VOLUME 1 NUMBERVIII
BLOCKS OF LIFE
"Evolution is an observable process, a fact of life. It refers to changes in gene frequencies
between generations of animals or plants. It occurs every day and has been demonstrated
in many species. And it has its down side: Most laypeople are familiar with the rapid evolution
of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, or the evolution of resistance to DDT in mosquitoes. So
where is the theory part? Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is a nearly universally
accepted scientific explanation for how, not whether, evolution occurred in the past and how it is
occurring in the present".
Sarah Pallas in a debate with Dr Philip Johnson on ‘The Origin of Life’ ,
Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 14 April 2002
Papers © 2002
James M. Foard
The Darwin Papers may be freely
copied and distributed for non profit use
provided acknowledgement is made
for material written by the author.
THIS SITE IS PRESENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION
At first glance, the above quote from an evolutionist sounds rather intimidating and hard to refute. We are assured that evolution is "a fact of life". It is something that we see every day. It is a "nearly universally accepted scientific explanation"- at least that is, according to Ms. Pallas. These types of broad, sweeping statements are commonly made by evolutionists, and they are meant to strengthen the faith of the believers (evolutionists), persuade the skeptics, and intimidate the opposition, the "heretics" (creationists).
The problem with the statement we just read by Ms. Pallas is that, although to the untrained mind it appears at first glance like a valid statement simply because of the way she has invoked the apparent authority of such impeccable sources, in fact it is not a scientific statement at all, despite the special plea to genetics and antibiotics. It is in reality the reaffirmation of a belief, it is the repetition of a creed, it is in fact a religious statement of faith in an atheistic or agnostic world view that negates the divine, sovereign interaction of God in the processes of life.
has magnificently and fraudulently overstated her case on very flimsy
(In other words, she's lying)
In fact, she's piling up one whopper on top of another whopper on top of
another whopper faster than Burger King in the middle of a busy lunch rush.
Let's just examine her statement to prove the point.
First, regarding the scientific evidence.
Pallas is parroting the classic Darwin myth, using the same technique that all evolutionists use, already referred to in previous chapters, where some small, slight genetic change within a species is extrapolated as evidence for the evolutionary claim that all species have descended from a common ancestor. But there was never any actual change from one species into another. The bacteria still remained the same species of bacteria, the mosquitoes still remained the same species of mosquitoes.
The ability to develop an immune resistance to certain hazardous environmental toxins and viruses has been known for centuries, and this knowledge is how we have developed our modern science of vaccination to inoculate ourselves from certain diseases.
This is no proof for evolution. This is simply evidence of the genetic potential put into us by the wise Creator for our benefit and survival. There is no changing of one species into another through this process.
Simply because someone has been inoculated with a flu vaccine so that they will not catch the flu virus, this does not mean that they are "evolving" into anything other than a human being, and this is true of mosquitoes and bacteria who have developed immunities against certain poisons. It is known that drug addicts can develop a tolerance to certain drugs after a period of time and they can take an amount that if ingested by someone who had never taken the drug before would kill that person.
Indeed, the modern science of inoculation was developed by Louis Pasteur, a committed Christian and creationist who delivered an impassioned speech in 1864 against Darwin's "theory" of evolution.
the claim that this is evolution and that "it occurs every day
and has been demonstrated in many species".
This is utter nonsense.
Evolution does not occur every day and it has not been demonstrated in many species. According to Ms. Pallas you just have to step out your front door and you can see evolution happening all around you.
Do you see species changing into other species every day? Is the world full of transitional forms, say of trees changing into other types of trees, or of dogs becoming something else besides dogs, or horses evolving into anything else? Is this some obvious fact of life that is staring us in the face every day that we wake up? Only in the minds of evolutionists.
Simply saying something is so does not make it so. The absolute lack of evidence for evolution from the past and in the present has been demonstrated in the previous four chapters, so we do not need to go through those arguments again.
Of course evolutionists have an ingeniously clever, almost
devilishly clever explanation for this lack of evidence: Evolution is taking
place at such a slow pace that we can't actually see it happening, but it is
happening nonetheless! They also come up with amazing excuses for the lack of
evidence with such remarkable explanations as "Individuals don't evolve, populations evolve." What in the world are we to make of
that explanation, and what is it saying, if anything? If this explanation were
true however, then it would destroy two of the evolutionist's favorite methods
for evolution to work: genetic isolation and natural selection. For if the
entire population were evolving all at the same time, then natural selection of
a few "more fit" members to pass on their genetic data to favored offspring
would be fruitless.
The Hardy-Weinberg Principle is a real law of population genetics, an outgrowth of Mendel’s conclusions, and is taught in most courses now dealing with anthropology, paleoanthropology (probably with a spoonful of sugar to ease passage), and social culture. Developed during the first part of the twentieth century, it mathematically proves that the average percentage of genes distributed throughout the entire population remains fairly constant, with no new genetic material forming, no new species evolving.
What evolutionists are doing now, since the fossil record is being held up to ridicule for being a far cry from the witness that evolutionists hoped that it would be for their theory, is trying to use genetic data to further their fantastic claims. That will be the subject of this chapter, the genetic data for or against Darwin's theory of evolution.
As noted, evolutionists will take a very common fact that no one can dispute, such as genetic variability and change within certain species, or even families of animals, and then they will use that fact to try to infer that evolution, a non-fact, is occuring. They use these same schemes over and over again, and after one has learned how to spot their deceit it sort of becomes old hat to expose them.
Change does occur every day, and change occurs within living organisms, but this is not unlimited change: It is confined within certain biological laws and boundaries, and it has never been demonstrated that flowers, insects, fish, fir trees, mammals and reptiles have a common ancestor, or that they came from some single celled bacteria, as evolutionists claim that they have.
You can only stretch the barriers to genetic change to a certain limit, similar to stretching a rubber band, and then it will eventually snap back into place, while the species, or in some cases the genus or family type is maintained.
After using these two sad examples as evidence for evolution she then has the hubris to ask "So where is the theory part?"
My question is "Where's the beef?" Actually her question is accurate also, because there is not really much theory to go on with evolution either. It makes a very poor theory, because even a theory is supposed to have some type of cooborating evidence to substantiate it, and evolution has none.
Then Pallas uses Darwin's theory of evolution as proof for Darwin's theory of evolution, and states that evolution is a tenet that is not to be questioned: "Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is a nearly universally accepted scientific explanation for how, not whether, evolution occurred in the past and how it is occurring in the present."
common among evolutionists. They will use the theory of evolution as a proof for
the theory of evolution, and look you straight in the face without blinking an
eye while they make such an outrageously fatuous argument! This seems to
sit very well with them. Apparently they have no problem with it.
Try to point this out to a true believer (in evolution) though and you may feel like Alice trying to argue logically with the Red Queen in Wonderland. It is amazing that evolutionists use such convoluted, bent logic to try and uphold their case, and such shopworn, threadbare arguments such as mosquitoes developing a resistance to DDT as evidence that humans descended from bacteria through the course of hundreds of millions of years. .
To call Darwinism, or evolution, a theory, is a misnomer. It does not even have enough evidence to qualify as a theory. It is not science, it is an assertion – a bald faced lie that the evolutionists have declared to be true for over a century without providing any substantive evidence.
on biology written with an evolutionary bias will begin by presenting an
explanation of the scientific process, which in most cases is fairly
accurate, and then they will inevitably insert the customary tributes
of praise to Charles Darwin, and his renowned Origin of
Almost no other great scientist of reputable worth is mentioned as synonymous with the scientific process in the same manner as Darwin is among evolutionists, and this is a bit curious, as there have been very many eminent men of science in the field of biology who have contributed as much or more than Darwin did to, say for instance, our understanding of the cell and it's workings, which Darwin contributed nothing to; our understanding of the circulation of the blood and of the function of certain organs of the body, which Darwin contributed almost nothing to either; our understanding of any aspect of biochemistry, which Darwin contributed not a jot or a tittle to; our understanding of botany, which Darwin contributed nothing to at all; our understanding of genetics, which Darwin gave us no data on; our understanding of anatomy, which Darwin made no discovery of note at all that is referred to in any scientific or technical literature; our understanding of any diseases, their probable cause, possible cure or their symptoms, which Darwin threw no light on; anything having to do with any chemical, physical, or observable physiological phenomena that advanced our knowledge of medicine, organic chemistry, surgery, physics, or mathematics; in fact, in any truly specific scientific discipline Darwin has given us nothing at all, except his theory that we all descended from creatures that, for all practical purposes were identical with apes.
And it gets curiouser and curiouser. In almost no other field of human enquiry is so much talked about by so many people about which so little is known. Literally volumes have been written on various aspects of evolution by evolutionists for over a century, but when you search for the really hard data, you find that it is sort of like pulling back the curtain to reveal Professor Marvel manipulating the gears and levers to produce the phantom appearance of the Wizard of Oz; it is merely a lot of smoke and mirrors; a grand charade of pomp and circumstance propped up with scientific nomenclature to make it appear as though we have really got something here that explains how life originated and how species came into being.
And like the Wizard of Oz, we have Darwin the Great, Darwin the Magnificent, Darwin the grand Wizard of Evolution who is brought out and proclaimed to the masses by those "in the know" as the man who originated this marvelous theory.
seen from the previous chapters the utterly ludicrous, preposterously false
creation of this man by his evolutionist contemporaries and those who have
followed him, persisting on down to the present day, with the same inane
glorification of his accomplishments so entirely out of step with the reality of
who the man really was: A crafty and clever, conniving illusionist with words
(much like his father-John 8:44) who presented as fact what has never been
proved, either in actual observation in nature or in any laboratory
experiment-the origin of the various species of life that we find on
earth through gradual evolution from a common ancestor.
Darwin never really proved evolution at all; he did not even originate the theory, nor did he originate natural selection either. I suspect that behind the scenes God is having a great laugh at the evolutionists, were it not for the tragic consequences of their teachings.
Darwin is simply the evolutionist's poster boy. From what we have found out about him, he seems to be the real life prototype of the fictional character Chauncey Gardiner, an idiot gardener (albeit a quite cunning idiot) who is mistaken for a wise man by the social elite of his day while they fall on his every word, fauningly interpeting his banal utterances for words of wisdom. Scripture is fulfilled in this, where it is written "He has taken the wise in their own craftiness."
And evolutionists will inevitably have to backtrack, as we have seen, from their specious pronouncements of Darwin's scientific achievements, because in the final analasis they do not in fact exist.
It is extremely important here to be aware of the subtle technique, common with evolutionists and referred to in earlier chapters, of injecting truth with falsehood; first by opening the topic of scientific enquiry with a credible presentation of the scientific method, but then tying that in with Darwin's theory of evolution without presenting even the slightest iota of evidence except by inference, and then concluding that evolution has been proven beyond doubt as a fact of science as incontrovertible as the Laws of Gravity or Motion, or the conductivity of electricity.
This was done by Helena Curtis in her monumental tome Biology, where she employs this very method, first by introducing us to a detailed explanation of how we make observations and then form hypotheses, which are proposals that are not yet verified by the facts but await further testing to positively confirm that they are adequate explanations for phenomena, and then we correlate data based on further observation and experiment, and then form theories based on the data, and finally arrive at what are known as conclusions when the theories are repeatedly verified. A hypothesis that makes it through the theory stage and is found to be a universally adequate explanation for a certain natural phenomena is eventually enshrined as a Law of Science.
So far so good. Now, here's the rub, and Curtis in characteristic fashion covers her bases in an evolutionist apologetic that would be the envy of Augustine himself, except that his logic had a basis in historic truth, whereas hers is built on the nebulous hypothesis of Darwinism. Curtis defines Darwin's "scientific publication", The Origin of Species, as meeting these requirements, indeed she states that
"A theory that has withstood repeated testing over a period of time becomes elevated to the status of a law or principle, although not always identified as such. The 'theory' [here she uses quotes, thus to infer that evolution is much more than a theory] of evolution, which has been tested and retested, directly and indirectly, for the past 130 years, is an example. As far as scientists are concerned, it is a basic principle of biology, just as is the cell 'theory' [her quotes again]."
(Helena Curtis, Biology, Worth Publishing, New York, 1989, p. 15)
she frames her argument, first by particularising the "theory" of evolution in
quotation marks to emphasise it's presumed arrival at the status of a "Law"
of science, and then equating that with the cell "theory". The problem with this
comparison is that evolution has never even come close to what we would
call a Law of science, while what we know about cells at this point is no
longer merely a "theory". Our knowledge of cells may have been a
theory two hundred years ago, but at this point is it really merely a
"theory" to state that all living matter that we know of is composed of cells?
Are cells some sort of hypothesised conjecture that still await further testing to confirm their existence or their necessity to life? Of course not, but Curtis uses this ruse in an attempt to lend validity to her statement that evolution, like the cell theory, has been "tested and retested, directly and indirectly, for the past 130 years".
mentions none of these so-called "tests" for evolution; there are none, there
never were any; how can you test a hypothesis that has no data, nor factual
evidence that can be brought into the laboratory and be subject to repeated,
controlled procedures? How can you subject something to repeated testing that
even it's very adherants claim happened for the most part millions of years ago
in the past? (That's actually pretty convenient for the evolutionists) Or else
it is something that they claim is happening so slowly at present (if at all)
that we can't actually see it happening?
And let us concern ourselves with genuine examples that would show evolution, not the fruit-fly, not the primrose, not the peppered moth, or the walking stick, which have been laughed out of some scientific circles for their tawdry, paultry excuses for the origin of new species kinds.
Ms. Curtis uses the same type of hyperbole that Ms. Pallas uses in the introductory quote above, attempting to awe and inspire the reader with assurances for the evidence for evolution, yet without providing a single, verifiable example to support her thesis! She states in characteristic fashion: "Today, with almost no exceptions, modern biologists are convinced by a vast body of accumulated evidence that the earth has a long history and that all living organisms, including ourselves, arose in the course of that history from earlier, more primitive forms." (ibid, Pg. 9)
Here it becomes necessary to separate fact from opinion in her statement. Where is this "vast body of accumulated evidence" that she assures us exists? Granted, many biologists do believe in the evolutionary tale that humans evolved from earlier life forms, however this is by no means unanimous, thus when she states that this belief is held "with almost no exceptions" she is radically overstating her case. There are literally tens of thousands, perhaps at this point millions of accredited scientitists worldwide who do not hold to the tenets of evolution, although from Ms. Curtis's allusion one would hardly guess that this is the case. Again she combines a belief in an old earth with belief in evolutionary theory, while neither are necessarily mutually inclusive. Many creationists who dispute the claims of Darwinism believe that the age of the earth might be hundreds of thousands, millions and even billions of years old, yet they believe that the evidence for evolution is to say the least largely inconclusive, and at the most non-existant.
continues with her description of this "vast body of accumulated evidence" for
evolution, again presenting us with no valid examples at all, except to use the
same outdated and disproven examples that even many evolutionists would
discredit, however she now includes the more recent DNA research in her
argument, but with no actual proof for that either aside from her rhetoric:
"This accumulated evidence consists of an interlocking fabric of thousands upon thousands of pieces of data concerning past and present organisms (we should have literally page upon page, indeed volumes of pages of these thousands of interlocking pieces of data, yet she provides not even one paragraph, not even the whisp of a phrase of any evidence, not even a list, say perchance of five concrete examples documenting any of these thousands upon thousands of pieces of data she claims to possess. She gives us nothing as evidence for evolution, aside from her impressive claims for evidence);
" . . . including not only anatomical structure (no evidence presented anywhere throughout her entire book) but also physiological and biochemical processes (no evidence presented anywhere in her entire book), patterns of embryonic development (the argument of embryonic evidence for evolution has been thoroughly demolished many years ago), patterns of behaviour (suppositional evidence, since any similarity between humans and animals of other species is considered evidence for evolution by evolutionists, and of course we have to ask ourselves why wouldn't there be at least some similarities of structure and behaviour among various denizens designed to occupy the same place in the universe, living in similar ecological environments, where these behaviours and structures would be necessary if any life at all were to survive successfully?
After all, don't humans and other large land animals all breathe the same air, drink the same water, eat carbon based macromolecules gathered from previously living matter to survive? Wouldn't species that are similar to one another use similar methods of gathering food, mating and rearing their young? This would make plain common sense, but this does not prove common ancestry, merely that we have common needs and commonly designed methods of coping with these needs. Real evidence, apart from suppositional evidence, would be finding the missing links; it would be a clearly defined trail leading from one clearly defined species, or family kind to another with a radically divergent body plan by a gradual series of transitional forms, and this has never been observed in the present, and the fossil evidence for this is entirely missing as well) and most recently, the sequences of genetic information encoded in the DNA molecules of the chromosomes." (Curtis, Pg 9)
Since every one of her examples except for the DNA evidence has already been dealt with in the other chapters of The Darwin Papers and been thoroughly refuted, we will not need to go into these again now, however later on in this chapter we will examine her claim that DNA shows that humans along with the other species of life on earth evolved from a common ancestor and see if it holds any salt.
We have only touched here on the positive evidences for evolution that should exist if it were a fact but that are in truth missing; we have not even mentioned the negative aspects that show that evolution could never have occured at all, such as the frequency of mutation rates in genes that do not produce changes fast enough with the degree of reliability to explain all of the diverse species that exist here on planet earth, even if we grant the evolutionists their billions of years that they insist they need in their time scale for the whole process to happen. The mathematical probability for these fortuitous mutations to produce all of the divergent types of life that we see all around us is statistically impossible - in essence it could never have happened. The odds are against the evolutionists in a purely scientific setting, yet in the face of these daunting challenges they still cling to their theory, more out of allegience to their worldview than to any valid scientific evidence.
After her pean of outdated arguments for evolution, Ms. Curtis devolves, or rather descends into a garbled plea for acceptance of the theory of evolution, by stating that since there is still much that we do not know about the vastly complex arena of cellular biology, this is equivalent to why we still haven't come up with any factual documentation on evolution!:
"However, our knowledge of many of the details of cellular structure and function and of the details of the evolutionary process is in the stage of theory, or even hypothesis". (ibid)
see a blind spot in Ms. Curtis's worldview, a blind spot shared by all confirmed
She can no longer distinguish between a valid scientific fact and science fantasy. For her, the fact of cellular structure and function and the "fact" of evolution are indistinguishable; they exist as one in her mind. One is observable through a microscope, the other is not even a demonstrable theory, yet she cannot divorce the two, because in her worldview Darwin and evolution have become enshrined as the only possible explanation for this grand experience that we call life.
She is not merely trying to mix apples with oranges, that would be an understatement; she has become such a devoted disciple of Darwin that she can make a comparison that is so utterly removed from reality that she is apparently unaware of her logical misstep. And she proceeds along this path, equating all of the scientific discoveries made during the nineteenth century, and the scientific method itself, with Darwin's theory. He has become an icon, a prophet, an unassailable bastion of scientific veracity, necessary for her worldview to survive, perhaps necessary for her sanity. She would be lost without Darwin; his theory has become much more than a scientific theory (which it never was to begin with), it has reached the status of a revealed truth, an eternal fixture, and yet in the final analysis with no genuine documentation to prove it-none at all. It is simply a way for those who do not wish to include God, in His sovereign aspect of Creator and Sustainer of the universe and of all of life, to be able to dismiss Him from their calculation, even at the expense of facts and logic.
bears repeating since evolutionists consistently make the same
overstatements, use the same faulty logic, ply the same techniques of verbal
sophistry to make what is not factual appear to be factual.
They present a false premise and then attempt to validate it by by mixing scientific fact with evolutionary fiction, and I have merely attempted with my limited ability to separate the fact, what we can genuinely know through observation and experiment, from the standard evolutionist hyperbole, and this is not always an easy procedure, however it is necessary for us if we are to establish a more solid foundation for human progress, scientifically, morally and spiritually, to continue on, or better yet, to return to, it's right course.
Having cleared the air a little bit, let us embark on a journey into that marvelously orchestrated, supremely designed basis of all of life, the cell, and the primary controlling agent and carrier of genetic information from parent to offspring in this grand cycle of life, DNA.
Let us start our study of biology as it should be started, with the words of absolute truth to guide us, and leave the fables of Darwinism behind us, except where it is necessary to expose the falsehoods of the evolutionists in their misinterpretation of the history of life's origin.
Thus we should open our topic of biology with these words from God Himself:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Before He created life, the Allmighty created the heavens and the earth. Thus he created the elements and the environment necessary for life to exist in first as a necessity.
And He said Let there be light, and there was light. He created the time/space continuum during the first four days of the Creation Week, along with light waves, electromagnetic and gravitational forces and He implemented Laws for the working of these forces. And He stretched out the heavens by His power, and created the great Orion Nebulae, and created the vast galaxies and countless stars with His stretched out arm, and by wisdom He shaped the vast cosmos.
And He created the elements, and the nuclear forces that bind the elements together. He created Hydrogen, and Argon, and all the Noble gasses, and He created Carbon with the capacity to bond to other elements, and He combined hydgrogen and oxygen to form water also, so that life might have an environment to subsist in.
created living things, He made them according to a specific plan, and He created
them with a marvelous diversity, and yet among the many millions of living
organisms in the world today, they all possess certain basic
characteristics in common, thus revealing a common plan or design, and from this
basic design He made the Animals, and the Plants, and the Bacteria.
Darwinism disputes this Divine Truth, and claims that life evolved without the direct intervention of a Divine Hand, with the main principle in what they term the evolution of life being natural selection, by which process certain more successful life forms supplant other less successful life forms through evolutionary competition; thus in this winnowing out process one would think that after millions of years of progressive extinction there would be very few life forms left in this struggle for survival.
In fact, just the opposite is the case in the rich variety of life that we find today.
Among the myriads of different species of life on this planet, many of them survive quite successfully, thriving alongside other life forms that according to evolutionists should have either become extinct or made their neighbors extinct long ago. Granted, extinctions have occurred, but as noted in a previous chapter, extinction is precisely the opposite of the origin of any species, as different as the conception and birth of an organism are to the death and dissolutionment of that organism.
Let us start with the basic unit of life. All of life is made up of living cells. As we have noted in an earlier chapter, a cell is a dynamic, incredibly complex living computer with thousands of moving parts all working together with incredible speed, harmony and precision. It would have to "hit the ground running" from the very start of it's existence in an instant of time, with everything precisely in place and fully functional, processing thousands of bits of information each and every nano-second to have any chance of surviving in the primitive and hostile environment that evolutionists believe existed for their theory to work, with a fully functional cell wall protecting it while allowing only beneficial material to pass through it's barriers.
The odds against all of that happening through "natural selection" or any other naturalistic means without the intervention of an intelligent power are astronomical, in fact, impossible.
The only real word for this to have happened would be miracle.
There are certain attributes that characterise all of life and that separate all living organisms from non-living matter. These attributes, which may be called the Seven Attributes Unique to Living Systems are:
Since all of these attributes are necessary for the continuum of life, and they are all exhibited by every cell in every living organism in existence, we will go through them systematically in this chapter. We will also weigh the evidence for each of these attributes and their processes and see if the evidence supports an evolutionary theory or if the evidence would support the idea that they are all the product of an Intelligent Designer.
During the nineteenth century, when there were enormous advances being made in the fields of biology and chemistry, i.e. biochemistry, many scientists noticed that these characteristics were notably confined to living things and hence developed the theory called vitalism. This came out of the very sensible observation that rocks do not respond very well to stimuli, except according to general physical and chemical laws. Rocks do not adapt to different environments in the way that living things do. Rocks do not reproduce and develop after their own kind. Rocks do not have a complex energy conversion system with which to maintain a homeostatic environment within an organism that compensates for external variations in pressure. Rocks do not have a cellular barrier that selectively allows or restricts different chemical compounds access to their interval environment, and rocks do not seek out more favorable environments when those around them become inhospitable.
The theory of vitalism was not contradicted by the laws of physics and chemistry, rather it was rightly observed that there were other laws, biochemical laws as mentioned above, that were confined exclusively to living organisms, that worked in accordance with certain universal physical and chemical laws, but that were not shared by inorganic, i.e. non-living things.
perhaps the greatest scientist of the nineteenth century, was one of the
champions of vitalism and indeed, the theory of vitalism has never been
disproved, even by Eduard and Hans Buchner.
Pasteur claimed that there were certain processes, specifically Pasteur noted the fermentation of grape juice into wine, that could not be carried on without the aid of a living cell.
have claimed that because fruit juice was converted to wine without the direct
use of yeast cells in the fermentation process, this disproved vitalism,
and they have claimed a victory ever since over those who believe in the
Creation Process by God.
This is simply not the case at all. The enzyme used to convert the grape juice to wine was extracted from the yeast cells themselves, and has never been duplicated by any scientist in a laboratory. In other words, the chemical necessary for the fermentation process was still entirely dependent on a living donor for the process to occur. To truly disprove vitalism, one would have to start with an entirely inorganic set of compounds, and from there cause pure grape juice to ferment, which has never been done, and Pasteur's thesis has still stood the test of time.
In some biology textbooks, perhaps because of his ardent opposition to the theory of evolution, Pasteur is dealt rather dismissively by authors of an evolutionary persuasion, nevertheless his accomplishments cannot be lightly brushed aside, and he stands beside other giants of science in advancing human knowledge with his discovery of the principle of biogenesis and development of the science of bacteriology.
Vitalists do not claim that all chemical organic processes carried out by living cells cannot be duplicated in laboratory conditions. As has been stated, biochemical processes work in accordance with the laws of chemistry and physics, and fall within these two greater fields of activity, thus when the German chemist Whohler (1800-1882) claimed a victory over the vitalists by converting ammonium cyanate into urea, this did not contradict vitalism, it merely showed that a fairly simple process (by biochemical standards) in accordance with universal chemical laws which living cells accomplish ever day, was duplicated under laboratory conditions that any High School chemist could repeat today.
However there are processes that are unique to living organisms; thus the Seven Attributes Unique to Living Systems remain inviolate in their belonging solely-in their entirety-meaning that all living organisms possess all seven of these characteristics-to organic life forms, and they have never been found to exist in any non-living matter, thus vitalism is still as sure and intact as when it was pronounced a dictum in the nineteenth century, despite the angry denials of evolutionists.
As we have progressed in our understanding of the cell, we have found out that it is nowhere near as "simple" as evolutionists in the nineteenth century supposed that it was, and later we will see that the DNA molecule on which all of life is based is so complex that for it to have developed by chance, natural selection is well nigh to impossible.
Even though Darwin did not claim in the Origin to have accounted for the ultimate origin of life, (how could he?) still this is what he implied by his title and this is what his followers after him have claimed that he did. What evidence have we found for the evolutionary hypothesis on the origin of life since Darwin’s day? Is there any kind of proof that life developed by a purely natural, chemical process from non-life? To find out what proof scientists may or may not have for this, let us find out what life itself consists of.
In the first place, all life has one thing in common, whether it exists in the Plant Kingdom, the Animal Kingdom, or as single cell life grouped within either the Kingdom Protista or the Kingdom Monera (Prokaryates). It is made up of the basic unit of life known as the cell. Also, all living systems are made up of molecules which contain the element carbon. The simplest carbon based molecules are known as biomonomers (lit. one part of a living system), or simply monomers (Grk. = one part). Larger molecules are known as biodinomers, biotrinomers, or simply polymers (Grk. = having many parts). Those carbon polymers that are basic to life are known as organic compounds.
The process by which a large, carbon based molecule is formed from simple monomers is called polymerization. Since polymers are usually of quite large size, some being made up of many thousands of monomers chemically linked together, they are known as macromolecules. Furthermore, all life has what is known as DNA, (deoxyribonucleic acid) and RNA (ribonucleic acid). These are the largest organic marcomolecules that exist. They are basic to all living systems. Without them none of the processes of ingestion, respiration, protein synthesis, or reproduction could take place.
Chromosomes contain the genetic code that determines our heredity. All
humans have either 46 or 48 chromosomes in the nucleus of our cells. Each
chromosome contains thousands of genes arranged in precise order. A gene is the
basic component of heredity.
Each gene is a segment of DNA in our chromosomal make-up which determines one of the various physical characteristics that distinguish us as living beings. The DNA molecule resembles a twisted ladder and is composed of four different nucleotide molecules arranged in this ladder-like chain in a specific order, thus each gene is made up of a specific sequence of nucleotide bases strung along the DNA in orderly sequence. Various genes tell the cell what to do, what kind of activity it must carry out; whether it will have hair, skin, feathers, or scales; what kind of pigment, blood type, etc. the body of the organism will have, along with directing and determining the many millions of chemical, electrical, neurological, physiological, psychological and instinctual processes which must continuously function in harmony with each other for any organism to survive.
The nucleotide bases along the DNA are arranged so that when the RNA receives instructions from the DNA, messages in the form of various amino acid sequences are transcribed onto the RNA.
The RNA then uses these amino acids to create the thousands of different proteins from which the molecular engines that life depends on are formed, as well as carrying out all of the instructions to the rest of the cell. One single protein, hemoglobin for instance, might be copied from thousands of nucleotides that must be in the correct arrangement along the DNA ladder if the organism is to exist. Every second each cell in a human being is performing countless thousands of complex processes of chemical synthesis in this manner, along with trillions of other cells all designed for specific biochemical functions.
The traditional evolutionary hypothesis for the formation of these macromolecules is that there was a prebiotic soup of carbon based chemicals floating around in a vast ocean in the earth’s early history, and that through chance mixture of these chemicals a self replicating molecule formed, which gradually became more complicated, and attached itself to more molecules, until we had the very first, functioning, reproducing, living cell. Energy for this transition was supposed to have been provided by the warmth and light of the sun's rays, and from electrical discharges in the atmosphere.
What evidence is there for the supposed evolutionary transition from non life to life? Is there any type of "missing link" between carbon based amino acid chains of molecules and a living cell? Hoyle did a little statistical analysis of the probability of one single cell evolving from a "primordial soup" of chemicals, with all the proteins, amino acids, and chemicals just right for life to begin. The possibility? Never, not even if the Earth was twenty billion years old, could all the chemicals be in the right relationship, by chance, for life to begin. It would be like rolling double sixes with dice 30,000 times in a row.
Think of the extreme improbability of rolling double sixes just 100 times in a row, then 101 times, 102 times, each time you got it wrong you would have to start all over again, until by some fantastic coincidence (statisticians have proven that it couldn't happen) you made it to 30,000 times in a row. According to some calculations, the probability for this is greater than ten to the eightieth power, which is ten followed by eighty zeroes, which means, according to statistical analysis, that it would never happen.
Some have compared this to the entire United States of America being filled with nickels two feet high, and a blind man with a cane walking through and picking up the one nickel with a dab of paint on it. The estimated time for this to happen would be after the entire galaxy had turned cold and dead.
To illustrate this, a cell has at least 30,000 different types of protein molecules that have to be functioning perfectly and in harmony with the rest of the cell for life to function, and they have to be active from the very start. Genes create these proteins. It just takes one gene to be out of order in a cells DNA for any one of literally thousands of fatal diseases to develop. Now let us say for the sake of simplicity that we only have two types of genes that exist, and they have to be in the right order of relationship in two different places of the genetic code. Let us call them 1 and 2. Here are the number of possibilities: 1,1; 1,2; 2,1: 2,2. So we would have one chance in four of obtaining the right sequence for life to exist. Now, lets add just one more number, and one more place to be filled. How many possibilities do we have with three numbers? 1,1,1; 1,1,2; 1,1,3; 1,2,1; 1,2,2; 1,2,3; 1,3,1; 1,3,2; 1,3,3; 2,1,1; 2,1,2; 2,1,3; 2,2,1; 2,2,2; 2,2,3; 2,3,1; 2,3,2; 2,3,3; 3,1,1; 3,1,2; 3,1,3; 3,2,1; 3,2,2; 3,2,3; 3,3,1; 3,3,2; 3,3,3;. In adding just one more unit we go from four possibilities to twenty seven possibilities.
How many possibilities do we have if we raise the amount from three to four different types of genes? Two hundred and fifty four possibilities; With five different types of genes we would have one chance in three thousand one hundred and twenty five; For six, one chance in forty six thousand six hundred and fifty six possibilities; Seven, one chance in eight hundred and twenty three thousand five hundred and forty three; Eight, sixteen million seven hundred and seventy seven thousand two hundred and sixteen; Nine, three hundred and eighty seven million, four hundred and twenty thousand four hundred and eighty nine; with ten different types of genes, the chance for them to all be correctly associated in the right order would be one in ten billion. That’s one followed by ten zeroes.
For twenty different genes to be in the right order of relationship the possible combinations are greater than one followed by twenty-six zeroes, and we haven’t even begun to approach what the odds are for many thousands of genes to get into the right order by chance for even a minute part of a living cell to function.
T o make the matter even more difficult, almost all living systems are made up of molecules that are “left handed” in their orientation, but in nature these molecules would occur in both "right handed" and "left handed" varieties. No known creature on earth can use both "left handed" and "right handed" molecules together. Adding just one "right handed" molecule to a chain of "left handed" molecules can destroy the entire chain.
The simplest forms of life are known as the Prokaryotes, which include the Archaebacteria and the Eubacteria. Viruses also exist, but they cannot reproduce without the existence of a host cell for them to occupy, otherwise they are generally inert bands of DNA surrounded by a protein envelope. Thus in living systems, we have at the smallest level, bacteria, and other single-celled animals called protozoa. Australian scientist Michael Denton wrote concerning the most primitive forms of life:
“We know not only of the existence of a break between the living and non-living world, but also that it represents the most dramatic and fundamental of all the discontinuities of nature. Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive . . . Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10 -12 gms, each is in effect a veritable microminiaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.”
Thus there is an incredibly vast gap between the living and non-living world that has not been explained by evolutionists in their theory of the origin of life. Every living cell is wonderfully complex, and we have seen that life is not simply a matter of having all of the right chemicals being in the right place, life is an intricate process, each cell being an amazingly efficient machine carrying on millions of minute tasks all at the same time. A clumsy, half formed cell would not survive for one nano-second.
Evolutionists have also proposed that there was a "reducing atmosphere" at that remote time when the first cell organized itself, that is, we did not have oxygen present in the atmosphere. This reducing atmosphere is essential for the evolutionary hypothesis of life, since the existence of oxygen in the early atmosphere would have rapidly oxidized any organic compounds before the formation of protective living systems with their component cell cytoplasm and cell membranes in place to keep the chemicals intact, thus disintegrated the early, fragile chemical bonds in the supposedly prebiotic soup.
There are some serious difficulties with this premise. For one thing, if there had been no oxygen in the atmosphere, then there would have been no ozone layer to protect these early, fragile systems from ultraviolet and cosmic rays, which if allowed to bombard the earth in their full intensity would have rapidly obliterated any first sign of life. This has been suggested as one of the reasons why Mars might not have life on its surface. It must also be born in mind that this presumption of the lack of oxygen in the early atmosphere is simply that, a presumption. There is no chemical evidence that the early atmosphere did not have oxygen already abundant in it, and in fact many scientists have reached the conclusion that there were appreciable amounts of oxygen before life appeared.
Wallace, King and Sanders have written on the famous Miller-Urey experiment attempting to re-create the supposed early atmosphere where this synthesis was thought to have taken place. Of this reducing atmosphere they wrote: "This belief was the rationale for the Miller-Urey experiment. However, computer simulations now show that methane, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide would be rapidly broken down by ultraviolet radiation, and that most of the hydrogen liberated would be lost to outer space. According to current theory, the principle constituents of the early atmosphere were water vapor, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, molecular nitrogen, and possible some free hydrogen." 
The primordial soup of organic compounds is crucial to evolutionary theory also, but there are serious problems with this as well. After careful geochemical research, there has not been found any evidence to show that a 'primordial soup' even existed. There is a total lack of any carbonaceous deposits in most of the earliest rocks, as in the dawn rocks found in Western Greenland. Because of this absence of carbonaceous deposits in early rocks, Hoyle believes that the atmosphere was always oxygenated. Other scientists, such as Michael Denton, Michael Pitman, and Harry Clemmey, concur with this view.
Wallace, King and Sanders reported that recent experiments with these chemicals have yielded some simple organic molecules, which occur at times in nature, among which were a few of the nucleotide bases of RNA and DNA, however the manufacture of larger molecules, upon which the real engines of life depend, such as hemoglobin, complex enzymes, and larger nucleotides, is quite another matter: "The polymerization of monomers into the familiar macromolecules of life-proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, and nucleic acids-without the assistance of enzymes presents many difficult problems. It is here that the original hot, thin soup hypothesis is weakest. All biological polymerizations involve dehydration linkages between the monomers-that is, water is removed to produce the linkage. Researchers agree that, because of mass action laws, such reactions would not have proceeded in the right direction-from monomer to polymer-in the primitive seas, or, indeed, in any watery medium. Biological polymers in water slowly dissolve back into monomers, and heat just accelerates this process." (ibid)
In fact, the most successful experiments have been conducted under extremely hot, dry conditions by Sidney Fox of the University of Miami. He has been able to create polymers of 200 amino acids long (amino acids are the very basic monomers essential to life). Recently Israeli scientists have suggested that life developed from the clay of the ground.
Wallace, King and Sanders then describe the improbability of larger organic compounds, such as the nucleotides necessary for the formation of DNA and RNA, without which no life could exist at all, forming by chance: "The successful polymerization of nucleotides is another matter. In the hope of providing something, investigators have boiled and dried concentrated solutions of energy-rich nucleotide triphosphates in the presence of single strands of DNA, loading all the dice toward the successful production of a second DNA strand. But without the appropriate enzymes, no recognizable polymers are formed. Spontaneous linkages can be forced, but they occur in the wrong places. Supporting evidence for the spontaneous formation of nucleic acids remains to be found. " (ibid. pp.277)
They also report that natural selection would have no value in developing any further type of life than the simple, single cell: "We can surmise that expanding populations of the new, living cells soon began to use up the available resources, and increasing competition caused natural selection to favor those cells able to exploit new energy sources or to exploit old ones more efficiently. Cells could prey on one another, but this just redistributed the limited and dwindling supply of organic nutrients." (ibid., pp.278)
They conclude, "Much of the origin of life, therefore, remains unexplained, and what explanations we do have are based on conjecture and on our imperfect knowledge of what the primitive, inorganic earth was like. But this is the way of science, and whether current theory thrives and grows or dwindles into oblivion ultimately will depend on imaginative experiments and observations still to come. (Ibid) 279).
So in essence, they are saying that the evolutionary hypothesis of the origin of life has yet to be validated by genuine, scientific, investigation, and that all the facts point away from any of the possible evolutionary explanations so far put forward.
For the first cell to have formed by chance, all of the mRNA, millions of correct proteins, mitochondria elements of the cytoplasm and the entire cell wall would have had to have been functioning perfectly from the very first instantand would have had to have formed at the exact same time and spot in some vast primitive ocean for life to have survived! We could not have had part of the cell form in one part of the ocean and part of the cell form in another part. We could not have had the parts form even a few miles away. They would all have had to have formed in exactlythe same place and time, with millions of intricate biochemical processes going on instantly for the hypothetical first cell to live.
There is only one word that can properly describe this occurrence, and it is not evolution. The only word for this to have happened would be Miracle.
Mathematicians and organic chemists are finding it more improbable that life could have evolved here on earth by chance. Because of the advances in organic chemistry that cast suspicion on the evolutionary hypothesis of life, non-theistic (I use this in the narrow sense) scientists are being forced to come up with entirely new stories over the past few years to bolster their claims. Hoyle proposed that since life couldn't have originated here on Earth, that it must have come from outer space in cometary material. 
In fact, after scientist and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle and his colleague Chandra Whickramasinghe calculated the odds against all of the right chemicals being arranged in just the right order for life to have begun by chance on Earth, and concluded that it was impossible, they theorized that life had been planted here by some intelligence from outer space.
Well, at last scientist are beginning to come close to the truth, this is sounding something like In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, but not quite. I don't happen to believe that space aliens are visiting earth, but I've heard better evidence for UFO's than evidence for evolution, and apparently Fred Hoyle has too.
The recent meterorite theory, the idea that life might have come from asteroid chunks flying off of an impact on Mars millions of years ago, doesn’t solve the problem. The mathematical challenges still make the chance origin of life, wherever it may have occurred, oppressingly faint. Hoyle said that the mathematical improbability renders it necessary that there must have been an intelligence that formed life, though he does not hone to the Christian faith, hence his theories about life from space. So even if life came from some other planet, you still have to come up with some sensible process on how it arrived there, your simply pushing the problem back a step, unless you want to take the logical step of faith and believe in a Divine Creator.
Thus we find an immense gap to bridge between loosely associated organic compounds floating around in some soup and the simplest, reproducing, functioning, living system. Concerning the time element necessary for the early molecules to have developed into life, Chandra Wickramasinghe, colleague of Nobel Prize winning scientist Sir Fred Hoyle, said that "...the time scale is grossly inadequate and the information content that is needed to produce life is so vast that it is impossible to actually arrive at that final step on Earth..."
Let us look at a cell for a minute. It is composed of complex DNA, RNA, Ribosomes, Mitochondria, cytoplasm, and a complex cell wall without which the cell could not survive at all. A Primitive, half formed cell would perish immediately without a fully functioning cell wall in place to protect it from outside chemicals that would harm it, and to keep the cytoplasm held within it. So this hypothetical first cell would have to have appeared immediately with all of its hundreds of thousands of functioning cellular ribosomes, golgi bodies, perfectly formed cell wall, DNA, RNA, mRNA, etc. etc. functioning together in perfect synchronicity. One part of the cell couldn’t have appeared in the Indian Ocean while another part appeared in the Atlantic, and another part appearing in the Pacific Ocean. All of the parts would have to have appeared instantaneously together in an instant of time, perfectly formed to coordinate with each other. And it would have to be alive, not just a dead cell with all of the chemicals in place. After all, a corpse, one instant after death has all of the right chemicals to live, but it is dead. This sounds more in the realm of miracle, not evolution.
One might think that after the one-celled creatures the next step in living systems would be two-celled animals, or three-celled animals, then ten-celled animals, 100-celled animals, etc. This is not the case; two and three celled animals do not exist anywhere. In fact, the gap between single celled protozoa and multi-celled complex organisms called metazoa is very great, and has never been explained by evolutionists.
There is another problem that evolutionists have with the supposed original ancestors from which all later, more advanced life is imagined to have arisen. The prokaryotes from which all later life was supposed to have evolved from have existed by evolutionists timelines nearly 3.4 billion years ago, yet they are virtually identical to modern living bacteria and blue green algae, thus they remain unchanged and show no evidence of evolving throughout the entire history of life on earth! The next step in evolution from prokaryotes is supposed to be the primitive eukaryotes, found in rocks estimated by evolutionist’s timelines to be 1500 million years old, yet they are virtually identical to unicellular algae living today! If evolution were to be true, these species of life had long ago evolved into something else more fit for survival, yet we find them alive and thriving today.
Since Darwin’s theory of natural selection has proven to be useless in producing new species, evolutionists now propose that mutations cause evolution to occur. If mutations cause improvements in the survival value of species, or even help evolution by creating a totally brand new species, then why go to the trouble to clean up the mess at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl if the radiation would have been beneficial? Why not go out and get a nice, scorching sun burn without putting on lotion, since, after all, skin cancer might lead to an improvement in your over-all health and in the health of your off-spring?
The many experiments with the fruit fly have never succeeded in changing the fruit fly into anything other than a fruit fly, and most of the induced changes have not been improvements that would aid the fruit fly in survival. The changes seen in the experiments done on fruit-flies have been blind eyes, no eyes, feet coming out where the eye should be, stunted, useless wings, dead fruit-flies, but never a better, more improved fruit-fly, and nothing else than a fruit-fly either.
The genetic code is so complex, that the very idea of a chance mutation producing anything new in the species market by constructing and bringing together diverse organs to function perfectly well and corrordinating with each other in a new living system better equipped for survival, would be similar to believing that driving an old car off of a thousand foot sheer cliff would produce a newer model car with a better transmission and improved headlights. It takes an intelligence to plan and engineer a better model car. To believe that from all of the harmful mutations that occur perhaps a few beneficial mutations might add up to produce a new variety of species better equipped to survive would be similar to thinking that one could make money by purchasing soda pop for sixty cents a can, because, well after all, you could save up the empty cans and turn them back in for a nickel apiece.
After concluding that the odds against a new creature evolving with a favorable adaptation through mutations are almost astronomical, evolutionists have come up with another standard dodge, which is that “Individuals don’t evolve, populations evolve,” thus an entire community of people or animals were supposed to evolve together over a gradual period of time, instead of simply one or two or ten individuals. This idea was an outgrowth of trying to incorporate Mendelian genetics with Darwinian theory.
The problem with this explanation was that it doesn’t work well with evolutionary theory either, you see, Mendel was a real scientist, who worked with real data, and produced real observable results, something Darwin never even came close to accomplishing. It was an unholy alliance from the start. Ian Tattersall describes some of the early hopes and then shattered dreams of evolutionists who thought that at last they had come up with a mechanism to explain their theory: “Mendel’s acute observations, published in an obscure local journal, languished unappreciated for over three decades [mainly because his findings disputed Darwin’s fantasies] . . . But the rediscovery of Mendel’s principles unleashed an astonishing burst of activity in the nascent field of genetics [they were frantic to find a scientific source to oppose Weissmann’s findings that there was no possibility of passing down modified traits, i.e. morphology does not affect inheritance]. . . And if evolution was the sum total of perturbations in the transmission of genetic information between generations, here was a mechanism by which evolutionary phenomena could-indeed, must- be explained [this shows how desperate the evolutionists were to insist in a principle that eventually completely contradicted their theory].”
It seemed that the further they worked with Mendel’s theory, the worse it became for evolution. The Hardy-Weinberg Principle is a real law of population genetics, an outgrowth of Mendel’s conclusions, and is taught in all courses now dealing with anthropology, paleoanthropology (probably with a spoonful of sugar to ease passage), and social culture. Developed during the first part of the twentieth century, it mathematically proves that the average percentage of genes distributed throughout the entire population remains fairly constant, with no new genetic material forming, no new species evolving.
As in dog breeding, you could wind up with dogs having certain characteristics that had already been programmed into the genetic material, but you couldn’t produce anything other than a dog. The problem here is actually the same one that destroyed natural selection, the evolutionists were simply trying a different tact, sort of like the old shell game.
the Hardy-Weinberg Principle has disproved the idea of mass evolution, for some
reason evolutionists still use this idea on their audiences as an explanation
for their theory, years after it has been proven beyond doubt that populations
do not evolve, but with scholastic sleight of hand the idea is nevertheless
TO BE CONTINUED . . .