What is aboigenesis? It is the formation of life from non-living matter. Today the term is primarily used to refer to the chemical origin of life, such as from a 'primordial soup' or in the vicinity of hydrothermal vents, and most probably through a number of intermediate steps, such as non-living but self-replicating molecules (biopoiesis). The current models of abiogenesis are still being scientifically tested.
What I would like to do now is bring in an article I found. The guy is a lot brighter than I am and the guys he references are brighter than both of us. I guess you could say, What are the odds?
The book, Origins Creation Or Evolution has calculated the odds this way Let¹s consider some factors that are involved in probability. If you recall, we said that all proteins (remember enzymes are proteins) require left handed amino acids. Now, using this fact of life science, lets try using probability theory. (Calculations submitted by Dr. Monty Kester) (doing the calculations)
1. What is the probability of forming one left handed (L), 400-amino-acid protein, from a normal 50% mixture of right handed (D) and left handed (L) forms?
(A) The probability of each linking is 1/2
(B) If we deduct a fair share of glycine, say 20, then the probability would be 1/2 X 1/2 X ...380 times (400 - 20) = ...1/ 10^114 (incidentally, you must convert to logarithms)
2. What is the probability of 124 such proteins , the number needed for the simplest possible self-replicating system forming? 1/10^114 (probability of one protein forming) 1/10^114 X 1/10^114...124 times = 1/(10^114)^124 = 1/10^14,136
3. What is the probability of 124 all (L), 400-amino-acids protein forming, if there is a 99% surety that (L) will preferentially link to a (L)?
(A) The probability of each (L) left handed amino acid linking is ...99/100
(B) The probability of 380 (400-20 glycine) L - amino acids linking in succession is: .99 X .99 X .99 X ...380 times + >99^380 = 1/10^1.7
(C) The probability of 124 proteins forming is: 1/10^1.7 X 1/10^1.7 .....124 times = 1/(10^1.7)^124 = ...1/10^210 When we consider the facts related to these numbers we can easily see that the random chance of evolutonary theory will not likely be useful. Consider what those numbers mean in general comparisons:
(1) Age of universe (evolutionary assumption) in seconds = 10^18
(2) Diameter of the universe in nches = 10^28
(3) Diameter of the universe in A (angstroms) = 4 X 10^37
(4) Mass of milkey way in grams = 3 X 10^44
( 5) Number of atoms in the unuverse = 5 X 10^78 Physicists conclude that events whose probabilities are extremely small *never occur* ( 1 chance in 10^15).
Think about this: A scientist can sequence (put together) 124 proteins in a matter of hours, This shows the need for intelligence behind design.
ref 4 Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of 2000 different enzymes which are needed- and each one tailored made to do a particular chemical as 1in 10^40,000
ref 5 In the book It couldnt just happen you¹ll read that, A professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has estimated that all the protein molecules that have ever existed on earth is only 10 followed by 52 zeros. This means there is no real chance at all that even one protein with all left handed amino acids could ever have *just Happened* to come into existance. The book also notes, What is the probability of an amino acid chain 400 units long happening by chance? The answer is on chance in ten followed by 240 zeros!
So now that we have the math, what about what evolutionists have to say. I've taken quotes from several.
1. "The 'RNA world' hypothesis proposes that early life developed by making use of RNA molecules, rather than proteins, to catalyse the synthesis of important biological molecules. It is thought, however, that the nucleotides constituting RNA were scarce on early Earth - From Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, and Department of Biology, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts
2. From Salk Institute for Biological Studies, San Diego, CA 92186-5800, USA.
It is difficult if not impossible to synthesize long polymers of amino acids, nucleotides, etc., in homogeneous aqueous solution. We suggest that long polymers were synthesized on the surface of minerals in a prebiotic process analogous to solid-phase synthesis.
3. From the Department of Applied Biological Science, Faculty of Science and Technology, Science University of Tokyo, Noda 278, Japan.
The recent discovery of polymerase activity in a ribosomal RNA intervening sequence as well as other studies of RNA-replicating systems suggest that the first living molecules were RNAs called replicases.
4. A genetic annealing model for the universal ancestor of all extant life is presented.
Whats interesting that in all these statements the words hypothesis, thought, we suggest, are used. The last one is even more interesting for in that statement they use model. Now what is a model?
I think the best model we can look at is the models used to predict the weather. In book 5 of my series I look at it from the view point of global warming. In book 5 we are having problems with the earths climate. Listen as the this character in the book explains this model for weather and after you read this we'll look at what evolutionists would have you believe.
If we Look back at earth’s history we see there have been wild fluctuations in climate ... but over the last eight to ten thousand years the climate has been very stable almost to the point of being predictable, and many believe these ocean current systems are the cause.
Now first let me say with all due respect for Dr. La Baugh’s analyses, there are some who disagree with his theory. It sounds good and it even makes sense, but the models he used and the models of… Drs. Harvey and Jacobs who are two very renowned climatologists differ greatly.”
“How do you mean, differ greatly?”
Well, the behavior of the atmosphere is governed by physical laws which can be expressed as mathematical equations. These equations represent how atmospheric quantities such as temperature, wind speed, direction, humidity, and what ever else you want to use will change from their initial current values to what they might be given a certain data. If we can solve these equations, we will have a forecast. We can do this by sub-dividing the atmosphere into a 3-D grid of points and solving these equations at each point. However these models have three main sources of error:
The first is initialization. We have an imperfect description of what the atmosphere is doing right now due to the lack of data. When the model starts it has an incorrect picture of the initial state of the atmosphere so it will always generate a forecast that is imperfect.
The second is resolution. Models are run on 3-D grids that cover the entire globe. Each grid point represents a piece of atmosphere as large as 35 miles on a side. Anything smaller such as thunderstorms are not handled as well, and must be parameterized, or in laymen’s terms, we create a fudge factors that do a good job giving the right forecast most of the time. Obviously, the fudge factors aren't going to work for all situations.
And third is our basic understanding. Our basic understanding of the physics governing the atmosphere is not perfect, so the equations we're using aren't quite right.
If scientists can say this about something we know a whole lot about and is in the here and now, what are the basic understandings, the equations, the fudge factors, and the physics of a milion years ago going to be like? How accurate are their models?
With all that we know about the weather, and all the data we have, and as complex as the models are, we still have issues in forcating weather. We still make mistakes in forcasting because the data is constantly changing, and some of our data is not correct. How can a model be made for what happened a million years ago using information that is most likly flawed or generated in a laboratory experiment be considered correct?
Lets say just for a moment that what they say is correct, than the next question that needs to be asked is, where did theses substances come from. At some point if you go back in time something was created from nothing. Do you really believe that God took a pool of goo and said let there be life and a one cell animal crawled out to later become man? If that is the case than man is no better than the animals and that is what evolution is all about. One last thing, consider the following statement.
If you wish to question evolution, by all means do so. Debate is healthy. However a useful debate requires that you make a good-faith effort to study and understand the breadth of accumulated evidence. Finally, evolution theory (and science itself) is fundamentally neutral with respect to the existence of a creator. A supernatural force or being could well have created our universe based on a set of mathematical principles, predicting every outcome, including the emergence of humans. Evolutionary theory cannot speak to the truth of the existence of such a creator. It simply deals with how species emerge, adapt, survive or disappear when faced with a changing environment. • Rajesh C. Miranda is an associate professor in the department of neuroscience and experimental therapeutics at the Texas A&M University System Health Science Center.
Do you think this man represents main line evolution? Here is how one entitled his arguments - Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics,and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations. It is from his references I took the quotes. The bottom line, evolution can't come up with proof, all they have is supposition, theory, and mis-information. Their theories and math look good, but its built on a house of sand. Look at their arguments through the lens of scripture and real science and it falls apart like a house of cards.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Theistic evolution
I have spent some time in reading a lot of the articles written about theistic evolution, and basicly theistic evolution states that God is in charge of the biological process called evolution. God directs and guides the unfolding of life forms over millions of years. Theistic evolution contends that there is no conflict between science and the Biblical book of Genesis. Frankly I have a problem with that statement. God is in charge of the biological process, in fact God is in charge of the whole process. There is the age old question many have asked, what came first, the chicken or the egg. I think when that question is asked, its like saying he put the horse before the cart. What I'm trying to say is this, in my view theistic evolution is nothiong more than a compromise with Darwinian evolution, compromising with the world view brings about failure and I believe is also degrades who we believe God is. So lets start at the beginning. , "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" In the first sentence that Moses penned he used the Hebrew word "(beginning - re'shiyth" meaning the first in place, time, order of rank (specificly first fruit) The second word he used was God or the Hebrew word elohiym. Now here we get into multiple meanings. Elohiym is the plurl of el-o'-ah which comes from el, or almighty. Under the meanings of elohiym we see "the supreme God and occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates. The next word that is used is heavens, or the Hebrew word shaw-meh. This word comes from an unused root meaning to be lofty. Alluding to the visible sky as well as where the celestial bodies revolve. The Next word is created. Moses used the Hebrew word bara which means to create, to cut down a piece of wood or to select, to choose, to do or to make. The last word Moses used was earth or the hebrew word eh'-rets which is from an unused root meaning to be firm. Translation - The first place, the first time, the first fruits of The might one, the supreme God and magistrate choose to create the sky, all the celestial bodies that revolve, and a place that is firm. Along with all that is in the universe God created earth.
You probabaly are asking why go to all this trouble to translate, we already know what it says. And that is where the problem lies. We have read it so much we've lost sight of the real meaning. question, what did God say when he had finished creating? In Genesis 1:31 He says
"God saw all that he had made, and it was very good."
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now let me ask you a question, How is it stated. Moses made a statement and ended it with a period. Meaning the creation was complete.
Now let me ask you another question, when God creates does he leave anything unfinished. God said that everything he created was good. But look how Moses starts out in the second sentence.
"And the earth was without form, and void"
Moses uses the word "tohuw" its from an unused root meaning meaning to lie in waste. What happend between verse one and two? It sounds to me like total destruction. Now, let me ask you this question. If God created the heavens and the earth, did he create something that was worthless or a desolate place? I think the answer is no, what God creates is perfect. When we look out at the universe what do we see? We see order, but we also see destruction. We see lifeless worlds, we see asteroid belts. Here on earth we have evidence of massive destruction in Arizona and South America where giant asteroids hit. Jesus said I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. Think on this for a moment. How old is God? He is timeless. What has he been doing the whole while he has been around? I believe he has always been in the mode of creating. So in that sense the earth may be timeless, and yes the dinosaurs they did exist, but not through theistic evolution or evolution as preached by Godless men. Satan wanted to be like God and when he tried to take over the thrown in heaven - because it does state that in Isaiah - Satan was cast out, however he did not go without a fight. Answer this question, what did he do in the garden? He destroyed God's most exalted creation - man - because in all of creation the created was spoke into existence, with man he was created by the hand of God and then God breathed into man the breath of HIS life. All of who God is was breathed into man, that is why woman was taken from man and not created seperately. Satan's revenge on God... he destroyed what God loved. Think about this - The universe has been around since the beginning. When Satan fell he destroyed all that God made. Verse two in Genesis tells us that. In verse two God Re-created JUST earth. Why - I don't know, but I believe it has something to do with proving to Satan just how wrong he was. There's no such thing as theistic evolution. God recreated the earth in SIX days. So now that we've covered the theological part, we'll cover scientific facts.
Darwin stated that complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. While Darwin's Theory of Evolution is relatively young, the evolutionary worldview itself is as old as antiquity. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the evolutionary descent of man from animal. Charles Darwin simply brought something new to the old philosophy called natural selection. Yet in the last 50 or so years we now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized 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 machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world."
We're dealing with more than biology and the decent of man. We have the appearance of the cosmos with the "Big Bang" Something from nothing came into existence. From that big bang came life and it supposedly over time became more complex, yet when we explore the miniature we find the smaller we go the more complex it becomes. I could believe in evolution if man or animal were self procreating. But just the fact that male and female was created to bring forth life. What are the odds that everything came into existence through chance and fit so perfectly?
I believe that the premise in which evolutionists base their beliefs on are flawed, and here is why I say that H.S. Lipson, a Professor of Physics at the University of Manchester wrote,
"evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it" If, and I say if that is the case doesn't that put those that believe in evolution on the same plane as those that believe in a divine creation?
Every machine (life form) must have a certain number of parts to function. Take away one of those parts and it ceases to be. Even most bacteria require several thousand genes to carry out the function necessary for life. The E.coli has about 4,639,221 nucleotide base pairs which code for 4,288 genes. Chlamydia and Rickettsia are the smallest living things known. Even so these two forms of life still require millions of atomic parts. If I have a good mathematician here I'd have him figure the odds of just these two coming together in just the right sequence.
I think one thing that proves my point is this, when Einstein was working on his theroy of relativity he put in an extra equation because he thought the universe was stable and not expanding, later he found he was wrong. Kind of makes me wonder if all the evidence the evolutionary biologists have put forth may be flawed because somewhere down the line someone miscalculated. The problem for evolution as I see it is caused by the enormous complexity required for life and none of the proposals to overcome it are even remotely satisfactory. If you are not familiar with Dr. Lee M. Spetner, he is a biophysicist, author, and critic of Neo-Darwinism but not against evolution in a more general sense. He received his PhD in physics from MIT in 1950. You need to read his book "Not By Chance! It blows evolution out of the water. Another problem I have is this, that even if all the parts that were needed to create life, these many parts could not just sit around and wait for the other parts to evolve because the existing ones would most likely deteriorate from the effects of dehydration, oxidation, and the action of bacteria or other pathogens. The only way it could have happened is through instanteous creation. In all of my reading I have yet to find any compelling evidence presented to disprove creation, where on the other hand there's a whole lot of evidence to prove creation such as the discovery that most nucleotides degrade fast at the temperatures scientists conclude existed on the earth when it was young. which brings me to the conclusion that the half lives of many of the basic building blocks of life are too short to allow for the adequate accumulation of these compounds. To quote Levy and Miller - Therefore unless the origin of life took place extremely fast, less than a 100 years...a high temperature origin of life cannot involve adenine,
(Adenine is one of the most important organic molecules for life as we know it today is an integral part of DNA, RNA, and ATP. DNA, as you might know, is the genetic code used for cellular life on earth. It is through the precise inheritance of on organism's DNA from its parent that the traits of an organism are passed on.)
Uracil, (a colourless, crystalline organic compound of the pyrimidine family that occurs as a component of ribonucleic acid RNA a molecule involved in the transmission of hereditary characteristics. The RNA molecule consists of a sequence of nucleotides, each containing a five-carbon sugar (ribose), a phosphate group, and a nitrogenous base.)
Guanine, (is one of the five main nucleobases found in the nucleic acids DNA and RNA; the others being adenine, cytosine, thymine, and uracil. With the formula C5H5N5O, guanine is a derivative of purine, consisting of a fused pyrimidine-imidazole ring system with conjugated double bonds. Being unsaturated, the bicyclic molecule is planar. The guanine nucleoside is called guanosine.)
I think this finding is a setback for abiogenesis, because high temperature origin of life is the only feasible model. Enough said, your response.
You probabaly are asking why go to all this trouble to translate, we already know what it says. And that is where the problem lies. We have read it so much we've lost sight of the real meaning. question, what did God say when he had finished creating? In Genesis 1:31 He says
"God saw all that he had made, and it was very good."
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now let me ask you a question, How is it stated. Moses made a statement and ended it with a period. Meaning the creation was complete.
Now let me ask you another question, when God creates does he leave anything unfinished. God said that everything he created was good. But look how Moses starts out in the second sentence.
"And the earth was without form, and void"
Moses uses the word "tohuw" its from an unused root meaning meaning to lie in waste. What happend between verse one and two? It sounds to me like total destruction. Now, let me ask you this question. If God created the heavens and the earth, did he create something that was worthless or a desolate place? I think the answer is no, what God creates is perfect. When we look out at the universe what do we see? We see order, but we also see destruction. We see lifeless worlds, we see asteroid belts. Here on earth we have evidence of massive destruction in Arizona and South America where giant asteroids hit. Jesus said I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. Think on this for a moment. How old is God? He is timeless. What has he been doing the whole while he has been around? I believe he has always been in the mode of creating. So in that sense the earth may be timeless, and yes the dinosaurs they did exist, but not through theistic evolution or evolution as preached by Godless men. Satan wanted to be like God and when he tried to take over the thrown in heaven - because it does state that in Isaiah - Satan was cast out, however he did not go without a fight. Answer this question, what did he do in the garden? He destroyed God's most exalted creation - man - because in all of creation the created was spoke into existence, with man he was created by the hand of God and then God breathed into man the breath of HIS life. All of who God is was breathed into man, that is why woman was taken from man and not created seperately. Satan's revenge on God... he destroyed what God loved. Think about this - The universe has been around since the beginning. When Satan fell he destroyed all that God made. Verse two in Genesis tells us that. In verse two God Re-created JUST earth. Why - I don't know, but I believe it has something to do with proving to Satan just how wrong he was. There's no such thing as theistic evolution. God recreated the earth in SIX days. So now that we've covered the theological part, we'll cover scientific facts.
Darwin stated that complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. While Darwin's Theory of Evolution is relatively young, the evolutionary worldview itself is as old as antiquity. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the evolutionary descent of man from animal. Charles Darwin simply brought something new to the old philosophy called natural selection. Yet in the last 50 or so years we now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized 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 machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world."
We're dealing with more than biology and the decent of man. We have the appearance of the cosmos with the "Big Bang" Something from nothing came into existence. From that big bang came life and it supposedly over time became more complex, yet when we explore the miniature we find the smaller we go the more complex it becomes. I could believe in evolution if man or animal were self procreating. But just the fact that male and female was created to bring forth life. What are the odds that everything came into existence through chance and fit so perfectly?
I believe that the premise in which evolutionists base their beliefs on are flawed, and here is why I say that H.S. Lipson, a Professor of Physics at the University of Manchester wrote,
"evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it" If, and I say if that is the case doesn't that put those that believe in evolution on the same plane as those that believe in a divine creation?
Every machine (life form) must have a certain number of parts to function. Take away one of those parts and it ceases to be. Even most bacteria require several thousand genes to carry out the function necessary for life. The E.coli has about 4,639,221 nucleotide base pairs which code for 4,288 genes. Chlamydia and Rickettsia are the smallest living things known. Even so these two forms of life still require millions of atomic parts. If I have a good mathematician here I'd have him figure the odds of just these two coming together in just the right sequence.
I think one thing that proves my point is this, when Einstein was working on his theroy of relativity he put in an extra equation because he thought the universe was stable and not expanding, later he found he was wrong. Kind of makes me wonder if all the evidence the evolutionary biologists have put forth may be flawed because somewhere down the line someone miscalculated. The problem for evolution as I see it is caused by the enormous complexity required for life and none of the proposals to overcome it are even remotely satisfactory. If you are not familiar with Dr. Lee M. Spetner, he is a biophysicist, author, and critic of Neo-Darwinism but not against evolution in a more general sense. He received his PhD in physics from MIT in 1950. You need to read his book "Not By Chance! It blows evolution out of the water. Another problem I have is this, that even if all the parts that were needed to create life, these many parts could not just sit around and wait for the other parts to evolve because the existing ones would most likely deteriorate from the effects of dehydration, oxidation, and the action of bacteria or other pathogens. The only way it could have happened is through instanteous creation. In all of my reading I have yet to find any compelling evidence presented to disprove creation, where on the other hand there's a whole lot of evidence to prove creation such as the discovery that most nucleotides degrade fast at the temperatures scientists conclude existed on the earth when it was young. which brings me to the conclusion that the half lives of many of the basic building blocks of life are too short to allow for the adequate accumulation of these compounds. To quote Levy and Miller - Therefore unless the origin of life took place extremely fast, less than a 100 years...a high temperature origin of life cannot involve adenine,
(Adenine is one of the most important organic molecules for life as we know it today is an integral part of DNA, RNA, and ATP. DNA, as you might know, is the genetic code used for cellular life on earth. It is through the precise inheritance of on organism's DNA from its parent that the traits of an organism are passed on.)
Uracil, (a colourless, crystalline organic compound of the pyrimidine family that occurs as a component of ribonucleic acid RNA a molecule involved in the transmission of hereditary characteristics. The RNA molecule consists of a sequence of nucleotides, each containing a five-carbon sugar (ribose), a phosphate group, and a nitrogenous base.)
Guanine, (is one of the five main nucleobases found in the nucleic acids DNA and RNA; the others being adenine, cytosine, thymine, and uracil. With the formula C5H5N5O, guanine is a derivative of purine, consisting of a fused pyrimidine-imidazole ring system with conjugated double bonds. Being unsaturated, the bicyclic molecule is planar. The guanine nucleoside is called guanosine.)
I think this finding is a setback for abiogenesis, because high temperature origin of life is the only feasible model. Enough said, your response.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Did We Evolve
Darwin stated that complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. While Darwin's Theory of Evolution is relatively young, the evolutionary worldview itself is as old as antiquity. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the evolutionary descent of man from animal. Charles Darwin simply brought something new to the old philosophy called natural selection. Yet in the last 50 or so years we now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world.Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized 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 machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." This is the problem I have with evolution and maybe you can help me with this question. We're dealing with more than biology and the decent of man. We have the appearance of the cosmos with the "Big Bang" Something from nothing came into existance. From that big bang came life and it supposedly over time became nore complex, yet when we explore the miniture we find the smaller we go the more complex it becomes. I could believe in evolution if man or animal were self procreating. But just the fact that male and female were created to bring forth life. What are the odds that everything came into existance through chance and fit so perfectly. Perhaps those of you in the scientific community can help with with this, I don't believe that you or any from the scientific community are stupid, I believe that the premise in which you base your beliefs are flawed, and here is why I say that H.S. Lipson, a Professor of Physics at the University of Manchester wrote, "evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it" If, and I say if that is the case doesn't that put those that believe in evolution on the same plane as those that believe in a divine creation? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
