly has 14,000 genes, and the round worm 19,000. Further findings also indicate, that two different species might even have the same DNA code, yet the activity of each genes expression is enough to erect a species barrier. What level of complexity is required before a design is considered to have been the result of intelligence? If the DNA code doesn't, then neither would the entire Web, as it is less complex.
Uh-oh. The "H" word, How? is the reason why many scientists dig for answers. Yet when someone asks about their theories, this very word serves to expose that indeed, their theories don't really answer the question. The results of science trying to answer "How" has indeed resulted in many amazing successes, such use of the electricity (electric motors to microchips). But even this is not fully explained as "How" it works. The deeper things are sought, the more How's are asked, which in turn lead to more research. Each explanation is merely an overview plugging an old hole of knowledge, but leaves the new one from further investigation. For this reason, if anyone offers their theory based upon current facts at this point, that's understandable. After all even an erroneous theory is something to work off of. But to accept one's theory and rest on it is a formula for failure. Further investigation is required, so one should move forward in that mindset.
The basic premise of evolution is that DNA mutations resulted in improvements. However, and although centuries have passed, and millions of cells have been scrutinized, no mutation has ever been observed to add new data, make an improvement, or provide any sort of benefit to the organism nor cell. In short, mutations hurt, don't help the life being developed by the DNA code. It is the pinnacle of perfection from which any movement or change is only downhill toward destruction or harm.
It is interesting that while RNA acts as an intermediary between DNA and proteins, RNA has been observed to 'edit' the information stored in the DNA. This has been observed in healthy organisms, and the results of this function have yet to be understood. In order for the normal DNA/protein process to work, the introns must be removed as they 'tie' together the ends of the genes and prevent them from 'unraveling'. The complexity of each function, each step, and each result is intelectually difficult to follow in its entirety. Even the book summarized it in only two pages (45 & 46) of small print, and I couldn't do much better. Yet the two pages in the book, the paper that had to be produced, the ink that had to be processed, the printed word that had to be put together as a result of various activities, would not be ascribed to random chance, so how much more so should the reality of the DNA/RNA/protein interaction being described not be assigned to unintelligent triggering events?
Klaus Dose once wrote "The difficulties which must be overcome [in discovering the mechanisms for chemical evolution] are at present beyond our imagination", and also, "The spontaneous formation of simple nucleotides or even of poly-nucleotides which were able to be replicated on pre-biotic earth, should now be regarded as improbable in the light of the very many unsuccessful experiments in this regard." During the seventh International Conference on the origins of life held jointly with the fourth congress of the International Society for the Study of the Origin of life (ISSOL) in Mainz, Germany, many scientists of all ventures exchanged their latest results, the question of how biological information (genetic code) originated remained a glaringly unanswered. Regarding this, Professor Klaus Dose stated, "The Mainz report may have an equally important historical impact, because for the first time it has now been determined unequivocally by a large number of scientists that all evolutionary theses that living systems developed from poly-nucleotides which originated spontaneously, are devoid of any empirical base." In other words, the best experts in the world could provide no proof that information could originate by itself in matter.
In the early 1980's Kary Mullis discovered how to replicade DNA strands using polymerase chain reactions. While this benefited many in legal court by providing a means of producing large amounts of DNA for testing when very little DNA for identity was available, two things are also now clear:
One example of foolish speculation on too little data is the conclusion drawn by
the study of male and female chromosone which lead a team to "conclude" that
Eve had existed 84,000 years before Adam. They figure this as a "blow to the
Genesis theory of one man, one woman". Hmmmm.... I figure it a blow to their ability to provide accurate measurement. There is less of a leap in the genes between the cow and the horse, and yet what they propose is similar to expecting that, a bull mating with a horse would produce not just a single female (shall I call it a corse? or a how?) offspring, rather that just
this had occurred repeatedly for 1,050 or more generations until finally a male corse/how
arrived on the scene and bred with the female corse/how. According to their models, exactly how could the
disparity of two genes coexist in the mating process for this long, without dying off?
I enjoy this excerpt from the Washington State University's "MICROBIOLOGY 101/102 INTERNET TEXT"
ANSWER: Scientists know that their knowledge is woefully incomplete, so they are usually reluctant to speak in terms
of absolutes. They know that it is entirely possible that tomorrow someone will present evidence indicating that what
they state as the truth today is wrong to some degree. Thus they tend to use phases like: "it appears that a possible
explanation for this is...." or "the present data certainly supports that explanation, however, there are valid
alternative explanations." etc. Never-the-less, many scientists, being frail, egotistical humans, make dogmatic
statements about subjects only to be proven entirely wrong later. Then they are made great sport of by their fellows,
many of whom will eventually make the same trip down that rocky road.
Yes, many figure in their heads, with no empircal evidence, that life had evolved. Others have concluded that there is not enough proof that life has evolved. Others yet understand that indeed life had to be a result of intelligence. Then others determine that indeed, the intelligence had to be greater than ourselves, perhaps visitors from space in some cases. Then there are those who touch the peak of certainty, and firmly conclude that indeed it took an intelligence beyond the regions of known space to cause the events necessary for life. The book at this point allows a person to ponder where they stand on this, it gives them a respite for reflection and analysis. Perhaps what is crystal clear is no longer the theoretical facade that has been presented for so long. Indeed, "intellectual honesty" will be required to continue this investigation.
Michael J. Behe promotes the concept that Darwinian theory must overcome the "irreduceably complexity" of biological systems. One simple illustration he uses is a mouse trap, which if any one function were removed, then the whole becomes useless. Yet evolutionary theory promotes that either the organism produced results that would harm the organ (sometimes to the point of being unable to live/function) until such a time that enough 'changes' occured which allowed for a new use, or that so many impossible changes had to occur simulatneoulsy so as to produce the new use, an entirely new organ/organism. Both scenarios are foolish left unresolved, and must be overcome by evolutionary theory in order to remain credible. He does promote the teaching of creationism and evolution in the schools as equally weighted theories, as he see's problems with both. It's interesting that he proclaims to be a Roman Catholic scientist, and when the Pope announced in 1986 that God used evolution to produce us, Behe's response was "Intelligent design may mean that the ultimate explanation for life is beyond scientific explanation. That assessment is premature. But even if it is true, I would not be troubled. I don't want the best scientific explanation for the origins of life; I want the correct explanation. Pope John Paul spoke of 'theories of evolution.' Right now it looks as if one of those theories involves intelligent design."
Back to Top of
Page | Back to
Chapter
2 | Next to
Chapter 4 Copyright © 2001storiesC3 þ 32 ¶ 2 to þ 34 ¶ 1
Understanding the importance that water, (which requires an abundance of oxygen, otherwise other elements would bond with the hydrogen such as hydrogen sulfide), plays an important role in generating and sustaining life supporting molecules of even the simplest cell, punches a huge hole in the claim that the first living cell came about in a time of reduced atmosphere. The molecules that make up life require an oxygen rich enviornment to not only generate, but in order to be continually useful. And the role that water plays for life continues up the scale, as it suspends the alpha helix, which is found in most proteins, and prevents improper oxygen/nitrogen-hydrogen bonds, which are parts of the necessary makeup of the alpha helix. Water penetrates deeply into the DNA double helix, rendering it stability, and interacts with nearly every part, including the base pairs that make up the genetic code.
C3 þ 34 ¶ 2
It must be admitted from the beginning that we do not know how life began. It is
generally believed that a variety of processes led to the formation of simple organic
compounds on the primitive earth. These compounds combined together to give more
and more complex structures until one was formed that could be called living.
No one should be satisfied with an explanation as general as this. We need a detailed
theory that specifies the nature of the processes leading to the synthesis of organic
compounds on the primitive earth, the nature of the compounds formed by these
processes, and the quantities that could have accumulated abiogenically. Then we
need to know the conditions under which the simplest organic compounds combined
together to give monomers such as amino acids and nucleotides, and how these
monomers condensed to polymers such as proteins and nucleic acids. At present, little
of this detailed information is available.
Introduction to The Origins of Life on the Earth, Stanley L Miller. Italics added
C3 þ 35 ¶ 1
C3 þ 36-37 (box)
"The structure of the universe and the particulars of its construction are
essentially fixed by the condition that at some point it inevitably produces an
observer."
In other words, assistance toward life came about by the
results of some form of conscience assistance developed within the confines of
the developing universe. If you ask me, this sounds a lot like the cosmological
equivalent of the trinity, because life came into existance only with the help of a life that came into existance within boundaries where only assistance could have developed life. The mistake that experiments like Stanley Miller's make is
that fundamentally they fail to take into consideration the possibility that
indeed the universe never did provide conditions such that life could come
about. Thus, teleology (purpose in natural design) has at the very least an equal
place in the realm of scientific theory, if not more so, than any creator-denying anthropic
principles.
Dr. Reinhard Breuer The Anthropic
Principle
The day to day functions of a living cell are not fully understood, but even some of the functions that are require complex activities in order to arrive at seemingly simple solutions. For instance in a healthy body cells that become flawed, infected, malignant, or otherwise useless put themselves into a mode called 'apoptosis' (from greek, meaning "dropping off"), which is essentially self destruction. In this way if a cell is diseased, then it behaves much in the same way as a lobster at the tail end of a traveling band when undergoing predatorial attack, it will sacrifice itself by removing itself from the collective for the protection of the others. The apoptotic cell first shrinks, then pulls away from neighboring cells. Then it 'boils' itself apart while the chromosonal DNA concentrates toward the center of the cell. The nulceous at this point remains intact, perhaps controlling the process. Then the nucleus comes apart and the cell degrades into smaller pieces, which are then removed from the body.
C3 þ 35 ¶ 2 to þ 38 ¶ 1
dominoesC3 þ 39 ¶ 1
C3 þ 39 ¶ 2
C3 þ 45 Appendix A
I will give you praise, for I am strangely and delicately formed; your works are great wonders, and of this my soul is fully conscious.
Psalm 138:14, Bible in Basic English
C3 þ 39 ¶ 3 to þ 40 ¶ 2
C3 þ 45 Appendix B
Considering the above, by now millions of DNA have been replicated using this process, and it has even been used to genetically engineer bacteria, plants, etc... But never has it been accomplished without direct and specific intervention by an intelligent outside source. This latter is recognized by some wjp don't want a Godly explanation, so they interrupt the realization process for others by removing the problem into outer space. Great. But as the book points out, then 'How did those life forms come about?'. Ooohhh!, it's that "H" word again! 
C3 þ 40 ¶ 3 to þ 43 ¶ 2
FAQ: Why do scientists hedge so much; i.e., you can't ever get a STRAIGHT ANSWER out of them?
C3 þ 43 ¶ 3 to þ 44 ¶ 3
quote at bottom of page
