Chapter 1
Why Darwinism Fails.
The Origin of Life.
Part 5.
In short the greatest ally of atheism ,Miller's experiment,has been reduced to a mere scientific curiosity.Today Miller's experiment has no scientific significance.
It's historically interesting ,because it convinced a lot of people through the years that life could have been arisen spontaneously.Its just false.Yet this false theory is been prominently featured in many text books,often with pictures.Yet its really very misleading.
The reason most probably why Millers experiments was accepted was because there is no other materialistic explanation for the origin of life.
In the book he co authored The Mystery of Life's Origin(1) Walter Bradley says that many theories like random chance,chemical affinity,self ordering tendencies,seeding from space,deep-sea ocean vents,etc can't withstand the scientific scrutiny.
Many other scientists have came to the same conclusions."Science does not have the slightest idea how life began."journalists Gregg Easterbrook wrote about the origin of life field."No generally accepted theories exists,and the steps leading from a barren primordial world to the fragile chemistry of life seem imponderable.'' (2.)
Bradley not only share that view ,but he said that the mind boggling difficulties in bridging the yawning gap between non life and life means that there may very well be no potential of ever finding a theory for how life could have arisen spontaneously.That's why he convinced that the "absolutely overwhelming evidence" points towards an intelligence behind life's creation.
In fact,he said :"I think people who believe that life emerged naturalisticly need to have a great deal more faith than people who reasonably infer that there's an Intelligent Designer." (3.)
Even those who look at religious faith have been forced to conclude that the odds against the spontaneous creation of life are so absurdly high that there must be more to the creation story than mere materialistic process.They can't help but invoke the only word that seems to realistically account for it all miracle. Its a word that many scientists hate to use but something the circumstances seem to demand.
For example,John Horgan,who identifies himself as a "lapsed Catholic" conceded in 2002 that scientists have no idea how the universe was created or "How inanimate matter on our little planet coalesced into living creatures." Then came the word:"Science you might say has discovered our existence is infinitely improbable,and hence a miracle." (4.)
Even Biochemist and spiritually skeptic Francis Crick,who share the Nobel Price for discovering the molecular structure of DNA ,cautiously invoked the word few years ago" An honest man,armed with all the knowledge available to us now,could only state that in some sense,the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle,so many are the conditions which would have had to been satisfied to get it going."he said. (5.)
Others are more adamant."If there isn't a natural explanation and there doesn't seem to be the potential of finding one,then I believe its appropriate to look at supernatural explanation."Said Bradley."I think that's the most reasonable inference based on the evidence.(6)
1.Charles B Thanxton,Walter L Bradely,and Roger L Olsen,The Mystery of Life's Origin.(Dallas :Lewis and Stanely,1984.)
2.Gregg Esterbrook,"The New Convergence."
3.Lee Strobel,The Case of Faith,108.
4.John Horgan,"A holiday Made for Believing,"New York Times(December 25,2002.)
5.Franics Crick,Life Itself(New York:Simon and Schuster,1981),88
6.Lee Strobel,The Case for Faith.,108.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Putting the Broken pieces together.
Chapter 1
Why Darwinism Fails.
The Origin of Life
Part 4.
The progress of science has clearly left Miller's experiment in the dusts,even if many text books has not noticed it yet.But what if scientists someday could actually mange to produce amino acids from a realistic atmosphere of the early earth?.Its not chemically possible ,but lets say if it was.Or Either the question is how far would that be from creating a living cell?
Its Very far,Incredibly far.And that would just be the first step for an extremely complicated process.You must have the right number of the right kind of amino acids to link up to create a protein molecule.And that would still be a long way from a living cell.Because you would need a dozens of proteins molecules again in the right sequence,to create a living cell.The gap between nonliving chemicals and even the most primitive living organisms is absolutely tremendous.
Its might be really difficult to understand but here is an example.
Put a sterile ,balanced salt solution in a test tube.Then put in a living cell and poke a hole in it so that its contents leak into the solution.Now the test tube has all the molecules you would need to create a living cell,right?Then you would already have accomplished far more than what the Miller experiment ever could.You may get all the components need to create life.
But the problem is that you can't make a living cell.There is not even a point in trying so.It would be like a physicist doing an experiment to see if he can get a rock to fall upwards to the moon.No biologist in the right mind would think you can take a test tube with those molecules and turn them into a living cell.
In other words,if you need to create life,on top of the challenge of somehow generating the cellular components out of non living chemicals,you would have an bigger problem in trying to put the ingredients in the right way.
The cell is dead and even if you accomplish the thousand steps between the amino acids in the Miller Experiment,(which probably did not exist in the real world anyway)the components you need for a living cell,all the enzymes,the DNA,and so forth you are still immeasurably far from creating life.
But many would say that the first cell was probably a lot primitive than even the simplest single cell organism today.Yes the point remains same.The problem of assembling the right parts in the right was at the right time and at the right place ,while keeping out the wrong material ,is simply impossible.Both Theoretically and Practically,the idea of explaining the origin of life naturastically is in the end.
Therefore there is no theory that can prove how life could have naturally come together by itself without any direction or guidance.
Why Darwinism Fails.
The Origin of Life
Part 4.
The progress of science has clearly left Miller's experiment in the dusts,even if many text books has not noticed it yet.But what if scientists someday could actually mange to produce amino acids from a realistic atmosphere of the early earth?.Its not chemically possible ,but lets say if it was.Or Either the question is how far would that be from creating a living cell?
Its Very far,Incredibly far.And that would just be the first step for an extremely complicated process.You must have the right number of the right kind of amino acids to link up to create a protein molecule.And that would still be a long way from a living cell.Because you would need a dozens of proteins molecules again in the right sequence,to create a living cell.The gap between nonliving chemicals and even the most primitive living organisms is absolutely tremendous.
Its might be really difficult to understand but here is an example.
Put a sterile ,balanced salt solution in a test tube.Then put in a living cell and poke a hole in it so that its contents leak into the solution.Now the test tube has all the molecules you would need to create a living cell,right?Then you would already have accomplished far more than what the Miller experiment ever could.You may get all the components need to create life.
But the problem is that you can't make a living cell.There is not even a point in trying so.It would be like a physicist doing an experiment to see if he can get a rock to fall upwards to the moon.No biologist in the right mind would think you can take a test tube with those molecules and turn them into a living cell.
In other words,if you need to create life,on top of the challenge of somehow generating the cellular components out of non living chemicals,you would have an bigger problem in trying to put the ingredients in the right way.
The cell is dead and even if you accomplish the thousand steps between the amino acids in the Miller Experiment,(which probably did not exist in the real world anyway)the components you need for a living cell,all the enzymes,the DNA,and so forth you are still immeasurably far from creating life.
But many would say that the first cell was probably a lot primitive than even the simplest single cell organism today.Yes the point remains same.The problem of assembling the right parts in the right was at the right time and at the right place ,while keeping out the wrong material ,is simply impossible.Both Theoretically and Practically,the idea of explaining the origin of life naturastically is in the end.
Therefore there is no theory that can prove how life could have naturally come together by itself without any direction or guidance.
THE MILLER EXPERIMENT.
Chapter 1
Why Darwinism Fails.
The Origin of Life.
Part 3.
The significance of Miller's experiment hinges on whether he used an atmosphere that accurately simulated the environment of the early earth.At that time Miller was relying heavily on the atmospheric theories of his doctoral advisor,Nobel laureate Harold Urey.Nobody knows for sure how the early atmosphere was like,but one thing is sure it was not like the one Miller used for his experiments.
Miller chooses a hydrogen-rich mixture of methane,ammonia and water vapor,which was consistent with many scientific thoughts back then.But scientists did not believe that anymore.As a geophysicist with Carnegie Institution said in the 1960s."What is the evidence for a primitive methane-ammonia atmosphere on the earth?The answer is there is no evidence for it,but much against it. (1)
By the Mid-1970s,Belgian biochemist Marcel Florkin was declaring that the concept behind Miller's theory of the early atmosphere 'has been abandoned'(2).Two of the leading origin-of-life researchers Klaus Dose and Sidney Fox,confirmed that Miller had used the wrong gas mixture.(3)
And Science magazine said in 1995 that experts now dismiss Millers experiments because "the early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller-Urey simulation." (4)
Then what is the current thinking of Scientists concerning the gas content of the early earth?The best hypothesis now is that there was very little hydrogen in the atmosphere because it would have escaped into space.Instead the atmosphere probably consisted of carbon dioxide,nitrogen,and water vapour.But yet text book these days presents Millers experiment which has no significance since as it does not reflect earths early environment,which as for many geochemists is totally unlike to be a possible atmosphere.
Then many may ask what would happen if we would replay the same experiment using and accurate atmosphere.Well its sure that we won't get amino acids.Some text books say that we will still get organic molecules,that sounds promising.
But they don't explaining what organic molecules we get.They are Formaldehyde!Cyanide.They might be organic molecules but as we all know they are just toxic chemicals.Formaldehyde just fries all the proteins it get contact with and its fumes kills embryos.The idea of saying that a realistic atmosphere is that gets us in the first step of the origin of life is laughable.
Now ,its true that you may get some biological molecules from formaldehyde and cyanide.But to say that formaldehyde and Cyndie brings the first substance that for the origin of life is a joke.Because what you get is an "Embalming Fluid."
Notes.
1.See :Philip H.Abelson, "Chemical Events on the Primitive Earth."Proceeding of the National Academy of Science USA 55 (1966),1365-72.
2.See: Micheal Florkin,"Ideas and Experiments in the Field of Prebiological Chemical Evolution,"Comprehensive Biochemistry 29B(1975.)
3.See. Sidney W.Fox and Klause Dose,Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life.(1977.),43,74-76.
4.John Cohen "Novel Center Seeks to Add Spark to Origins of Life ," Science 270(1995),1926-26.
Why Darwinism Fails.
The Origin of Life.
Part 3.
The significance of Miller's experiment hinges on whether he used an atmosphere that accurately simulated the environment of the early earth.At that time Miller was relying heavily on the atmospheric theories of his doctoral advisor,Nobel laureate Harold Urey.Nobody knows for sure how the early atmosphere was like,but one thing is sure it was not like the one Miller used for his experiments.
Miller chooses a hydrogen-rich mixture of methane,ammonia and water vapor,which was consistent with many scientific thoughts back then.But scientists did not believe that anymore.As a geophysicist with Carnegie Institution said in the 1960s."What is the evidence for a primitive methane-ammonia atmosphere on the earth?The answer is there is no evidence for it,but much against it. (1)
By the Mid-1970s,Belgian biochemist Marcel Florkin was declaring that the concept behind Miller's theory of the early atmosphere 'has been abandoned'(2).Two of the leading origin-of-life researchers Klaus Dose and Sidney Fox,confirmed that Miller had used the wrong gas mixture.(3)
And Science magazine said in 1995 that experts now dismiss Millers experiments because "the early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller-Urey simulation." (4)
Then what is the current thinking of Scientists concerning the gas content of the early earth?The best hypothesis now is that there was very little hydrogen in the atmosphere because it would have escaped into space.Instead the atmosphere probably consisted of carbon dioxide,nitrogen,and water vapour.But yet text book these days presents Millers experiment which has no significance since as it does not reflect earths early environment,which as for many geochemists is totally unlike to be a possible atmosphere.
Then many may ask what would happen if we would replay the same experiment using and accurate atmosphere.Well its sure that we won't get amino acids.Some text books say that we will still get organic molecules,that sounds promising.
But they don't explaining what organic molecules we get.They are Formaldehyde!Cyanide.They might be organic molecules but as we all know they are just toxic chemicals.Formaldehyde just fries all the proteins it get contact with and its fumes kills embryos.The idea of saying that a realistic atmosphere is that gets us in the first step of the origin of life is laughable.
Now ,its true that you may get some biological molecules from formaldehyde and cyanide.But to say that formaldehyde and Cyndie brings the first substance that for the origin of life is a joke.Because what you get is an "Embalming Fluid."
Notes.
1.See :Philip H.Abelson, "Chemical Events on the Primitive Earth."Proceeding of the National Academy of Science USA 55 (1966),1365-72.
2.See: Micheal Florkin,"Ideas and Experiments in the Field of Prebiological Chemical Evolution,"Comprehensive Biochemistry 29B(1975.)
3.See. Sidney W.Fox and Klause Dose,Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life.(1977.),43,74-76.
4.John Cohen "Novel Center Seeks to Add Spark to Origins of Life ," Science 270(1995),1926-26.
An Investigation over the Icons.
Chapter 1
Why Darwinism Fails.
The Origin of Life.
Part 2.
There are mainly four images of evolution that had influenced many to slide into atheism.In the book "Icons of Evolution", all four symbols of Darwinism is been discussed in depth.The reason why the book was called the Icons of Evolution was because if you ask to many scientists why they believe in The Theory of Evolution they would point to theses icons,which they say is approved by the scientific community and taught to our children and the world.Other than theses four Icons there also many other examples like similarity between the bone structures of a bat's wing,a porpoise's flipper,a horse's leg, and a humans hand.This is been brought forward as evidences of their origin in a common ancestor.
Then there are pictures in text books of peppered moths in tree trunks ,showing how camouflage and predatory birds result in natural selection.And there is the Darwin's finches the Galapagos Island birds that are also used to support natural selection.And mostly the most famous icon yet is,the drawing we see shown in many cartoons of ape-like creatures being slowly evolved into human beings,which suggest that we are merely animals that evolved by purposeless natural causes.
What Darwinism claims is that all living creatures are modified descendants of a common ancestor that lived a long time ago.As if we all are descendants of ape-like ancestors. In fact we even share a common ancestor with fruit flies.Darwinism explains that every new species can be explained by descent with modification.Neo-Darwinism claims that theses modifications are the result of natural selection acting on random genetic mutations.
Now when Wells studied all theses theorys what he found was that they are either false or misleading.Now that is like saying is Darwin's theory is just a mythology.Or what we all studied in our Schools and Colleges were just a collection of myths.Lets see why.
Why Darwinism Fails.
The Origin of Life.
Part 2.
There are mainly four images of evolution that had influenced many to slide into atheism.In the book "Icons of Evolution", all four symbols of Darwinism is been discussed in depth.The reason why the book was called the Icons of Evolution was because if you ask to many scientists why they believe in The Theory of Evolution they would point to theses icons,which they say is approved by the scientific community and taught to our children and the world.Other than theses four Icons there also many other examples like similarity between the bone structures of a bat's wing,a porpoise's flipper,a horse's leg, and a humans hand.This is been brought forward as evidences of their origin in a common ancestor.
Then there are pictures in text books of peppered moths in tree trunks ,showing how camouflage and predatory birds result in natural selection.And there is the Darwin's finches the Galapagos Island birds that are also used to support natural selection.And mostly the most famous icon yet is,the drawing we see shown in many cartoons of ape-like creatures being slowly evolved into human beings,which suggest that we are merely animals that evolved by purposeless natural causes.
What Darwinism claims is that all living creatures are modified descendants of a common ancestor that lived a long time ago.As if we all are descendants of ape-like ancestors. In fact we even share a common ancestor with fruit flies.Darwinism explains that every new species can be explained by descent with modification.Neo-Darwinism claims that theses modifications are the result of natural selection acting on random genetic mutations.
Now when Wells studied all theses theorys what he found was that they are either false or misleading.Now that is like saying is Darwin's theory is just a mythology.Or what we all studied in our Schools and Colleges were just a collection of myths.Lets see why.
Darwinism Disapproved.
Chapter 1
Why Darwinism Fails.,
The Origin of Life.
Part 1.
The Impact of Darwin's Theory of Evolution.
If we look into the world and into our own lives.For the last 3 decades why many people started having doubts or started becoming atheist was because of all the complicated theory's that we started to study from our 9th grades to 12th or continued in our colleges.And out of all theses the one that had influenced us most was Darwin's "Theory of Evolution".In my school days while I studied it ,it seemed so perfect that many of my friends disowned their beliefs in God and became atheists.The evolutionary story of Darwin simply replaced the religious imagery of God in many peoples life.It even had an impact on my life even though I was born again.But still I did not became an atheist as I had many other reasons and experiences more than enough to hold on my faith.But still I was in search of answers and I wanted to clear my doubts in this regard.That's why I thought of studying what the Evolution of Science and Creation of God Has to say.I have been referring many books in this matter and looking to the ongoing researches and studies in regard of this matter.And what had helped me most is Lee Strobel's book the "The Case of a Creator".Any error I have committed in this study does not at all reflect that of the above book and the copyright of the book remains to the author itself.All I am doing here is just sharing my views and study in respect of his book and other books and resources including the Internet.Please do share your thought and views in regard of my studies.God bless us.
One of the best resources you can get that easily disapproves the Theory of Evolution is the book,Icons of Evolution which was written by Dr Jonathan Wells.Published in 2000 this book takes a clear headed,scientific look at the very same visual images that had convinced many of the truth of Darwinian evolution.The Miller experiment ,Darwin's tree of life,Haeckel's embryos,the archaeopteryx missing link-they were all there,along with several other symbols of evolution.The books subtitle is really great, it says. "Why Much of What we Teach about Evolution is Wrong".
Here we can bring together the images and the broader questions of Darwinism's,and have a overall reliability test on The Theory Of Evolution.
Why Darwinism Fails.,
The Origin of Life.
Part 1.
The Impact of Darwin's Theory of Evolution.
If we look into the world and into our own lives.For the last 3 decades why many people started having doubts or started becoming atheist was because of all the complicated theory's that we started to study from our 9th grades to 12th or continued in our colleges.And out of all theses the one that had influenced us most was Darwin's "Theory of Evolution".In my school days while I studied it ,it seemed so perfect that many of my friends disowned their beliefs in God and became atheists.The evolutionary story of Darwin simply replaced the religious imagery of God in many peoples life.It even had an impact on my life even though I was born again.But still I did not became an atheist as I had many other reasons and experiences more than enough to hold on my faith.But still I was in search of answers and I wanted to clear my doubts in this regard.That's why I thought of studying what the Evolution of Science and Creation of God Has to say.I have been referring many books in this matter and looking to the ongoing researches and studies in regard of this matter.And what had helped me most is Lee Strobel's book the "The Case of a Creator".Any error I have committed in this study does not at all reflect that of the above book and the copyright of the book remains to the author itself.All I am doing here is just sharing my views and study in respect of his book and other books and resources including the Internet.Please do share your thought and views in regard of my studies.God bless us.
One of the best resources you can get that easily disapproves the Theory of Evolution is the book,Icons of Evolution which was written by Dr Jonathan Wells.Published in 2000 this book takes a clear headed,scientific look at the very same visual images that had convinced many of the truth of Darwinian evolution.The Miller experiment ,Darwin's tree of life,Haeckel's embryos,the archaeopteryx missing link-they were all there,along with several other symbols of evolution.The books subtitle is really great, it says. "Why Much of What we Teach about Evolution is Wrong".
Here we can bring together the images and the broader questions of Darwinism's,and have a overall reliability test on The Theory Of Evolution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
