Comments

Considering the plethora of opinions expressed regarding the contentious issue of evolution vs. creation, what has always struck me as rather odd about Homo Sapiens is the person who categorically states: “Don’t confuse me with any facts; my mind is made up,” which is so amply demonstrated here. With this kind of attitude/philosophy, the only person you’re really treating unjustly is yourself. Can there be such a thing as an enlightened bigot, or would this be just another example of an oxymoronic attitude in action? For those who would like to consider the latest information—evidently gathered mostly in the States—about the secrets of the DNA code; all verifiable facts that even noted atheists have come to accept as irrefutable, there is a rather interesting website: www.gnmagazine.org/evolution I used to be a devout evolutionist, but then I got confronted by facts that I had no way or refuting or trying to explain away, which ultimately served only to prove that truth is immutable; even more steadfast than say, the Grand Canyon? Anyway, check the website out for yourself and then decide.

Origin by Design--edited Following is a verbatim extract from the book by Harold Coffin, entitled “Origin by Design” published by Review and Herald Publishing Association, Washington DC. Hagerstown, MD 21740. Permission to publish has been granted Chapter 31 is entitled: “Life is Unique” “ The more scientists study living protoplasm, the more its complexity becomes apparent. The electron microscope and biochemical analysis have opened windows in the living cell that reveal detail almost beyond description. But science has not determined the full complexity of living matter. We cannot yet define what life is, nor have we duplicated it artificially. Spontaneous Generation. “In ancient times many believed in spontaneous generation, the development of living organisms from nonliving matter. They used frogs rising from river mud, flies coming from rotting meat, and similar phenomena as proof. Redi (1626-1697) and Spallanzani (1729-1799) of Italy and Pasteur (1822-1895) of France helped to dispel the notion, but the old belief was slow to die. In fact, it has not vanished. Rephrasing it in scientific language, many scientists have incorporated it into mechanistic evolution as the probable method for the origin of life. (Significantly, mechanistic evolution requires, for its survival as a theory, exceptions to two of the best-substantiated laws of life—life begets life, and like begets like.) “A Russian scientist, A.I. Oparin, in his book The Origin of Life was one of the first in modern times to reintroduce spontaneous generation as an explanation for the origin of life. Oparin gave a detailed argument for spontaneous origin of life in ancient seas, which he thought harboured large quantities of organic substances usable in amino acid formation. According to Oparin, an organic molecule would increase in complexity without the necessity of synthetic ability (the capacity to form or synthesize organic molecules), by the chance combining of substances available in its environment. “The possibilities of a random combination of molecules to become amino acids and the subsequent joining of amino acids to become proteins with properties of life are unrealistic. Coppedge calculates that the odds are 10(161) to one that not one usable protein would result from chance even if all the atoms on the earth’s surface, including water, air, and the crust of the earth were made into conveniently available amino acids and 4 to 5 billions of years were involved. If events did produce such a protein, it would be of no value unless it possessed some accurate process of duplication to manufacture more proteins. Furthermore, the simplest cell or living object consists of many kinds of proteins. “Morowitz has determined the probability for the origin of the organic precursors for the smallest likely living entity by random processes. He based his calculations on reaction probabilities, a somewhat different and more accurate approach than most other such computations. The chances for producing the necessary molecules, amino acids, proteins, et cetera, for a cell one-tenth the size of the smallest known to man (Mycoplasm hominis H. 39) is less than one in 10(340,000,000) or 10 with 340 million zeros after it. His calculation employs a generous estimate of the number of atoms in the universe, the total number of atomic interactions over a 10-billion-year age for the universe. Practically speaking, such odds for the chance formation of a cell, even the smallest and simple one, are zero. “George Wald, Nobel Prize winner, while recognizing the improbability of spontaneous generation, states his personal belief as follows: “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” It is an excellent statement of faith!! “John Keosian is much more realistic. “The concept that all the parts of the first living thing pre-existed, and that its formation was simply a matter of spontaneous generation therefrom is mathematical absurdity, not probability. All present approaches to a solution of the problem of the origin of life are either irrelevant or lead to a blind alley.” “Even if the proper conditions were present and the correct constituents fell together in the right proportions, no certainty demands that life would result. Is life merely the fortuitous arrangement of elements and compounds in a unique arrangement? If scientists could put together the constituents of a cell in exactly the right proportions and arrangements, would it become a living cell? The question remains unresolved. Should life be more than the sum of its parts, spontaneous generation would never be possible under any circumstances. “Occasionally the news media announce that scientists have created life in a laboratory. Such claims bring up the question, “If man can create life now, is there not a possibility that life might have arisen by chance in the past remote history of the earth?” “Apparently the desire to announce the creation of life is a temptation hard to resist for both news reporters and scientists. The real truth is that scientists have not manufactured life, although they have made real breakthroughs in its study. Has Man Created Life? “What must the biologist bring about before he can truly say that he has artificially produced life? According to Lederberg, life requires at least seven substances: 1. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) 2. Four nitrogenous bases in abundance 3. DNA polymerase 4. Ribotide phosphates 5. RNA polymerase 6. A supply of twenty aminoacyl nucleotidates 7. Aminoacyl—RNA polymerase We should add the following three requirements to the list: 8. A membrane 9. Regulatory mechanisms 10. A constant supply of energy “So far scientists have synthesized in the laboratory only DNA, the first listed above, but not from scratch. They created neither the DNA molecule they used for the pattern nor the building blocks with which they constructed the new DNA molecule, but obtained them from viruses and bacteria. If a baby can construct a castle from blocks similar to the one you just made you feel pleased. But if he could design the structure, saw down the trees, cut out the blocks, paint them then build the castle; he would be more than a genius. “Scientists have been able to copy the existing castle with building blocks already provided. But even that is an incorrect statement. Man has not copied the castle—he has only set up the right conditions, and nature itself has done it. DNA polymerase (item 3) did all the work of lining up the building blocks in the right order and joining them together. In other words, the DNA did nothing but provide the pattern. “But this is still not the whole story. Some have assumed that the synthesized DNA is a living entity. In order to be alive (1) a substance must have a definite structure—it cannot be in disorder or chaos. Synthesized DNA meets this requirement. (2) It must have the ability to take in food, give off wastes, repair, replace, grow, and those other features lumped together under the term metabolism. However, synthesized DNA is completely passive. (3) Living things must have the regulatory mechanisms that control the metabolic processes that keep them in balance and guide the living organism into becoming and remaining the kind of organism that is it destined to be. Again, synthesized DNA fails the criteria. (4) A living entity must be more than merely a passing spark that flashes and then dies away; life must have the ability to reproduce another like itself. Synthesized DNA does not meet three of the four basic requirements of life. Its synthesis is a great accomplishment, but it is not a living substance. “No, man has not produced life. He has only provided the proper conditions for nature to manufacture just one of the considerable list of required substances found in living things. But what if man could eventually produce a simple spark of life? What if thousands of brilliant researchers spending thousands of hours in multimillion-dollar laboratories with equipment of utmost sophistication finally would achieve the dream of man—to produce life? Would it not merely emphasize that it would have been impossible for life to have arisen by itself? Life is a truly unique entity, a constant miracle in our midst. It demands intelligence and design behind it. “God is the underived source of life, the life-giver, a fact that Scripture greatly emphasises. David says, “For with thee is the fountain of life” Jesus said to Martha before he raised Lazarus from the dead, “I am the resurrection, and the life.” Paul testified to the Athenians his belief: “He giveth to all life, and all things.” I personally doubt that humans will be able to create life. It is possible that someday scientists and the mass media will proclaim the accomplishment, but such a claim will certainly require close scrutiny. The assertion will undoubtedly be either questionable or a case in which the synthesis process has incorporated some previously living matter. Living organisms have the ability to change food (nonliving matter) into living protoplasm. When we deal with micro-organisms or viruses we may have difficulty distinguishing the part humans play and the role of the organism. Magic in a Cell “It is impressive to fly over a great city at night and see the numberless twinkling house and streetlights, the headlights of cars moving along the city streets and freeways, and to realize the great number of beings that lie below you and the multitude of their activities. If you marvel at what man has accomplished, you will be humbled to realise that if you could enlarge a cell to the size of a city, you would see equal complexity and activity. Man has built the city, but he has had nothing to do with the development of the cell. “We can compare the individual grains of sand in the bricks of the buildings of the city to the atoms in the living matter of a cell, the bricks themselves to the molecules, the rooms of the buildings to the amino acids, and the buildings to the proteins. Scattered through the city are the factories, power plants, and schools. Throughout the cell we find distinct substances involved in the production of energy, in the transmission of inherited characteristics, in the communication processes of the cell, and in many other activities. The transportation arteries of the city have their counterparts in the canals and passageways distributed all through the cell. A large city lies mostly on one plane with only major buildings in the city centre rising considerably above the ground level, but the cell city stretches in three dimensions. “What happens when the cell grows and divides? Its intricacy cannot be rudely disrupted when the cell splits into two. Each portion has to have a share of all the structures and the living protoplasm to enable it to continue to grow and function. Think of the involved mechanisms necessary to sort out and separate the complex parts! “If a great big metropolis like Chicago should decide to become two distinct cities, how long would it take to separate the transportation network so that each half of the city would have a complete system of its own? What of the power sources and lines? How about the communications complex, the waste and sewage system? Surely it would require years for such a change, and yet the cell accomplishes this in a matter of minutes in some cases. Perhaps a better comparison would be the building of another city just like Chicago (or any other large city). It staggers the mind to think about it. Such duplication of great complexity on a fantastically miniature scale is a universal feature of living organisms. “A blueprint of staggering intricacy—a code of complete and detailed instructions—directs and regulates all the intricacy of a cell and the organism it belongs to. Even if the laws of chance operating on atoms and molecules already present were able to produce simple amino acids or proteins, chance would never put together an exquisite and meaningful series of symbols—the DNA code—that conveys almost limitless meaning to the developing organism. An explosion in a print shop, a monkey jumping on a typewriter, would never produce a driver’s manual. Neither can the much more detailed instruction of the DNA code be the result of random activity. “Every thinking person must find himself impressed with the evidence for a Master Designer who wrote the code, made and brought together the building blocks, and directed the construction. “Know ye that the Lord he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture” (Ps. 100:3). Wonders of the Human Body “Let us examine some of the larger manifestations of life. Take, for instance, man’s nervous system. The brain is an organism we are only beginning to understand. It is not adequate to call it a computer, for it has vastly superior abilities to those of even the most complex one. Besides being able to store and recall a tremendous mass of information over a lifetime, the brain can take a fact, compare it with a great amount of relevant information already available, and weigh it against judgement and conscience before coming to a conclusion. And how long do such processes take? Usually only a fraction of a second. “What computer can analyse the grandeur of a symphony, the loveliness of a sonnet, or the beauty of a sunset? Or which one can appreciate the inspiration of quiet meditation or the emotions of a mother’s love? As the brain receives information from the senses, it makes appropriate responses based on the total experience, judgement, information, and heredity stored within itself. “In brain surgery the surgeon needs to know the functions of its various tissues. By means of a small electric probe he touches various brain tissues to determine how vital they are in the normal functioning and control of the human mind and body. During certain classic experimentation Wilder Penfield, a Canadian neurosurgeon, discovered two sites on either side of the head, just forward and above the ears that appeared to be the storage areas for the memory of all life’s experiences. (Physiologists now believe that memories may be more widely distributed throughout the brain than just these areas). As he probed with the electrode, patients under local anaesthesia recalled vividly past experiences in their lives, incidents they had forgotten for many years. “In recording them, Dr. Penfield declared, “One woman heard the voice of her small son in the yard outside her kitchen, accompanied by the neighbourhood sounds of honking autos, barking dogs, and shouting youngsters. One patient in the operating room listened to an orchestra playing a number that she did not herself know how to sing or play and that she recalled only vaguely having heard it in her church at home in Holland. She seemed to be there in the church and was moved again by the beauty of the occasion just as she had been on that Christmas Eve years earlier” It would thus appear that man actually has a registry of his total life experiences, like a tape recorder constantly running. Unfortunately, he is not always able to replay his memories. “Almost incomprehensible detail exists in each part of the body, detail that seems unaccountable by any theory of gradual evolutionary development. Look, for example at the circulatory system. The average human heart beats 100,800 times a day to move the equivalent of ten tons of blood, the weight of 140 people. The energy expended equals that needed to carry 60 people (weighing 150 pounds each) from one floor to the next. In a lifetime, approximately 83 million gallons of blood passes through the average heart, enough to fill an average home swimming pool more than 3000 times. It reaches each part of the body through miles of veins and arteries and thousands of miles of capillaries. “Man’s ability to reach the moon has thrilled the world, but the capillary systems of three men in a space capsule, if combined and placed end to end, nearly reaches the distance from earth to its satellite. “ With his intelligence, his ability to conceive and design, man has produced many marvels, but none of them come near being the marvel that he himself is. The most marvellous, the most complex, the most intricate entity in the world—the human being—must have had a Designer. “Anyone who can contemplate the eye of the housefly, the mechanics of human finger movement, the camouflage of a moth, or the building of every kind of matter from variations in arrangement of proton and electron, and then maintain that all this design happened without a designer, happened by sheer, blind accident—such a person believes in a miracle far more astounding than any in the Bible. To regard man, with his arts and aspirations, his awareness of himself and of his universe, his emotions and his morals, his very ability to conceive an idea so grand as that of God, to regard this creature as merely a form of life somewhat higher on the evolutionary ladder than the others, is to create questions more profound than was answered. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Practical evidence in support of this dissertation? Hop onto Google and check out the Bombardier Beetle’s unique method of defending itself. This defence method was researched and documented by the National Academy of Sciences, who hold the copyright. While you’re at it, check, out the Canadian wood frog; another unique creature that appears to have solved the riddle of resurrection. One wonders why all frogs don’t use this method of living their very interesting lives. Then of course there’s vision. Even Darwin expressed his misgivings about trying to explain the paradox of vision in the light of common evolutionary theory; the plain fact is that no evolutionist, palaeontologist or any of the other –“gists” who so slavishly pursue evolutionary theory has ever discovered or been able to produce any kind of animal species that would prove/support their theory by having eyes in a variety of stag-es of development. The problem with the eye is that it's a bit like the ubiquitous moustrap; you need all five bits in place and fully operational for it to function as a mousetrap; remove even the most insignificant part--if indeed there is such a part, and the thing ends up as a bit of useless junk. There have been umpteen cases of eyes in various stages of regression, purely as a result of no longer being required—fish found in underground river systems with vestigial eyes, in England, donkeys and mules in the coal mines of the of the late 1800’s having gone blind. This is just plain old adaptation and has absolutely buggeral to do with evolution; like the cockroach found in Patagonia; a subspecies of all cockroaches that has adapted to survive the bone-chilling temperatures of its adopted environment. Put it back in the tropics and it simply dies from overheating. The conclusion? Evolutionary theory that today is taught as a “science”, sucks like a Hoover. Leon du Toit South Africa.