Evolutionists claim that life began with one single cell that came into being by chance. According to this scenario, under the effects of lightning and earthquakes, various inanimate substances entered into a reaction in the primordial atmosphere of some 4 billion years ago, thus giving rise to the first cell.
This scenario cannot be true, because life is far too complex to have emerged in any chance manner. Even the very smallest organism has literally millions of biochemical components that interact with it, each one of them vital for the organism to survive at all.
W. H. Thorpe, an evolutionist scientist admits as much: "The most elementary type of cell constitutes a 'mechanism' unimaginably more complex than any machine yet thought up, let alone constructed, by man."98 It is absolutely impossible for the components of this exceedingly complex system to form all at once, in the right place, at the right time, in total compatibility with one another.
It is also impossible for such a complex system to have come into being gradually, as Darwin maintained, because it can function only when all its parts are ready and operative. More primitive stages would serve no purpose at all. Indeed, the thesis that inanimate substances can combine together in such a way as to give rise to life is an unscientific one that has never been verified by any experiment or observation. On the contrary, all the scientific findings show that life can only originate from life.
No one on Earth, not even in the most advanced laboratories, has ever managed to combine inanimate substances and produce a living cell. Let alone the cell, they have failed to produce even a single one of the hundred thousands of proteins of the cell. Darwinists are speechless in the face of single protein.
While things stand this way, the evolutionists nevertheless maintain that the living cell-which cannot be replicated as the result of human intelligence, science and technology-assembled itself under the conditions on the primeval Earth.
Evolutionists themselves confess the meaninglessness of this claim. Various evolutionists have explained, with the use of different analogies, the impossibility of life appearing spontaneously from inanimate matter:
Prof. Fred Hoyle, an English astronomer and mathematician:
A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe.99At all events, anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with a Rubik's cube will concede the near-impossibility of a solution being obtained by a blind person moving the cubic faces at random. Now imagine 1,050 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik's cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling of just one of the many bio-polymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the bio-polymers, but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order. Life must plainly be a cosmic phenomenon.100If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes [proteins produced by living cells] have appeared in the bath.I will give the answer, and so save [you] the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You will find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals. How can I be so confident of this statement? Well, if it were otherwise, the experiment would long since have been done and would be well-known and famous throughout the world. The cost of it would be trivial compared to the cost of landing a man on the Moon...101
Prof. Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe is a professor of applied mathematics and astronomy at Cardiff University:
... 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 of living material... One to a number with 1040.000 noughts after it... is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.102
Prof. Malcolm Dixon, a British biochemist, at the University of Cambridge:
Enzyme systems are doing every minute what battalions of full-time chemists cannot. . Can anyone seriously imagine that naturally occurring enzymes realized themselves, along with hundreds of specific friends, by chance? Enzymes and enzyme systems, like the genetic mechanisms whence they originate, are masterpieces of sophistication. Further research reveals ever finer details of design.103
Prof. Michael Pitman is the Chief Scientist of Australia:
There are perhaps, 1080 atoms in the universe, and 1017 seconds have elapsed since the alleged 'Big Bang.' More than 2,000 independent enzymes are necessary for life. The overall probability of building any one of these polypeptides can hardly be greater than one in 1020. The chance of getting them all by a random trial is one in 1040000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.104
Prof. Ali Demirsoy is a biologist at Hacettepe University:
In essence, the probability of the formation of a cytochrome-C sequence is as likely as zero. That is, if life requires a certain sequence, it can be said that this has a probability likely to be realized once in the whole universe. Otherwise some metaphysical powers beyond our definition must have acted in its formation. To accept the latter is not appropriate for the scientific cause. We thus have to look into the first hypothesis.105
William Stokes, an American evolutionist and geologist:
[Protein] would not occur during billions of years on billions of planets, each covered by a blanket of a concentrated watery solution of the necessary amino acids.106
Andrew Scott is an evolutionist biochemist and science writer:
Take some matter, heat while stirring and wait. That is the modern version of Genesis. The 'fundamental' forces of gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces are presumed to have done the rest.... But how much of this neat tale is firmly established, and how much remains hopeful speculation? In truth, the mechanism of almost every major step, from chemical precursors up to the first recognizable cells, is the subject of either controversy or complete bewilderment.107
Dr. Christian Schwabe is professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at the Medical University of South Carolina:
Molecular evolution is about to be accepted as a method superior to paleontology for the discovery of evolutionary relationships. As a molecular evolutionist, I should be elated. Instead, it seems disconcerting that many exceptions exist to the orderly progression of species as determined by molecular homologies: so many in fact, that I think the exception, the quirks, may carry the more important message.108
Prof. Cemal Yıldırım is a Turkish evolutionist, and professor of philosophy at Middle East Technical University:
One suggestion made in order to prove that life cannot appear by chance is the unbelievably low probability of a functional enzyme emerging. A typical enzyme consists of 100 amino acids. Since there are 20 kinds of amino acid, we are looking at 20,100 possible combinations The possibility of a specific enzyme forming by chance in a single step from among so many possible combinations is 1 in 10130. The point that is ignored is that molecular kinetics are not random, and that functional enzymes appear all the time.109
Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy is a biologist at Hacettepe University:
An enzyme consists of an average of 100 amino acids. The number of possible combinations of an enzyme consisting of 100 amino acids of 20 different types is 20100. Bearing in mind that the total number of atoms in the universe is 1080, and that the number of seconds that have gone by since the formation of the universe is 1016, one can better appreciate how low the odds of an enzyme with a specific sequence forming really are. So how did enzymes emerge?110
Scientific American is a well-known American scientific magazine with strongly pro-evolution views:
Even the simpler molecules are produced only in small amounts in realistic experiments simulating possible primitive earth conditions. What is worse, these molecules are generally minor constituents of tars: It remains problematical how they could have been separated and purified through geochemical processes whose normal effects are to make organic mixtures more and more of a jumble. With somewhat more complex molecules, these difficulties rapidly increase. In particular, a purely geochemical origin of nucleotides [the subunits of DNA and RNA] presents great difficulties.111
Prof. Chandra Wickramasinghe is professor of applied mathematics and astronomy at Cardiff University and director of the Cardiff Center for Astrobiology:
The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.112
Carly P. Haskings is an evolutionist biologist. The following is excerpted from an article published in American Scientist magazine:
But the most sweeping evolutionary questions at the level of biochemical genetics are still unanswered. How the genetic code first appeared and then evolved and, earlier even than that, how life itself originated on earth remain for the future to resolve... Did the code and the means of translating it appear simultaneously in evolution? It seems almost incredible that any such coincidence could have occurred, given the extraordinary complexities of both sides and the requirement that they be coordinated accurately for survival. By a pre-Darwinian (or a skeptic of evolution after Darwin), this puzzle would surely have been interpreted as the most powerful sort of evidence for special creation.113
Alexander I. Oparin is a Russian evolutionist biochemist at Moscow University and director of Moscow's A. N. Bakh Institute:
Unfortunately, however, the problem of the origin of the cell is perhaps the most obscure point in the whole study of the evolution of organisms.114
Loren Eiseley, anthropologist:
To grasp in detail the physio-chemical organization of the simplest cell is far beyond our capacity.115
Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy is a biologist at Hacettepe University:
In essence, no satisfactory explanation for the development of groups of cells with very different structures and functions has yet been provided.116
Prof. Dr. Klaus Dose is president of the Johannes Gutenberg University Biochemistry Institute in Germany:
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.117In spite of many attempts, there have been no breakthroughs during the past 30 years to help to explain the origin of chirality in living cells.118
Dr. David A. Kaufman of University of Florida:
Evolution lacks a scientifically acceptable explanation of the source of the precisely planned codes within cells, without which there can be no specific proteins and hence, no life.119
Jeffrey Bada is professor of marine chemistry at the San Diego State University:
Today, as we leave the twentieth century, we still face the biggest unsolved problem that we had when we entered the twentieth century: How did life originate on Earth?120
Hoimar Von Ditfurth, a German physician and scientific journalist:
Our present knowledge shows that the general principle of the universe does not apply here; there is no question of a primitive cell gradually turning into one with a nucleus and organelles.121The cell has to have exactly the right amount of enzymes from the moment it is born- in other words, before it comes into direct contact with the oxygen in the atmosphere. Is it really possible for such a compatibility to have emerged solely by chance? Thinkers who answer that question are divided into two groups. To say Yes, it is possible, is like a confirmation of belief in modern science. Adopting a more pessimistic viewpoint, we may say that the non-supporter of modern science has really no alternative but to reply Yes. Because such a person will have the intention of coming up with an explanation by way of comprehensible natural phenomena and to produce these on the basis of natural laws without the assistance of any supernatural interventions.But at this point, accounting for what has happened in terms of natural laws, and therefore coincidences, shows that the person in question has been backed into a corner.If we wish to account for a single cell, capable of behaving compatibly with oxygen, forming in a moment in exactly the required form, and to account not just for that significant event but also the way that such a complex chemical reaction is essential for the survival of life on Earth, then what alternative have we other than to shelter behind the idea of coincidence?..But the accumulation of coincidences that serve a specific purpose brings our credibility into question.122... In the absence of a plan setting out where and when construction is to commence and in what order the various projects will be brought together, even the best blueprint will serve no purpose. We know that if we are dealing with a building, we need to start with the foundations and move onto the roof once the walls have been finished. We cannot move on to the plastering before the wiring and plumbing are completed. Every building site has a time frame to which construction work adheres, in addition to the construction blueprint.This also applies to what nature builds, and of course to cells. However, we know next to nothing about this before-and-after relationship in the ordering of the cell. Biologists have still been unable to find who told the cell what part of the blueprint to build, and when. How it is that some genes are cut off at just the right moment, how the embargoes on some genes are lifted, and who instructs the suppressor genes and those that lift such suppression are all questions shrouded in darkness and waiting to be answered...123When we look back, we see that there is no call for surprise at the total failure to find those transitional forms, so long almost painfully sought. Because in all probability, such a stage never took place. Our current knowledge shows that the general principle of evolution does not apply here, and that there is no question of the primitive cell gradually turning into one with a nucleus and organelles.124
Keith Graham:
We find that the same elements that supposedly created life in the beginning still exist today. Why can't they then produce life again?125
David E. Green is an American biochemist at University of Wisconsin, Madison and Robert F. Goldberger is professor emeritus of biochemistry and molecular biophysics and former provost of Columbia University:
The popular conception of primitive cells as the starting point for the origin of the species is really erroneous. There was nothing functionally primitive about such cells. They contained basically the same biochemical equipment as do their modern counterparts.126
W. Ford Doolittle is professor emeritus in Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology in Dalhouse University:
Molecular phylogenists will have failed to find the “true tree” not because their methods are inadequate or because they have chosen the wrong genes, but because the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree.127
Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy is a biologist at Hacettepe University:
Complex cells never developed from primitive cells by a process of evolution.128
Dr. Alfred G. Fisher, who is an evolutionist, mentions in the fossil section of Grolier multimedia encyclopedia:
Both the origin of life and the origin of the major groups of animals remain unknown.129
Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy:
In fact, the probability of the random formation of a protein and a nucleic acid (DNA-RNA) is inconceivably small. The probability against the emergence of even a particular protein chain is astronomic.130One of the most difficult stages to be explained in evolution is to scientifically explain how organelles and complex cells developed from these (supposedly) primitive creatures. No transitional form has been found between these two forms. One- and multicelled creatures carry all this complicated structure, and no creature or group has yet been found with organelles of a simpler construction in any way, or which are more primitive. In other words, the organelles carried forward have developed just as they are. They have no simple and primitive forms.131The heart of the problem is how the mitochondria have acquired this feature, because attaining this feature by chance even by one individual, requires extreme probabilities that are incomprehensible... The enzymes providing respiration and functioning as a catalyst in each step in a different form make up the core of the mechanism. A cell has to contain this enzyme sequence completely, otherwise it is meaningless. Here, despite being contrary to biological thought, in order to avoid a more dogmatic explanation or speculation, we have to accept, though reluctantly, that all the respiration enzymes completely existed in the cell before the cell first came in contact with oxygen.132However, there is a major problem here. Mitochondria use a fixed number of enzymes during the process of breaking (with oxygen). The absence of only one of these enzymes stops the functioning of the whole system. Besides, energy gain with oxygen does not seem to be a system which can proceed step by step. Only the complete system performs its function. That is why, instead of the step-by-step development to which we have adhered so far as a principle, we feel the urge to embrace the suggestion that, all the enzymes (Krebs enzyme) needed to perform the reactions of the mitochondria entered a cell all at once by coincidence or, were formed in that cell all at once. That is merely because those systems failing to use oxygen fully, in other words, those systems remaining in the intermediate level would disappear as soon as they react with oxygen.133There is a very important point that needs to be clarified here. Prof. Demirsoy says that the probability of mitochondrial enzymes entering the cell by chance is very small. The probability is in fact zero (mathematicians regard probabilities lower than 1 in 10 followed by 50 zeroes as nil). There is therefore no place for enzymes to come into being by coincidence, by combining together at the right time and place by chance and co-operating to produce a function of such perfection that it exceeds the comprehension of the human mind.
Harold F. Blum is professor of biology at Princeton University:
The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability.134Britannica Encyclopedia of Science, which is known to be pro- evolution, states that the amino acids of all living organisms on earth, and the building blocks of complex polymers such as proteins, have the same left-handed asymmetry. It adds that this is tantamount to tossing a coin a million times and always getting heads. The same encyclopedia states that it is impossible to understand why molecules become left-handed or right-handed, and that this choice is fascinatingly related to the origin of life on earth.135
Wendell R. Bird is the author of The Origin of Species Revisited:
This unique sequence represents a choice of one out of 102,000,000 alternative ways of arranging the bases! We are compelled to conclude that the origin of the first life was a unique event, which we cannot be discussed in terms of probability.136
Evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson is profess or of zoology at Columbia University:
Above the level of the virus, the simplest fully living unit is almost incredibly complex. It has become commonplace to speak of evolution from amoeba to man, as if the amoeba were the simple beginning of the process. On the contrary, if, as must almost necessarily be true, life arose as a simple molecular system, the progression from this state to that of the amoeba is at least as great as from amoeba to man.137
Prof. Michael Pitman is chief scientist of Australia and foreign secretary of the Australian Academy of Science:
Time is no help. Bio-molecules outside a living system tend to degrade with time, not build up. In most cases, a few days is all they would last. Time decomposes complex systems. If a large 'word' (a protein) or even a paragraph is generated by chance, time will operate to degrade it. The more time you allow, the less chance there is that fragmentary 'sense' will survive the chemical maelstrom of matter.138
John Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmary:
[accounting for the origin of this system remains] perhaps the most perplexing problem in evolutionary biology, because the existing translational machinery is at the same time so complex, so universal and so essential that it is hard to see how it could have come into existence or how life could have existed without it.139
Evolutionists' Confessions Stating That DNA Cannot Form by Chance
Mathematics has now proven that chance plays no role in the formation of the data encoded in DNA. The word "impossible" fails to do justice to the probability of just one of the 30,000 genes making up DNA forming by chance, let alone a DNA molecule consisting of billions of components.
The evolutionist Richard Dawkins describes the complexity within the cell thus:
Physics books may be complicated, but... the objects and phenomena that a physics book describes are simpler than a single cell in the body of its author. And the author consists of trillions of those cells ... organised with intricate architecture and precision-engineering into a working machine capable of writing a book. ... Each nucleus ... contains a digitally-coded database larger, in information content, than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together. And this figure is for each cell.140
Dr. Francis Collins, one of the world’s most important experts on genetics and the scientist who deciphered the DNA code, has announced his belief in Allah. Following his great discovery, Collins wrote a book describing his faith in Allah. Every rational person of good conscience will appreciate that unconscious atoms could never spontaneously give rise to the extraordinary system in DNA.
Francis Collins:
I felt the presence of God while working in the laboratory. There is definitely a force greater than ourselves, and I believe in that. Deciphering DNA drew me a little closer to God.141
Some evolutionists admit that such is the case:
Carly P. Haskins is an evolutionist biologist. The following is excerpted from an article published in American Scientist magazine:
But the most sweeping evolutionary questions at the level of biochemical genetics are still unanswered. How the genetic code first appeared and then evolved and, earlier even than that, how life itself originated on Earth remain for the future to resolve... Did the code and the means of translating it appear simultaneously in evolution? It seems almost incredible that any such coincidence could have occurred, given the extraordinary complexities of both sides and the requirement that they be coordinated accurately for survival. By a pre-Darwinian (or a skeptic of evolution after Darwin) this puzzle would surely have been interpreted as the most powerful sort of evidence for special creation.142
Leslie E. Orgel is a senior fellow and researcher professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences in San Diego:
We do not understand even the general features of the origin of the genetic code... [It] is the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life and a major conceptual or experimental breakthrough may be needed before we can make any substantial progress.143
Paul Auger is an evolutionist and French scientist:
It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.144
Douglas R. Hofstadter, Pulitzer Prize winner and professor of cognitive science and computer science at Indiana University:
How a single egg cell divides to form so numerous differentiated cells, and the perfect natural communication and the cooperation between these cells top the events that amaze scientists.145
Francis Crick is the Nobel Prize-winning evolutionist geneticist who, together with James Watson, discovered DNA:
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.146
John Maddox is the former editor of Nature magazine:
It is disappointing that the origin of the genetic code is still as obscure as the origin of life itself.147
Pierre Grassé is the renowned French evolutionist and zoologist:
Any living being possesses an enormous amount of "intelligence," very much more than is necessary to build the most magnificent of cathedrals. Today, this "intelligence" is called information, but it is still the same thing. It is not programmed as in a computer, but rather it is condensed on a molecular scale in the chromosomal DNA or in that of every other organelle in each cell. This "intelligence" is the sine qua non of life. Where does it come from? . . This is a problem that concerns both biologists and philosophers, and, at present, science seems incapable of solving it.148
Confessions Regarding the Impossibilityof the "RNA World" Thesis
In the 1970s, scientists realized that the gasses actually contained in the primeval Earth's atmosphere made protein synthesis impossible. This came as a grave blow to the theory of evolution, when the primeval atmosphere experiments conducted by evolutionists such as Miller, Fox and Ponnamperuma were proved to be totally invalid.
In the 1980s, therefore, evolutionists began looking elsewhere. As a result, the thesis of the RNA world was put forward by the chemist Walter Gilbert in 1986. He suggested that proteins did not form first, but rather the RNA molecule that carries protein data.
Billions of years ago, according to this scenario, an imaginary RNA molecule somehow capable of replicating itself came into being in a chance manner. Under the effect of environmental conditions, this RNA molecule began suddenly producing imaginary proteins. The need then arose to store these data in another molecule, and in some way, the imaginary DNA molecule was formed.
This scenario is difficult even to imagine, and every stage of it consists of a separate impossibility. Instead of explaining the origin of life, it actually expanded the problem and gave rise to a number of unanswerable questions. Since it's impossible to account for even one of the nucleotides making up RNA having formed by chance, how could nucleotides have come to make up RNA by combining in just the correct imaginary sequence?
Let us remember here that Darwinists have had to espouse the RNA world thesis as a result of their helplessness stemming from their inability to account for even a single protein. How can Darwinists, unable to account for even a single protein, explain how the far more complex RNA might have come into existence spontaneously? It is noteworthy that no evolutionist discussing the RNA world thesis ever touches on that subject. Because Darwinists, as with all their claims about the origin of life, have nothing they can possibly say on that subject, either.
Even if we assume that this imaginary RNA, the Darwinists are referring to, has been formed somehow by coincidence, then with what awareness could this RNA, consisting of just one nucleotide chain, have decided to copy itself? And with what mechanism did it succeed in doing so? Where did it find the nucleotides it would need during the replication process?
Even if we assume that, no matter how impossible, all these things actually happened, they are still not enough to form a single protein molecule. Because RNA is merely data regarding protein structure. The amino acids which constitute the building structure of the proteins, are the raw materials. Yet there is no mechanism here for producing proteins. To say that the existence of RNA is enough for the production of protein is no less ridiculous than saying that throwing the blueprint for a car onto the thousands of its components is enough for that car to eventually assemble itself- spontaneously.
There are no factories or workers around to let production take place.
Even Jacques Monod, the Nobel Prize-winning French zoologist and fanatical adherent of evolution, states that it is impossible to reduce protein manufacture solely to the information contained in nucleic acid:
The code is meaningless unless translated. The modern cell's translating machinery consists of at least fifty macromolecular components, which are themselves coded in DNA: the code cannot be translated otherwise than by products of translation themselves. It is the modern expression of omne vivum ex ovo [Latin for "All that lives arises from an egg"]. When and how did this circle become closed? It is exceedingly difficult to imagine.149
Other confessions by evolutionists regarding the impossibility of the RNA world are as follows.
Gerald Joyce is a researcher at The Scripps Research Institute, and Dr. Leslie Orgel is an evolutionist microbiologists at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences in San Diego:
This discussion... has, in a sense, focused on a straw man: the myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it would strain the credulity of even an optimist's view of RNA's catalytic potential.150
Dr. Leslie Orgel:
This scenario could have occurred, we noted, if prebiotic RNA had two properties not evident today: A capacity to replicate without the help of proteins and an ability to catalyze every step of protein synthesis.151
Manfred Eigen is a German biophysicist and former director of the Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry in Göttingen:
One can safely assume that primordial routes of synthesis and differentiation provided minute concentrations of short sequences of nucleotides that would be recognized as 'correct' by the standards of today's biochemistry.152
John Horgan is a writer for Scientific American magazine:
DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins.153
The biologist Francis Hitching describes how not one single fossil supporting the theory of evolution has ever been found:
If we find fossils, and if Darwin's theory was right, we can predict what the rock should contain; finely graduated fossils leading from one group of creatures to another group of creatures at a higher level of complexity. The 'minor improvements' in successive generations should be as readily preserved as the species themselves. But this is hardly ever the case. In fact, the opposite holds true.154
Confessions Regarding the Invalidity of the Miller Experiment
This experiment, which has today lost all credibility in evolutionists' eyes, is unfortunately still portrayed as significant evidence by certain evolutionist circles in Turkey. Yet even Miller himself is aware that his experiment is meaningless in explaining the origin of life. The way evolutionists still cling to an experiment whose invalidity has been openly admitted is an indication of their despair.
(For more detail on the Miller Experiment and the reasons why it is incorrect, see Harun Yahya's The Evolution Deceit, 1998.)
In 1986, 33 years after his experiment, Stanley Miller himself said that primeval atmosphere experiments in which high levels of ammonia were used were not realistic:
Therefore, the chemical atmosphere of that time should have been formed mostly of nitrogen (N2), carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor (H2O). However these are not as appropriate as methane and ammonia for the production of organic molecules.1
The well-known evolutionist journal Earth carried the following lines in an article titled “The Cooking Pot of Life” in its February 1998 edition:
Geologists now think that the primordial atmosphere consisted mainly of carbon dioxide and nitrogen, gases that are less reactive than those used in the 1953 experiment. And even if Miller's atmosphere could have existed, how do you get simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the necessary chemical changes that will convert them into more complicated compounds, or polymers, such as proteins? Miller himself throws up his hands at that part of the puzzle. “It's a problem,” he sighs with exasperation. “How do you make polymers? That's not so easy.”2
Kevin M. Kean describes the position in an article in Discover magazine:
Miller and Urey imitated the ancient atmosphere on the Earth with a mixture of methane and ammonia... However in the latest studies, it has been understood that the Earth was very hot at those times, and that it was composed of melted nickel and iron. Therefore, the chemical atmosphere of that time should have been formed mostly of nitrogen (N2), carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor (H2O). However these are not as appropriate as methane and ammonia for the production of organic molecules.3
From an article titled “The Origin of Life on Earth” in the March 1998 edition of National Geographic:
Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different to what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia. That's bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry amount of organic molecules-the equivalent of dissolving a drop of food coloring in a swimming pool of water. Scientists find it hard to imagine life emerging from such a diluted soup.4
Harold Urey (an evolutionist scientist who performed the Miller Experiment together with his student Stanley Miller):
All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.5
Homer Jacobson, an American microbiologist:
Directions for the reproduction of plans, for energy and the extraction of parts from the current environment, for the growth sequence, and for the effector mechanism translating instructions into growth-all had to be simultaneously present at that moment [when life began]. This combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely happenstance...6
Dr. Leslie Orgel:
It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.7Footnotes
- Stanley Miller, Molecular Evolution of Life: Current Current Status of the Prebiotic Synthetis of Small Molecules, 1986, p. 7.
- “Life's Crucible,” Earth, February 1998, p. 34.
- Kevin Mc Kean, Bilim ve Teknik (“Science and Technology”), No. 189, p. 7.
- “The Rise of Life on Earth," National Geographic, March 1998, p. 68.
- W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Co. , 1991, p. 325.
- Homer Jacobson, "Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life," American Scientist, January 1955, p. 121.
- Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on Earth," Scientific American, vol. 271, October 1994, p. 78.
98- W.R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Co., 1991, pp. 298-99.
99- Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe, Dorling Kindersley Limited, 1983, p. 19.
100- Sir Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang in Astronomy," New Scientist, Vol. 92 (19 November 1981), pp. 526-527.
101- Sir Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1983, pp. 20-21.
102- Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984, p. 148.
103- Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1988), p. 144.
104- Ibid., p. 148.
105- Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim ["Inheritance and Evolution"], Ankara: Meteksan Publishing Co., 1984, p. 61.
106- W. Stokes, Essentials of Earth History, 186 (4th ed. 1942), cited in W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, p. 305..
107- Andrew Scott, "Update on Genesis," New Scientist, Vol. 106, May 2, 1985, p. 30.
108- Christian Schwabe, “On the Validity of Molecular Evolution,” Trends in Biochemical Sciences, Vol. 11, July 1986, p. 280.
109- http://yolgezer.fisek.com.tr/ renkler/evrim.html - Cemal Y›ld›r›m, Evrim Kuram› ve Ba¤nazl›k, Ankara 1998
110- Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Yaşamın Temel Kuralları ["Basic Rules of Life"], Genel Biyoloji/Genel Zooloji, Vol. 1, Chapter 1, 5th edition, p. 569.
111- Cairns-Smith, Alexander G., "The First Organisms," Scientific American, 252: 90, June 1985.
112- Sir Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, p. 148.
113- Caryl P. Haskins, "Advances and Challenges in Science in 1970," American Scientist, Vol. 59, May-June, 1971, p. 305.
114- Alexander I. Oparin, Origin of Life, New York: Dover Publications, 1936, 1953 (reprint), p. 196.
115- Loren Eiseley, The Immense Journey (1957), p. 206 (Quoting German biologist Von Bertalanffy.
116- Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Kalıtım ve Evrim, [“Inheritance and Evolution”], p. 158.
117- Klaus Dose, "The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers," Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 13, no. 4, 1988, p. 348.
118- Klaus Dose, "The Origin of Life: More Questions than Answers," Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, p. 352.
119- http:// atschool. eduweb. co. uk /SBS777/ vital/evolutio.html
120- Jeffrey Bada, "Life's Crucible," Earth, February 1998, p. 40.
121- Hoimar Von Ditfurth, Dinozorlar›n Sessiz Gecesi 2, ["The Silent Night of the Dinosaurs 2"), p. 22.
122- Ibid.
123- Ibid.
124- Ibid.
125- Graham, Keith, et. al. Biology Pensacola, FL: A Beka Book Publications, 1986. s. 373
126- Green, David E., and Robert F. Goldberger, Molecular Insights into the Living Process, New York: Academic Press, 1967, p. 403.
127- W. Ford Doolittle, "Phylogenetic Classification and the Universal Tree," Science, Vol. 284:2124-2128 (June 25, 1999)
128- Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Kal›t›m ve Evrim ["Inheritance and Evolution"], Ankara: Meteksan Publications, p. 79.
129- http://www.icr.org/headlines/ darwinvindicated.html; "Was Darwin Really 'Vindicated'?", Frank Sherwin, Institute for Creation Research, April 30, 2001.
130- Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim ["Inheritance and Evolution"], p. 39.
131- Ibid, p. 79.
132- Ibid., p. 94.
133- Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, The Basic Laws of Life: General Zoology, Volume 1, Section 1, Ankara, 1998, p. 578.
134- W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, p. 304.
135- Fabbri Britannica Bilim Ansiklopedisi ["Fabbri Britannica Science Encyclopaedia"], Vol. 2, no. 22, p. 519.
136- W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, p. 303.
137- Michael Anthony Corey, Back to Darwin, Rowman and Littlefield, 1994, p. 32.
138- Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, p. 233.
139- John Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmary, The Major Transitions in Evolution, p 81 (W.H. Freeman, 1995).
140- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, W. W. Norton & Co. New York, 1996, pp. 2-3, 115-116.
141- Francis S. Collins, “The Language of God”, Free Press, New York, 2006.
142- Caryl P. Haskins, "Advances and Challenges in Science in 1970," American Scientist, Vol. 59, May-June, 1971, p. 305.
143- Leslie E. Orgel, "Darwinism at the Very Beginning of Life," New Scientist, vol.94 (April 15, 1982), p. 151.
144- Paul Auger, De la Physique Theorique a la Biologie, 1970, p. 118.
145- Douglas R. Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, New York: Vintage Books, 1980, p. 548.
146- Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981, p. 88.149- "The Genesis Code by Numbers," Nature, 367:111, January 1994.
147- John Maddox, “The genetic code by numbers”, Nature, 1994, 367 (6459): 111.
148- Pierre P. Grassé, The Evolution of Living Organisms, 1977, p. 168.
149- Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity, New York, 1971, p. 143.
150- G.F. Joyce, L. E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," In the RNA World, Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Laboratory Press, 1993, p. 13.
151- Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on the Earth," Scientific American, October 1994, vol. 271, p. 78
152- Manfred Eigen, William Gardiner, Peter Schuster and Ruthild Winkler-Oswatitsch, "The Origin of Genetic Information," Scientific American, Vol. 244, (April 1981), p. 91.
153- John Horgan, "In the Beginning," Scientific American, Vol. 264, February 1991, p. 119.
154- Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, Tichnor and Fields, p. 40
No comments:
Post a Comment