The theory of evolution has collapsed in the first place, in the face of the question, “How did life begin?” Evolutionists, who tell pages of stories and create countless speculations about fossils and origins of species, cannot produce an imaginary scenarios to answer the question “How did life begin?” and fall into a deep silence: This is because it is not possible to explain how even a single protein molecule came into existence by itself through blind coincidences. There is no answer to explain how inanimate molecules came to life and turned into living organisms.
Their desperation is expressed in an article written by Brian Switek, dated February 13th, 2012, on the online version of the Nature magazine, which is one of the sources evolutionists most rely on, as such:
How life began is one of nature’s enduring mysteries. Fossil and biological clues have led scientists to estimate that cells originated on this planet about four billion years ago, but exactly what catalysed their emergence has remained elusive.
Scientists who conduct research into the origins of life have not been able to obtain any further information than Stanley Miller who carried out his first unsuccessful experiment some 50 years ago, did.
Paul Davies, a professor of physics and an author, refers to this subject in his book, Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life, as such:
When I set out to write this book, I was convinced that science was close to wrapping up the mystery of life’s origin… Having spent a year or two researching in the field, I am now of the opinion that there remains a huge gulf in our understanding… This gulf in understanding is not merely ignorance about certain technical details; it is a major conceptual lacuna.[i]
Franklin Harold, cellular biologist at the Colorado State University, says that the subject of origins of life is one of the “...unsolved mysteries of science.”[ii]
Andy Koll, a biologist at Harvard University, accepts that the origins of life cannot be explained by the theory of evolution:
If we try to summarize by just saying what, at the end of the day, do we know about the deep history of life on Earth, about its origin, about its formative stages that gave rise to the biology we see around us today, I think we have to admit that we're looking through a glass darkly here. We have some hints, we have a geologic record that tells us that life formed early on the planet, although our ability to interpret that in terms of specific types of microorganisms is still frustratingly limited.
I imagine my grandchildren will still be sitting around saying that it's a great mystery.
There are still some great mysteries. People sometimes think that science really takes away mystery, but I think there are great scientific mysteries and causes for wonder and, most importantly, things that will, I hope, stimulate biologists for years to come. We don't know how life started on this planet. We don't know exactly when it started, we don't know under what circumstances.[iii]
These explanations surprise people who follow the subject in newspapers or TV programs, because a majority of people, including scientists, thinks that the theory of evolution provides an explanation for the origins of life. Even some “inexperienced evolutionists” who strongly defend the theory of evolution - and whose opinions are shared on television programs or in newspaper columns - claim that the theory of evolution does explain how the first living thing came into existence, and they go so far as to say they see examples of this every day at the lab; these are people who defend the theory of evolution without any basis or scientific evidence, only due to ideological reasons, and who are distant from rational or scientific reasoning. However, the theory of evolution has not even the slightest explanation how inanimate atoms came to life and turned into animate organisms. Evolutionists know this very well, but most of them cannot confess to this fact; evolutionists, especially in Turkey, put a lot of effort into defending their theories with completely unscientific claims as a result of the severity of their devastation.
Paul Davies explains why the public is unaware of this fact and why scientists don't reveal that the theory of evolution is far from explaining the origins of life as such:
Many investigators feel uneasy about stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they freely admit that they are baffled. There seems to be two reasons for their unease. First, they feel it opens the door to religious fundamentalists and their god-of-the-gaps pseudo- explanations. Second, they worry that a frank admission of ignorance will undermine funding. [iv]
As Davies stated, evolutionists who realize the impossibility of inanimate atoms coming together through coincidences to form proteins, which are the smallest building blocks of life, hide the failures of their research from the public in order to withhold the fact that All-Mighty and All-Knowing Allah is the One Who created life.
Even though Darwin made speculations as to how species evolved from one another in his book Origin of Species, he was not able to make speculations as to how life first began or write any books or articles about the origin of life itself.
Following Darwin, no evolutionist was able to explain how life first began or how the first cell or even the first protein came into existence on its own through coincidence.
Today, even Richard Dawkins - who is one of the most prominent supporters of the theory of evolution - admits that it is of course impossible for the first protein to come into existence by chance and claims that life was created by A SUPERIOR INTELLIGENCE somewhere in outer space.
A scientist claiming that a wonder of Creation such as proteins, which are incredibly complex, was “made by aliens” is of course miserable for the world of Darwinist science; however instead of supporting a much more irrational claim –coincidences- supporting the idea that living things were created by a superior intelligence is a sign of Darwinism’s defeat in the eyes of Dawkins as well. As a matter of fact, it is impossible for a rational and honest person to support Darwinism in the face of the extraordinary signs of Creation at hand.
How was the claim that “the first living organism was very simple” refuted?
As we mentioned in the lines above, evolutionists cannot give a scientific answer to the question of how life first began; they claim that the first living things were “primitive” and “simple” bacteria and try to give the impression that inanimate substances came together by coincidence to easily form these so-called “primitive organisms”.
However, advanced developments in fields like biochemistry, molecular biology and genetics clearly show that these claims of evolutionists have no scientific rationale or validity whatsoever.
For example, some scientists have carried out studies to calculate the minimum genetic requirements for life within the context of genome research; they calculated how many proteins or which chemical processes an organism needs to become an animate organism. A majority of these researchers hoped to show, in their own opinion, that the first living organism did not need to be complex, but rather that it had qualities “simple” enough to be formed by chance. But the results they came up with destroyed such hope as well. Once again they found that even the minimum conditions needed for life is very complex and impossible to be obtained by chance.
These scientists first converged to no prokaryote (single-celled) beings known to be less complex. Biochemists use the size of an organism’s genome to measure the complexity of that species. (The genome contains all of the genetic information of an organism written by the nucleotide sequences (letters) of the DNA.) Information found in the genome of an organism is the instructions the machines in the cell use to produce proteins.
Proteins are found in both the structure of the cell and all of its functions. To define the number and type of proteins in an organism provides important insight about the structure, processes and thus complexity of this organism.
In prokaryotes, generally a single gene produces a protein: Therefore, the number and type of genes found in the genome of prokaryotes give us the number and type of proteins found in an organism, and as a result of this relationship, genome size is an important criteria for the biological complexity of a prokaryote cell.
Minimum complexity required for life
Biochemists looked at the genome sequences set to understand the minimum complexity of life and found that the organism with the least complexity determined today is a bacteria called Pelagibacter ubique. These bacteria had 1,354 gene products, meaning proteins and functional RNAs like ribosomal and RNA transfers.
In this case, it is clearly seen that even those living beings, which evolutionists considered to be the simplest organisms, are incredibly complex. Thus, inanimate matter could not have organized to form life, as claimed by the theory of evolution. When the theory of evolution cannot explain how even a single protein has come into existence, they now have to explain how 1,350 came into existence and organized to form the first living organism. It is obvious that this is beyond impossible.
It is known now that the first life on Earth was chemically very complex. Researchers discovered that even in the simplest form of life, there is a surprisingly high number of proteins organized inside the cell.
While the theory of evolution cannot explain how a single protein has come into existence, it cannot explain the existence of hundreds of proteins found in the first single-celled being claimed to be “primitive”, or how it could form a perfect system through coincidences; besides when the history of life is examined, it is seen that Pelagibacter ubique, which has the smallest genome, was not the first being created; the first ones were bacteria called cyanobacteria known as the most complex member of the bacteria world. So these bacteria, which provide oxygen for our life and nitrogen in plants, are therefore the first step of the life cycle.
In order to better grasp this dilemma, faced by the theory of evolution, it is important to remember the chain of events needed to form a single protein molecule. It is clear that this amazing system, which makes proteins produce proteins, is created by Almighty, All-Knowing Allah Who has infinite wisdom.
[i] Paul Davies, The Fifth Miracle:The Searchfor the Origin and Meaning of Life (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999), pp. 17-18
[ii] Franklin Harold, The Way of the Cell:Molecules, Organisms, and the Order of Life (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 235.
[iii] Andy Knoll, PBS Nova Interview, May 3, 2004 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/how-did-life-begin.html
[iv] Paul Davies, The Fifth Miracle:The Searchfor the Origin and Meaning of Life (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999), pp. 17-18
No comments:
Post a Comment