11. Abiogenesis Made Difficult


 The URL for my book is www.Evo-illusion.com.

The above video is about my book Evo-illusion, now available at Amazon. The page begins below.

The following is a video I made for YouTube regarding abiogenesis. Click on the lower left arrow to not leave this site.

Working and writing about evolution, and the beginning of life causes me to really think: what is life? We can get living entities down to the simplest of units, that of the bacteria. We could, theoretically, in a laboratory, put all of the different parts together to make a cell: the nucleus, cytoplasm, all of the other organelles, the cell wall, plasma membrane, and capsule. No matter how perfectly we performed that task, we could not make a cell live. We could not inject life. Synthesizing a living version of the tiniest unit of life is light years beyond out capabilities. What a strange thought. What is in those tiny cells that make them alive? Is it some sort of magic elixir? We can define life by what it does, how it reproduces itself, how it reacts to stimulus, how it has self preservation properties. Watching a cell go through mitosis is so astounding; seeing its genetic nuclear material replicate itself, then the copies separate in such a knowing fashion. Each part does just what it is supposed to do. Then  the cell wall pinches in, then separates at the exact center , like a clown twists balloons into animal forms, to produce two cells out of one. How does the cell wall know how to “pinch”? What signals do the other cell parts, the organelles, receive, so that they know that it is now time for them to copy themselves, then move apart, separating themselves into opposite halves of the cell? What mechanism and forces causes all of that pinching and moving? After all of the lab tests, after all of the study, after all of the theories, we really simply don’t have any idea what life really is. And this fact is a killer for ev-illusionists.

Evo-biologists who work on the problem of forming life from non-living ingredients typically place perfectly selected  ingredients in containers, then change the environmental characteristics in hopes of forming something.  Anything. Please! You see, their jobs and the government grants they get depend on their success. and ANYTHING is considered a success. If they get a few links of RNA, they celebrate like crazy. Science periodicals write “huge news” articles on how they got amazing results, and that we are “almost there” in creating life in the lab. The celebration is astounding. The lab techs MUST come up with success or their jobs and funds are in great jeopardy.  There is a monetary stimulus for success. Of course in the articles they never mention the fact that living cells have tens of thousands of proteins and over five hundred protein enzymes necessary to sustain life. Any engineer knows that when a faced with a difficult project, they must know that the most difficult step is doable. In other words, if we wanted to fly a space vehicle to the nearest star, we would have to know that it is a feasible project. It would be absurd for the government to start assembling a rocket ship, design the doors, living quarters for the crew, windows of the ship, before we knew if the trip was possible. And it is not possible. At 35,000 miles per hour, the fastest we have ever flown a probe, the ship would take 35,000 years to get to the closest star. Biologists should take heed, and listen to good engineering procedures. They should first make sure non-living matter can be made living. Take dead cells and make them come to life FIRST. If that cannot be accomplished, it is complete nonsense to celebrate the synthesize of biochemicals, when there is no hope of successfully forming living tissue out of the mix. This science is about grants and jobs. Not science.

It is obvious that abiogenesis occurred.  Evolutionauts and religious creationists  would both agree.  At one time in the history of the earth there was no life, then there was.  But, exactly how did life begin? I will label evolution’s current view of abiogenesis “ev-abiogenesis” Neither ev-abiogenesis, or abiogenesis, have ever been observed in nature or displayed in any laboratory experiments. Early on ev-abiogenesis was an integral part of evolution. Ev-illusionists thought that “spontaneous generation” of life would be found to occur everywhere on earth. That was shown to not be the case. Scientists then were bent on creating life in the laboratory, but haven’t been within light years of that goal. Since there has been such frustration by scientists trying to synthesize life, ev-illusionists have distanced themselves from the subject. They now say that ev-abiogenesis is not part of evolution. They let the “ev-abiogeneisis scientists” take care of that department. In reality, ev-abiogenesis has everything to do with evolution. Just as the beginnings of multi- cellular life, species, complex organ systems, consciousness and man must be accounted for, so must the beginning of life; it ‘s an integral part of the chain of nature on earth. And the very first protocells had to evolve into far more complex forms in order to wind up with cells that could sustain life.  In reality, the formation of life’s first cells is the most important part of evolution. Ev-illusionists trying to separate the beginning of life from evolution is just another part of the illusion.

200px-phospholipids_aqueous_solution_structuressvg-copyEvolution scientists jump through hoops trying to convince us that an immense number of astronomically unlikely steps took place to form prebiotic cells. The earliest “cells” were supposedly micelles which are composed of lipid (fat) molecules.  One end of these lipid molecules is hydrophylic, the other hydrophobic. (Attracted to water, and repellent to water.) Due to this fact, lipid molecules can form themselves into spheres with the hydrophylic ends outside, and the hydrophobic ends inside.  Ev-biogenesis scientists think that RNA formed on the early sea floor, then made their way into these micelles for better “protection” so they would then be better able to reproduce themselves.

These cells would have had to form in the late Hadean or early Archeann Period, around 3.8 to 3.4 BYA.  “Hadean” was so named because the earth would have resembled hell. The atmosphere would have been like an oven, any seas  would have been boiling hot. The conditions would have resembled the internal conditions of medical equipment that we use all over the world today; they are called sterilizers.  The Archean was also not friendly to life.  It was also very hot, the heat left over from the formation of the earth.  The atmosphere was caustic and deadly, radiation was immense.  To further complicate things, the moon was only 25,000 to 50,000 miles away from earth in those days.  The tides produced by a moon that close would have been enormous; hundreds and maybe thousands of feet high.  The swirling currents would have been unimaginably immense.  And we are supposed to believe that an enormous number of self-assembling biochemicals came together and formed pre-biotic cells which then went on to become living bacteria on that early sea floor.

Supposedly nucleotides and amino acids formed in the atmosphere, then sank to the sea floor where there was a type of clay called nucleotides-oceanmontmorillonite.  Ev-abiogenesis scientists claim that  nucleotides and amino acids formed long chains catalyzed by this clay, which then evolved into precursors of RNA,  the message carrier for all living cells today, and later DNA, the blueprint for those cells.   The only problem with this scenario is that phosphoramidate, a very complex enzyme, is required  along with the montmorillonite clay to catalyze the formation of these long chains. And phosphoramidate is not a biochemical that could have possibly existed on the early earth sea floor.  For that matter, lipids could not have formed there either, except under incredibly unique conditions.  Further, RNA molecules, which resemble a very long  one sided  zipper,  can self catalyze their own replication.  However when they replicate, they are then locked together like a closed zipper. Enzymes and life are required to unzip the new copies, and since those enzymes didn’t exist in the prebiotic environment, the RNA copies would have been locked to their progenitor, and further copying would have been impossible.

Further, the formation of RNA is not plausible in an environment where both D and L nucleotides are present.  Ribose, the sugar that makes up the nucleotides, synthesizes equally in right and left handed isomers, much like hands come in right and left versions.  Only the right handed version is utilized in RNA.  So, RNA would have had to filter out the L’s, and use only the R’s, which, of course, could not be done randomly.

road-killAnd still another problem for scientists is the fact there are millions of dead animals, road kill, all over the earth. These bodies form a perfect reservoir of all of the chemicals needed for life, all in one big pile; all together. We wouldn’t have to wait millions of years for  RNA stuffed micelles to form. And these bodies, or reservoirs of all of the chemicals needed for life, if evolution is correct, should somehow form at least some new life. They exist both on land and in water, in a much better environment than existed during the Hadean. They should regroup, and at least some newly living cells should arise out of some of these “reservoirs”. These reservoirs containing all of the requirements for life are millions of times better than any Hadean  fat coated RNA.  And evolution wouldn’t have to wait a billion years for a far inferior product. But, sadly for the world of evolution, no new life arises out of road kill.

Another problem for ev-abiogenesis is the fact that as a pre-cell came closer and closer to the ability to sustain life, it would be non-living or dead tissue. Dead tissue constantly deteriorates. The minute an organism of any kind dies, breakdown begins. Cells that are studied by students and pathologists must be “fixed” to prevent that deterioration. Living cells are constantly balancing their chemistry and nutrition with their environment. The intake and outflow (osmosis) of ions (potassium and sodium), nutrition, and fluids maintains the cell wall so that it doesn’t collapse or explode. Cells that die go through necrosis.

Necrosis is the name given to the death of cells and living tissue. It begins with cell swelling, chromatin digestion, and disruption of the plasma membrane and organelle membranes. Cells that die by necrosis may release harmful chemicals that damage other cells.

Pre-biotic cells that are supposedly evolving into living cells would constantly be fighting the fact that they are necrotic. Could cells that are capable of supporting life fend off necrotic deterioration long enough to accept the injection of life? Since life leaves a single-celled living organism rapidly at death, is it thinkable that it would enter a single celled living organism slowly? All living organisms, particularly single-celled types, are pretty much either living or dead. Different levels of “dead” only exist in nature in very short segments of time. So too, different levels of “injected life” must also occur in very short segments of time. If one small area of a cell were alive, the area of the cell that was not living would necrotize, and damage or kill off the small living area of the cell. Ev-illusionists say that life was formed over more than a billion years. But it obvious that this could not be the case, since non-life to life would have to occur rapidly, just as life to non-life occurs rapidly. And, the idea that a non-living micelle could evolve to the point of being able to accept or support life is ludicrous. Of course, some sort of fission, mitosis, or an unknown type of cell replication, would have to start immediately, or the beginning cell would die off without being able to copy itself, and the spark of new life would die with it.

Press the lower left arrow.

Potholer54, a popular evo-contributor  on YouTube, put out a series of “Made Easy” videos on why evolution is true and not to be challenged. What a choice for a title of his videos “…..Made Easy” for something so unbelievably complex that he, in reality, has no idea how things came about, even though he thinks he has it down. Potholer54 himself is so hoodwinked by ev-illusionists, that he cannot comprehend the complete illogic of his thinking. I am using Potholer54’s video as an example of modern, up-to-date evolution science. I will show why it is an entirely flawed attempt at explaining the Puzzle.  Amazingly, for such a supposedly knowledgeable guy, Potholer54 doesn’t know what adenine is.  It is one of four bases that make up RNA and DNA; the ladder “rungs”.  It is not a nucleotide, as he describes.  This is his third or fourth re-do on this video, and he still hasn’t made that correction.

The biggest problem with Potholer54’s video, as well as all of evolution’s, is the fact that he knows the target, the destination, in advance, as he himself, and all of life, are part of that destination. Looking at things from this side, the side where we know life exists, and picking a path supposedly taken that got us here is laughable. Reality is that there was absolutely no notion or inkling on earth, or anywhere within at least 30 trillion miles of earth, about what life was. Why should this incredible and blind path described by Potholer54 be taken? Why didn’t the chemicals that mixed around the atmosphere make a pathless, worthless mush of different compounds for the earth’s entire existence. Did the earth want life? Why would thousands of completely unlikely and blind steps that Potholer54 simplistically describes occur when there was absolutely no goal. When the earth was sterile, life was not in any way shape of form imaginable. Potholer54 and all of evolution are the most perfect example of Monday morning quarterbacking conceivable.

Potholer54, in his video “Abiogenesis Made Easy” tells how the earth’s atmosphere 3.7 years ago was full of hydrogen, hydrogen cyanide, methane, and ammonia, “among other” gases. He explains that his Step 1 to the goal of life is the combination of these four gases to form nucleotides.

Current studies show that the early atmosphere contained a different list of molecules that Potholer54 describes. According to recent studies, “the original atmosphere was primarily helium and hydrogen. Heat from the still-molten crust, and the sun, plus a probably enhanced solar wind, dissipated this atmosphere. About 4.4 billion years ago, the surface had cooled enough to form a crust, still heavily populated with volcanoes which released steam, carbon dioxide, and ammonia. This led to the early “second atmosphere”, which was primarily carbon dioxide and water vapor, with some nitrogen but virtually no oxygen. This second atmosphere had approximately 100 times as much gas as the current atmosphere, but as it cooled much of the carbon dioxide was dissolved in the seas and precipitated out as carbonates. The later “second atmosphere” contained largely nitrogen and carbon dioxide. However, simulations run at the University of Waterloo and University of Colorado in 2005 suggest that it may have had up to 40% hydrogen.

So, the early atmosphere isn’t quite what Potholer54 describes, but since this is not an exact science, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt, and say the atmosphere is what he says it was. The first problem with his Step 1 is the fact that there are other gases circulating throughout the early atmosphere, not just the four needed to make nucleotides. The idea that the four gases he has listed migrated together and formed nucleotides, when there are thousands of other different, larger, and more complex molecules that could form from these four and the other gases present is, of course, preposterous. The early atmosphere was full of gases, reactants, and reagents, most of which would have nothing to do with life.

Potholer54, as proof of his Step 1, cites how, in a lab experiment in 1961, adenine, one of the four “nucleotides” (really bases) hat make up the rungs of the “ladder” in DNA, formed from a flask filled with hydrogen cyanide and ammonia. Obviously, what happens in a flask under ideal lab conditions overseen by intelligent technicians cannot in any way mimic what happened randomly in the atmosphere of the early earth. Potholer54 says the reagents were “left to stew alone”, which is a situation that wouldn’t occur in the early atmosphere. Of course adenine is only one of thousands of carbon based chemicals that are required for life to exist. Getting adenine to form in a lab is light years away from figuring out how all of the biochemicals required for life formed.

Potholer54’s Step 2 on his blind pathway to life is nucleotides combining and forming into polynucleotides, long chains of nucleotides. He states that montmorillonite clay has been found to be a good catalyst for nucleotides forming into long chains. So now we must have ammonia, hydrogen, hydrogen cyanide, and methane all pushed together, forming nucleotides. Then these nucleotides must travel to the sea floor and  find montmorillonite clay grains so they can form long chains called polynucleotides.  He says that montmorillonite clay has been found plentiful on the sea floor and under pools of water.  Actually, it would have had to been  the entire sea floor for this scenario.   The question arises: how did we go from the atmosphere and nucleotide formation to the sea floor? Did the nucleotides dissolve in water, and sink?

Potholer54’s Step 3 on the blind path to life is the combination of polynucleotides with four nucleobases (adenine, guanine, cytocine, and uracil) that had to somehow form and make it to the sea floor.  The combination of nucleotides and bases formed into ultra-long and self replicating ribonucleic acid (RNA). According to Potholer54, some of the RNA molecules will be strong, some weak. The weak ones will go by the wayside, the strong ones will replicate, and pass on their traits! Molecules have traits? Is this survival of the fittest, chemical version?

Potholer54’s Step 4 is the combination of RNA molecules into deoxyribonucleic acid molecules, or DNA. DNA carries the genetic code and blueprint for all of life. DNA is organized into genetic units called chromosomes. The evolution of RNA into DNA and DNA’s organization into chromosome units, of course, happened over a billion years, so we cannot test the hypothesis. But it doesn’t take much logic and common sense to see how ridiculous this whole scenario really is. Each DNA molecule in a chromosome is shaped like a helical ladder, and can have up to several million “rungs”, each composed of the four bases in an exact coded order. Just imagine the complexity of copying the millions of rungs required to make an undirected duplicate of a DNA molecule; of organizing the millions of nucleotides and bases into just the right positions. Can we use the word “impossilbe” here?

At left, a DNA molecule segment. Each chromosome is made up of millions of the horizontal rungs.

Potholer54 talks about how DNA is a “self-replicating molecule”. Well, that is not exactly true. DNA doesn’t simply self-replicate on its own. DNA actually requires a living cell for support in order to copy itself. Within cells, DNA is organized into structures called chromosomes. These chromosomes are duplicated and paired before cells divide, in a process called “DNA replication”. Within the chromosomes, chromatin proteins compact and organize DNA. These compact structures guide the interactions between DNA and other proteins, helping control which parts of the DNA are transcribed. Here, the two strands are separated and then each strand’s complementary DNA sequence is recreated by an enzyme called DNA polymerase. This enzyme makes the complementary strand by finding the correct base through complementary base pairing, and bonding it onto the original strand. Amazingly, the side strands of DNA are anti-parallel.  That is, the order of the molecules in one strand  is the exact opposite of the opposing strand, a design that would obviously take an enormous amount of organization, and intelligence? As DNA polymerases can only extend a DNA strand in a 5′ to 3′ direction, different mechanisms are used to copy the anti-parallel strands of the double helix.In this way, the base on the old strand dictates which base appears on the new strand, and the cell ends up with a perfect copy of its DNA. How and when did the DNA polymerase and chromatin proteins form? Did DNA make them because it “knew” that it required these to replicate? I would like to see Potholer54’s explanation.

Potholer describes how the supporting skeleton (sides) of the DNA strand is made from alternating phosphate and sugar molecules. Were these sugars and phosphates just floating around the early atmosphere or sea floor, and used as needed in DNA formation? Were they clicking together in just the right order to form genetic material? How these molecules would be supplied, and how they would find their place on a multi-million rung helical ladder when the earth was still sterile is not addressed. In nature, a living cell produces these molecules and stimulates cell replication. Things are  immensely more complex than Potholer54 describes. Does he not know this? Is he hiding information to protect his belief system, which is, of course, atheism?

And what about the unbelievably complex code that DNA uses to translate the blueprint for all of life? How did this code form? This “minor” part is simply skipped by Potholer54, and all of ev-illusionists. Because there is simply no answer to how the code originated, any explanation would make Potholer54 and ev-illusionists look bad. So the origination of the code is just ignored.

According to Potholer54, amazingly, montmorillonite clay is not only a catalyst for making polynucleotide chains, complex organic compounds, but it also happens to be a catalyst for forming lipid (fat) molecules into spherical structures called micelles. According to Potholer54, in Step 5, the RNA is attracted to the lipid spheres, and nestles into them for protection. Of course the snuggling of RNA would have to occur just as the sphere is closing. Too early, the RNA would float away. Too late, the RNA could not enter and be encapsulated. Now we have thinking chemicals! The RNA in the lipid spheres survive better than those that are floating free. This is the first example of survival of the fittest! At first ev-illusionists told us that survival is a desire of live animal species. But now Potholer54 lets us know that survival is also a desire of chemicals!

Continuing with Potholer54’s problems is the fact that lipids and fatty acids are manufactured by live organisms. No live organisms, no lipids, and no pre-biotic cell wall. So those lakes, ponds, and seas whose floors are covered with lipids that Potholer54 talks about are imaginary. Fats, oils, waxes and steroids are all lipids. They function as energy storage molecules, as insulation and protection for internal organs, as lubricants, and as hormones. One group, the phospholipids are the major structural elements of membranes. In humans fatty acids are predominantly formed in the liver and adipose tissue, and mammary glands during lactation. Synthesis of fatty acids takes place in live cell cytoplasm, not in non-living pseudo cells. Within a critical concentration range, certain lipids will self-organize in water to form a “micelle”. The key word here is critical concentration, which is unlikely in a random early earth scenario.

Asked the question on Pothololer54’s site, “Where did the lipids come from to make the micelles?”

The response was:
“Facile reactions of pyruvic acid under hydrothermal conditions produce a complex mixture of larger organic molecules, some of which are amphiphiles that readily self-assemble into cell-sized vesicular structures. Chemical characterization of major components of this mixture reveals similarities to the suite of organic compounds present in the Murchison carbonaceous chondrite” – Pyruvic itself is abundant under prebiotic conditions.

So we have self assembling lipids forming self assembling vesicles which take in self assembling DNA/RNA which self replicates? WOW. That’s heavy.

Potholer54 notes that at this point we have the first primitive cells. Of course, Potholer54 tells us, these first cells look nothing like the complex cells of today, but that is because cells had a billion years to evolve. There is just one problem that Potholer54 fails to mention. The DNA combined with the micelle is dead. D-E-A-D dead. There is not one living crumb in this unlikely combination. Potholer54 could spend the next billion years sticking DNA into fat globules, and I guarantee you that he would not get life. Not in any way shape or form. Never. Nada. He can even throw in all of the organelles he wanted. None of the micelles would come to life. And the more organic material he encapsulated into the micelles, the more the non-living group would deteriorate. So, here again, Potholer54 skips over this most important part of the beginnings of life. Where did the life come from? Potholer54 has absolutely no answer other than billions of years. And, he doesn’t even mention this immense and unsolvable problem for evolution in his video. The evolution of life is discussed above. Long periods of time will not make life. And, of course, how did all of the organelles that are encapsulated inside of all cells get there? Again, Potholer54’s answer is millions of years. Because that is always the answer when there is no answer.

Potholer54 lists the events that he says brought life, and he asks you to prove that they didn’t happen. And if you can’t prove that each step is impossible, then that’s the way it happened! Simple as that! Potholer54, I have a theory that the earth is going to blow up tomorrow. Prove that that’s impossible. Potholer54, you better get your affairs in order. If the earth doesn’t blow up tomorrow, sign up for a good class on logic. You and your fellow ev-illusionists  will find it very fascinating and informative. And you just may find out how to promote your favorite science in a more logical and orderly fashion. In fact, you might even change you mind about the science that you so love and adore.

And lastly, the fact that we cannot intelligently put together all of the parts of a cell and create life should give us a pretty good idea of what complete and utter randomness in nature might be able to do, or not do. And of course, the bull in the China shop here is the fact that once unicellular species were born, how did they become multi-cellular species? There is a plethora of fossils showing single celled species. There is also a plethora of fossils showing large multi-cellular species that appeared during the Cambrian explosion. There are absolutely no fossils that show single celled species evolving into bi-celled species, eight-celled species, 64 celled species, or any type of ultra-simple species that lead to the incredibly complex species that inhabited the earth 530 MYA.

The following is my YouTube response to PotHoler54, and a second video showing the odds of potholer54′ fantasy.  Click on the lower left arrow to view.

[YouTube=

Press the lower left arrow.

Follow-up:

To update myself on the current state of synthetic life experiments, and abiogenesis, I read a book titled: What Is Life?: Investigating the Nature of Life in the Age of Synthetic Biology

by Ed Regis (Author)

In it the writer describes several consortiums that have been put together to try to synthesize a living cell. I think anyone with a minimum amount of common sense could figure out that this is a waste of time and money. One group had donations of over $14,000,000 from wishful thinkers and government agencies. The obvious conclusion is that living cells cannot , and never will be, synthesized. And that we are not even remotely close to being able to synthesize life. In the end the writer answers the question posed by the cover. If one insists on a scientific answer, Regis suggests the following: “Defining life as embodied metabolism . . . seems to be the most defensible theory we have at the present.” Regis’ real conclusion is that we really don’t know what life is. He finishes with, “And that’s life.” Reading this book gave me no more incite as to what life really is, which was as expected. No one really knows. And if we don’t know what life is, can it ever be synthesized?

The following is an article by scientists trying to figure out how early cells formed:

Experimental Models of Primitive Cellular Compartments: Encapsulation, Growth, and Division

Martin M. Hanczyc,* Shelly M. Fujikawa,* Jack W. Szostak

The clay montmorillonite is known to catalyze the polymerizationof RNA from activated ribonucleotides. Here we report that montmorilloniteaccelerates the spontaneous conversion of fatty acid micellesinto vesicles. Clay particles often become encapsulated in thesevesicles, thus providing a pathway for the prebiotic encapsulationof catalytically active surfaces within membrane vesicles. Inaddition, RNA adsorbed to clay can be encapsulated within vesicles.Once formed, such vesicles can grow by incorporating fatty acidsupplied as micelles and can divide without dilution of theircontents by extrusion through small pores. These processes mediatevesicle replication through cycles of growth and division. Theformation, growth, and division of the earliest cells may haveoccurred in response to similar interactions with mineral particlesand inputs of material and energy.

Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Department of Molecular Biology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, USA

Actually, proving ev-abiogenesis should be easy. All ev-abiogenologists need to do is take a sterile aquarium, fill it with water, throw in some DNA, RNA, lipid cells, clay grains of their choice, and see if they can come up with DNA/RNA wrapped in the lipid. If they don’t, they will of course say that is because it took millions of years. But the fat bubbles and DNA wouldn’t last more than a few years at most. DNA deteriorates. Every policeman knows that.

Another problem for ev-abiogenesis: Researchers have pointed out difficulties for the abiogenic synthesis of nucleotides from cytosine and uracil. Cytosine has a half-life of 19 days at 100 °C and 17,000 years in freezing water. Larralde et al, say that “the generally accepted prebiotic synthesis of ribose, the formose reaction, yields numerous sugars without any selectivity.” and they conclude that their “results suggest that the backbone of the first genetic material could not have contained ribose or other sugars because of their instability.” The ester linkage of ribose and phosphoric acid in RNA is known to be prone to hydrolysis.

A couple thoughts from renown evolutionists: Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen wrote on this subject:

“As ice forms, energy (80 calories/gm) is liberated to the surroundings… The entropy change is negative because the thermal configuration entropy (or disorder) of water is greater than that of ice, which is a highly ordered crystal… It has often been argued by analogy to water crystallizing to ice that simple monomers may polymerize into complex molecules such as protein and DNA. The analogy is clearly inappropriate, however… The atomic bonding forces draw water molecules into an orderly crystalline array when the thermal agitation (or entropy driving force) is made sufficiently small by lowering the temperature. Organic monomers such as amino acids resist combining at all at any temperature, however, much less in some orderly arrangement
[C.B. Thaxton, W.L. Bradley, and R.L. Olsen, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Philosophical Library, New York, 1984, pp. 119-120. (emphasis added)]

Further, Nobel Prize winning Belgian scientist Ilya Prigogine wrote:

“The point is that in a non-isolated system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions.”Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small.
[Ilya Prigogine, Gregoire Nicolis and Agnes Babloyants, Physics Today 25(11):23 (1972) (emphasis added)]

Craig Venter and his team  forms a synthetic cell:

Craig Venter is an American biologist and entrepreneur.  He is most well known for his role in being one of the first to sequence the human genome and for his role in creating the first cell with a synthetic genome in 2010. Venter founded Celera Genomics, The Institute for Genomic Research and the J. Craig Venter Institute.  Craig is now working  to create synthetic biological organisms and to document genetic diversity in the world’s oceans. He was listed on Time magazine’s 2007 and 2008 Time 100 list of the most influential people in the world. In 2010, the British magazine New Statesman listed Craig Venter at 14th in the list of “The World’s 50 Most Influential Figures 2010”

Below is a video of a speech Craig Venter gave at the TED convention (www.ted.com) discussing  his laboratory’s new research in which Venter announces that he and his team made the first synthetic cell: “We are here today to announce the first synthetic cell”.   Of course this isn’t even close to the truth.  What he actually DID do was make synthetic DNA and inject it into the DNA of a living non-synthetic bacteria.  The bacteria then took up the new DNA.  The result was a new species.  The big concern here with some scientists is that Venter could inadvertently put together a very dangerous new bacteria for which there would be no anti-microbials.  But, that hasn’t been the case so far.  In reality, making a synthetic cell would entail synthesizing all of the parts: organelles, proteins, enzymes, RNA, and DNA of the cell that is synthetic.  Venter’s work is fascinating, no doubt.  If he was really able to do what he says that he did in this speech , it is truly fascinating work.  It would be very fascinating to actually see how he made the synthetic DNA, coded it, then injected it into a living bacteria without killing said bacteria.  It seems that what he did is nothing short of miraculous.  The question arises: Why did he do this?  What does it accomplish? Is there value in this research?  While Venter’s work is fascinating what is its value?  When asked what is the significance of his experiment, he said that was up to others to decide. It’s astounding that he is doing such an experiment without the vaguest idea of what the value of the outcome would be with his success; what the purpose of the work is.  It must be an incredibly expensive task.  Is the money being well spent? Why would he spend so much effort doing an experiment for which there is no known purpose?  At least to Venter?  It is entirely possible that Venter’s astounding work will someday allow for the formation of new types of life forms that will be useful in treating illnesses, and fighting off other types of illness-producing bacteria. Let’s  hope that is the case.  But assigning this work as solving a huge part of the Puzzle of ev-abiogenesis is simply absurd.

From an article written by Lawrence M. Krauss in Scientific American about Venter’s exploits:| February 16, 2010:

“I have seen the future, and it is now.  Those words came to mind again as I recently listened to Craig Venter, one of those leading the new areas of synthetic genomics and synthetic biology. Every time I hear a talk on this subject, it seems a new threshold in the artificial manipulation and, ultimately, creation of life has been passed……..Instructions embedded in synthetic gene sequences can now be implanted in foreign cells and thereby cause those cells to express proteins; those proteins, in turn, build new functioning copies of the life-forms whose instruction manual is in the embedded sequences. Venter calls this cycle “software that creates its own hardware.” I expect to hear news soon of the successful creation of the first completely artificial life-form, built from scratch and not alive until the scientists assembled it.”

This is supposedly a scientific and objective article written in just about the most respected scientific journal in existence.  Does this writer not know how far (1) injecting DNA into a bacterium and (2) actually forming living synthetic cells, really is?  We are talking thousands of light years apart here.  The notion that we are close to actually forming a synthetic living cell doesn’t qualify as scientifically absurd.  This scientific journal, Scientific American, and this writer peak the interest and beef up the belief of well indoctrinated evolutionauts who think the laboratory formation of a synthetic living cell is right around the corner; that we are almost there.  A living synthetic cell will never be made by any man.  We humans simply don’t have the talent, and we never will.  Again, taking a fully packed but dead natural cell and bringing it back to life should be the start of this project; not the end step.  The most difficult step needs to be successfully passed or all of the other steps, while they may be useful someday in other venues, are meaningless as far as evo-abiogenesis is concerned.  Bringing non-living tissues to life is skirted around and ignored constantly by evo-scientists.  Even if scientists could form the ingredients needed for a living cell, those ingredients would deteriorate rapidly while the cell was being assembled; just as the ingredients in living cells begin deteriorating  the moment they die.  And of course the notion of constructing a cell wall for that synthetic cell alone is an insurmountably step; at least for humans with our current capabilities.  If bringing non-living natural cells to life cannot be accomplished, a synthetic cell certainly never will be successfully constructed. This is just another example of how a tiny step, or a tiny piece of evidence, is blown out of all rational proportion which increases the fooling of masses of evo-believers into thinking that “we have the evidence, the lab experiments,….we are almost there.”  When we are not remotely close.

The way Venter describes his work….inferring that he actually made a synthetic cell,  just begs evolutionauts to exaggerate what was done.  So many of them now argue that “Venter has made the first synthetic cell from scratch!”  “Haven’t you seen Venter’s work?”  They are immediately sucked in as is usually the case with incredibly weak and doubtful evidence and lab work.  Evolutionauts grab on like it’s the last lifeboat on the Titanic. Why?   They are so lacking in evidence for their science.  Anyone who really knows what cells contain, and how synthetic life is completely out of the grasp of humanity will know that Venter’s work is fascinating, possibly useful in other venues like medicine, but useless as evidence for evo-abiogenesis.  It doesn’t help along evo-abiogenesis or evolution a bit.  If you have insomnia, watch the vid.

Here is an excellent video on evo-abiogenesis from YouTube.  It tells the plain facts of the matter so well. The only scientific conclusion that should be drawn is “We just don’t know”.

Advertisements

33 Comments

  1. Alejandro said,

    Abiogenesis is something very improbable. That’s the reason why scientists are looking for life in other planets (Even not knowing the whole life on earth). They think if they find other forms of life in other planets, abiogenesis would be a possible process.
    Some of them recently had an “orgasm” when CO2 and CO was found in another planet.
    But I wonder if these elements determine the presence of life or are just a couple of elements required for life…

  2. stevebee92653 said,

    There HAS to be life on other planets. Unfortunately, we will never find out. They are way too far. Damn. It would be great to know. That’s an interesting thought. If there is, it adds a whole new dimension to the discussion. But, there is something so magical about life. What is it? Amazingly, we can’t even think of a good definition. And how how how did it begin? Not by the random steps that abiogenesists propose. For sure. I have a new vid coming out on YT in a day or so on the subject.. Check it out if you have a minute.

  3. Alejandro said,

    Of coure I think there must be life on other planets and this is not something to make abiogenesis a fact, I agree with you. But maybe not in the planets they’re looking for.

  4. wunksta said,

    “Synthesizing a living version of the tiniest unit of life is light years beyond out capabilities.”

    Not really

    “RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090109173205.htm

    Also, lipids were formed in the miller urey experiment, as well as elsewhere and fatty acids would be capable of developing in undersea vents through mixing hydrocarbons
    http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=3807
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14576428?dopt=AbstractPlus
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15217990?dopt=AbstractPlus

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Somehow this comment didn’t get logged. So, this is a late reply. The answer is “really”. Forget all of the bullshit about getting RNA to replicate, which is a dream if done in a natural environment. Labs need to do the big thing first. Otherwise, every little step they do is worthless. Pour a bunch of EVERY biochemical needed to make cells into a beaker, give it the best temperature, pressure, and conditions imaginable, and see what happens. We both know what will. Muck will be the result, in a very short time. Which means that all of these BS lab experiments are nothing but grant getters. They are worthless unless some form of cells will result. And they never will Sorry.

  5. Mark Waldo, DC said,

    Steve,

    You did a most superb job refuting evolutionary theories concerning the beginning of life and its evolvement over “billions of years”. The long periods of time are always an answer evolutionists give when they are faced with no answers. I agree that their models are absolutely ludicrous, to say the least, and bold-faced lies to say the most about them. It is understandable that evolutionists resort to name-calling, especially to Christians, whom they automatically assume are scientifically ignorant. In their anti-God thrust, they knowingly make these false assumptions and conclusions to justify their war against God. Romans 1:22-23 says it all: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.

    I, like yourself, have a degree in human biology and a doctorate in Chiropractic. I have had many years of scientific study, especially in genetics, chemistry, both organic and biological, and in macro and microbiology. I have studied the creation/evolution debate for 40 years now. Just because I am a Christian and am calling evolutionists non-scientific ranters in their humanistic, anti-God religion, that I am called ignorant, living in the dark ages, abusing children because I tell them there is another way of thinking about origins, and an intollerant fundamentalist.

    I am surprised that you say that you are not a Bible-believing, young earth age creationist! Every year we have a creation evidence expo in Indianapolis (www.creationevidenceexpo.org) and your presentation would be most welcome at the expo. You do not give pie-in-the-sky fantastic explanations of what went on in the past, but give genuine scientific evidence that is demonstrated by current scientific laws and observations.

    I listened to scientists and educators, such as professors from Michigan State University and the National Education Association talk about what they have against Intelligent Design. They said that if you cannot explain the mechanism of how things work and just say that God is responsible for it happening, then when a mechanism is eventually found to explain the phenomenon naturally, it makes one look like a fool who said “God did it”. I agree with that statement. One must always keep an open mind. But when evolutionists claim that abiogenesis and evolution is a fact, not open to debate, is that not the same thing? Are they not just as religious in their zeal? What if we find, contrary to the humanistic science defintion, that there really is a supernatural plane that sometimes intervenes in the affairs of nature? What if miracles, though not the norm, sometimes happen. For instance, when a man’s spinal cord is totally severed, and in one day, totally reconnects and all functions are restored? Such facts as these, that cannot be explained naturally by any process, actually happen. Or what about people who get premonitions of future events that is so accurate that it is as if it happened yesterday? I could go on and on. I know there is no way for some of these events to be repeatable and watched in controlled experiments. But I do know of two that are repeatable: An experiment was performed where two petri dishes of e-coli were set in a controlled environment under exactly the same conditions. One was prayed for by a group of people in another room to grow. The other was not prayed for. The one that was prayed for grew twice as much as the other. This is an experiment that is repeatable and yet has no natural explanation. Another experiment is about thinking good about plants and they thrive better than a control group where they do not think good about them. Once again, naturally, the mechanism is not explainable. There must be something beyond the natural realm.

    A point that you do not bring up in your discussion is the properties of water that are necessary for life to exist. And the fact that the earth has to be just the right distance from the sun for this water to be liquid to sustain life. Water is one of the very few substance on earth that expands and gets less dense when it freezes. This allows ice to float so that the sun can melt it. If it were like 99.99% of all all other substances, when it freezes, it would settle to the bottom of the oceans, lakes, and rivers, and the sun’s heating would never thaw it out. You would eventually have nothing but ice throughout the world.

    You didn’t mention that the moon is in the exact distance needed from the earth to sustain life. Or that the atmosphere is 21.5% (avg) oxygen and 78% nitrogen and that a variance of only 2% less oxygen percentage would produce an atmosphere that cannot sustain life or that a concentration of 2% more would oxidize everything to the point that biochemical reactions could no longer favor life.

    All of these factors, along with the question of “What is life?” is answered most logically in the following statement penned originally by the Greek poet, Epimedes, and much later quoted by Paul when addressing the Athenians in Acts 17:28: “For in Him we live and move and have our being.” God is the actual driving force that is considered life. When He takes that driving force away, the cell(s) die. There is no difference chemically between a live cell and a dead cell, or a live dog and a dead dog. When an organism dies, all of its cells die. When God takes His driving force of life away, the creature dies. Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” He also said, “I am the Ressurrection and the Life. He that believes in Me, though he were dead, yet shall he live. And he that is alive and believes in Me shall never see death.”

    We who believe in Jesus know that our bodies will eventually die, but Jesus was talking about a different life, that life that is actually Him energizing our spirits. Jesus told Nicodemus in John, chapter 3, that unless a person is born again, that is, born spiritually, he will never see eternal life. He goes on to explain that whatever is born of flesh is flesh and that which is born of spirit is spirit. God will energize our dead spirits (spirits without God’s presence) to spirits having eternal life (God with us) when we put our trust in Jesus Christ as our Savior. When this happens, we become new creatures, the old things pass away and behold, all things become new. (2 Corinthians 5:17). We now focus our desires on pleasing God and wanting to always be in His presence. We also begin to see that the world’s system is intent on destroying man’s relationship to God, by filling his mind with lies such as evolution and that man can become his own god.

    When you consider how precise the earth is in relationship to other planets in its perfect distance from the sun, its size, its abundance of liquid water, its abundance of other substances necessary for life in close proximity, its perfect atmospheric makeup, the necessity of having other organisms present simultaneously for any one organism to survive (symbiosis), you will find that all of the evidence screams that there must be a Creator that has the intellegence and wisdom to make all these things come together at the same time to foster life.

    The Bible, though not considered by most to be a science book, is replete with scientific observations and historically accurate events. It says that the earth is a sphere. It talks about the water cycle. It talks about life being in the blood. It talks about dinosaurs living with men. It talks about cave men. The commandments God gave to Moses, if people would heed them, would produce health. But most of all, the Bible talks about life and death. It says that God created the world and breathed into man the breath of life. God told man that he could have eternal life. It says that this life is in His son, Jesus. The Bible says that he who has the Son has life. He who does not have the Son, has not that life, but the wrath of God abides on him. This is summed up in John 3:16-21:

    16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
    17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
    18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
    19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
    20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
    21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

    Steve, I encourage you to take one more step, because you are on the right track. Accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, and you will be born again to life eternal.

    Mark

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Wow, thanks for the note. I really like the facts you forwarded about water freezing and not sinking. I read that in one of Isaac Asimov’s books. Really unbelievable. If ice sank, there would be no life on earth. So, thanks for the reminder. I put that on page 22. So you can be proud.
      I may someday turn this blog into a book. I really enjoy writing, and I think I have attacked evolution on a very sound and logical scientific basis. So if I sell billions, you will certainly get part credit! haha

      To me there is no doubt whatsoever that there is a supreme intelligence. And I think everyone should interpret that fact as they see fit. You do with Christianity. That suits you, and I am sure gives you a great deal of happiness and strength. I do with my blogs and vids.The knowledge that I have gained with this blog has made me feel closer to finding that intelligence, while at the same time, and in a strange way, I feel much farther away. As if the intelligence that is responsible for nature and the universe has no need to bother revealing itself to us.
      So, that is as far as my brain can take me. To jump from an intelligence to a book, and the son of that intelligence is more than a quantum leap for me. So I am stuck here in the middle. A bit of a deist. Certainly not an atheist. But I can go no farther.
      But we are certainly allies. Your enemy is my enemy. I get the most thoughtful and interesting comments from my creationist commenters. So few good ones from the evolutionauts. Rather surprising. I do appreciate your note and concern.

    • Kent Perry, AZ. said,

      Mark that was a most enjoyable post to read and I agree, Steve is one of thee most powerful threats to evolution on the internet and believe me, I have an unusually unique perspective on what insiders high up in the scientific community often consider threats so dangerous, they have resorted to destroying peoples lives in their attempts to stop people like Steve. We have seen them get so desperate and like Al Capone, who they couldn’t get enough evidence to convict, they used the IRS to stop Dr. Dino, they have even conspired to inflict much harm to kids like “VenomfangX and Nephilmfree.

      Their is also a concerted effort being waged to stop Stevebee because, well,, we just can’t have his brand of well thought out, well reasoned arguments challenging the dogmas of evolution and lets face it,

      HE IS DAMN GOOD AT IT.
      They know it and we know it

      So Steve (and I say this as a warning of things he may not expect and that they would resort to) is already a common topic of discussion by people at the highest levels of scientific academia and viciously hated by people like eugenie scott and although he would never admit it, Dick Dawkins, would admit he would not debate Steve in a formal debate at a university. That isn’t saying much as most are well aware Dawkins is not that great at debate unless he is in one at his discussion forum where steve would be surrounded by angry idiots with an axe to grind.

      But as a tip for steve, who must endure constant insult and verbal aggression, their are things they do one might not expect from full grown intelligent adults and that he should watch his back is not a threat but sound advice. Just downloading the senate review on the sternberg case and reading the emails between the Smithsonian and the Scientists, will really blow your mind these are people running Science using our Tax dollars to spy on people like they did Sternberg. Evo websites attacking Richard Sternberg and anyone who defends him are everywhere yet one thing remains fact.

      The Smithsonian was found guilty of it by the United States Senate and that is undeniable.

      Recently, I joined Steve in one of his debates on youtube where Steve illustrates the compelling argument of the carbon atom’s obvious intelligent design.

      The opposing argument of the evolutionist in this debate, accused Steve of being “intellectually dishonest” a term Darwits use often to suggest a more heinous kind of dishonesty and that he was making religious statements when the video Steve made was completely devoid of any religious suggestion what so ever. But the Darwit in this argument put up a very powerful point that had me spinning for days.

      He said, “if the atom was designed then the designer cannot be made of atoms so that would make the designer supernatural thus a religion.”

      Now naturally I am thinking, EXACTLY ya moron and “Thus” the reason science was born of religion and why science keeps bumping into this paradox as Steve so wisely points out how evo’s run from the “abiogenesis” discussion saying “evolution doesn’t talk to that” as if to say in some metaphorical context “talk to the hand”.

      Evo’s will argue any science at all because it gives them an opportunity they delight in and that is insulting Creationist Christians.

      But the moment you bring up issues like abiogenesis or the obvious intent and design of the most basic structures of all matter, we end up at this crossroad where Science ends and Religious Philosophy takes over. Science then, as it did for many great scientists in the past such as Newton himself, understood it inevitably points to God and their is no escaping that fact. They can run they can hide from the topic they can excuse themselves from the obvious religious implications that the Atom HAD to have been designed by a supernatural intelligence.

      This guy did it by mocking up some indignant condescending position of the angry evo who again, busted the creationist attempting to sneak religion in the backdoor of science when the truth is right there in front of the idiot.

      That science was never intended to disprove God, and when used properly, science proves the religious implication that life itself, IS God and that their can be, no other explanation.

      If evo’s got a problem with that,, then I submit it is they, who are being “Intellectually dishonest” and continue lying to themselves and basically guilty of the logical fallacy called MSU

      “making shit up”

  6. Darryl Householder said,

    I am in a discussion group “Creationism” on Facebook and a recent post by an Ev-Illutionist states that an article entitled “Molecule of life emerges from laboratory slime” in the 13 May 2009 issue #2708 of the New Scientist by Kate Ravilious.
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227084.200-molecule-of-life-emerges-from-laboratory-slime.html

    Have you seen this article and do you have any comments on it specifically?

    I am a Christian and a computer scientist. I have gotten involved in the Creation/Evolution debate because I find it so unbelievable to accept Darwinism in light of all of the recent scientific evidence to the contrary. I do admit that I have a creation presupposition, but I am also open-minded. I have a very logical mind (having worked with computers since 1966) and I have to admit, after all of my research, to me Darwinism defies all logic.

    I have just stumbled across your web site and have found it very enlightening and encouraging to see a REAL scientist who truly seeks the facts and has been freed from the lies being foisted upon our youth in schools and universities.

    I will look at your site in more detail now to educate myself more fully!

    • stevebee92653 said,

      The article says: To tackle this problem (of life forming in a primordial soup), John Sutherland from the University of…
      Supposedly he made portions of RNA in the lab. He must not realize that living cells have over 500 protein enzymes and tens of thousands of proteins necessary for living cells to live. And cells form 2,000 proteins per second. And that DNA, if expanded to three inches wide would be over ten miles long. And RNA has to know were to search out the codes on DNA, and…..
      All of this abiogenesis lab stuff is a waste of time and grant money, which is what these tests are all about. Money and pats on the back.
      They should take all of the ingredients of non living tissue, or a non-living cell and bring it to life. Most engineers realize when doing a project, the most difficult problem has to be the first solved, or the minor solutions surrounding the big one are just a waste of time. And that is what these are. I love how the article talks like they are closer to forming life in the lab.
      And, are you really: “a Christian and a computer scientist?”
      I am always a skeptic with this science and people I talk to.

      • Darryl Householder said,

        Thanks for your reply!

        Yes … I am a Christian and have been involved with computers since 1966.

        If you have a logical mind (as most people who are involved developing computer systems) and you see the general revelation of creation, design and information presented in modern scientific discoveries … it takes a fool to ignore what is plain to see … and through God’s specific revelation in His word …

        And that is, in fact, what the Bible tells us in Psalm 14:1 and 53:1.

        Psalm 14:1 (New King James Version)
        The fool has said in his heart,
        “There is no God.”
        They are corrupt,
        They have done abominable works,
        There is none who does good.

        Psalm 53:1 (New King James Version)
        The fool has said in his heart,
        “There is no God.”
        They are corrupt, and have done abominable iniquity;
        There is none who does good.
        ————————–
        For some, no matter what is heard will be rejected.

        Proverbs 26:11 – “As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool returns to his folly.”

        2 Peter 1:20-21 – knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

        Job 32:8 – But there is a spirit in man, and the breath of the Almighty gives him understanding.

        The Holy Spirit inspired the Scriptures and it is the Holy Spirit that reveals the Word of God and “flesh and blood” (intelligence) does not and unbelievers will continue to see those who are “saved” as “foolish,” simply confirming the Word of God.

        1 Corinthians 1:18-31 – For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:

        “ I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”

        Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

        Glory Only in the Lord

        ————————–

        2 Timothy 4:3-4 …the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
        ————————–

        Romans 1:25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator

        ————————–
        I have been a Christian since i was 12 years old, have studied the Bible extensively and have never found anything in it which contradicts the scientific evidence, in fact science is the believers greatest ally. Where the contradictions lie, are in the presuppositions of the non-believers and where science deviates from the observable facts and through unfounded speculation, begins to delve into the world of philosophy.

        It has essentially turned into a battle of world views … those who deny what is plain and become their own god(s) through self-actualization and those who have a Biblical world view.

        The ev-illusionists have turned science into a world religion, even though they deny it. And they have turned true science into a debacle, because whenever there is a mention of God or a creator, it is a direct attack on their self-actualization.

        I hope my comments clarify my position and feelings … and again, thanks for your expert commentary on my question.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Thanks for the reply! I get a lot of evolutionauts who do the pretend thing and try to trap me. A silly ploy, but fairly common. Obviously my skepticism was not warranted. But I think you can understand the problem I have.
        I am not a religious person. I tend to be on the deist side of things. Certainly not an atheist. I was raised like you, but my thoughts changed. We really can’t control our beliefs, as I am sure you can understand. We believe what we believe. But we certainly are allies against this horribly failed “science”. Thanks for the communication, and if I can be of any help, please let me know.

  7. jan said,

    Steve,
    I think you can control your beliefs to an extent……..
    But it does take effort to discern and identify between “evidence” and conjecture……There is the challenge my friend………

    • stevebee92653 said,

      If I offered you a million dollars if you would believe 2+2=5, could you? I really don’t think beliefs can be honestly controlled. People can fool themselves or their peers in a group psychology situation, where they want to go with the flow, or not look foolish. But I think your beliefs are what your consciousness does to you, rather than the other way around.

  8. Latimeria said,

    (Remember me? I’m just checking in to see how you’ve been!)

    You need to update your website to reflect reality…

    • stevebee92653 said,

      Hey, it’s the evo teacher! How’s it going? Still at RD.net with all my friends there? Uh, reflect reality? Exactly where do I not reflect reality? Oh, I know. The huge ones: my pseudonym and patents. Right? I’m sure you have some other notions as well.

      • Latimeria said,

        Well now that you mention it, you do use a false name and false university affiliation to lend credibility to your video at the top of this page, which is dishonest.

        However, I was speaking of other inaccuracies… LOTS of them. I posted on this page, so let’s start with some here, shall we?

        1) You say [[No matter how perfectly we performed that task, we could not make a cell live. We could not inject life. Synthesizing a living version of the tiniest unit of life is light years beyond out capabilities.]]

        Craig Venter and colleagues have created synthetic life. This does not claim to be abiogenesis, but you still claim that it is impossible. It’s been demonstrated. He and his colleagues even wrote their names and several quotations in its DNA.

        2) You wrote: [[Further, RNA molecules, which resemble a very long one sided zipper, can self catalyze their own replication. However when they replicate, they are then locked together like a closed zipper. Enzymes and life are required to unzip the new copies, and since those enzymes didn’t exist in the prebiotic environment, the RNA copies would have been locked to their progenitor, and further copying would have been impossible.]]

        It just takes a little heat to break the hydrogen bonds between the two strands. Enzymes can help but are not required.

        3) A) In discussing the origin of life you call upon the breakdown of organic materials as something which would halt the process. This breakdown is performed almost exclusively by organisms which are already living, and by the process of autolysis which would be unlikely to be a major factor in any scenario. What remains would be physical and chemical processes unrelated to life that would cause the breakdown. The various scenarios hypothesized for abiogenesis take these things into account, and you treat those scenarios with nothing but a mocking know-it-all tone and the blind assertion that they are wrong.

        3) B) However, at the same time (in your road-kill example) you think that a dead organism should provide all the conditions necessary for a new form of life to assemble. What happened to your necrosis and breakdown of organic matter now, when it is actually applicable due to the pervasive presence of decomposers in the biosphere? Furthermore nobody who knows a lick about theories of abiogenesis would suggest that road-kill would provide the conditions necessary for brand-new life to arise.

        4) Scientists such as Robert Hazen have shown that certain crystals have chiral surfaces that can concentrate a particular enantiomer out of a racemic mixture. No magic necessary.

        I’ll leave it at that for now, since you have a history of not responding to actual arguments. I want to make sure I’m not wasting my time.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Back to the name rag. Wow. Hard to believe. I thought you didn’t want to waste your time? I guess you do.
        (1) Sorry, Craig stuffed synthetic DNA into an already living cell. You should be smart enough to know the difference. C’mon.
        (2) Oh, a little heat and they break apart perfectly. Oh. Right. And a little too much destroys RNA/DNA. But the early earth provided just the right temperature in just the right place where RNA had self replicated, and created a perfect unzip. Got it.
        (3) DNA breaks down in sun and water in short order. Know-it-all? The bio-chemicals that are needed for life would be destroyed before they got to the first step. That is real. Your scenario is fiction that you believe.
        (4) You are in the magic zone. Improbability after improbability after….You wanna believe these steps happened all by themselves, good for you. Me, I think there was something far more intelligent and powerful than “nothing”. Far beyond our ability to comprehend. And why you evolutionauts are so adamant that “nothing” caused all of nature is beyond me. You don’t have to be religious to do so. Just realize that we are not near intelligent enough to figure out the Puzzle.

  9. Latimeria said,

    My points were that
    1) Your article says otherwise
    2) Your article says otherwise, although you just agreed with me
    3) We are discussing things below the photic zone in your scenario, so you don’t get to use sunlight as an explanation. the rest is a non-argument
    4) You do not address anything of substance in #4 so I cannot reply

    • stevebee92653 said,

      I have no idea what this comment is referring to.

      • Latimeria said,

        They are numbered because they refer specifically to the numbered points that we had been discussing. Let me know if there is a way to make it more obvious.

  10. Latimeria said,

    To clarify, I do not think there is sufficient evidence to say that abiogenesis by naturalistic means is DEFINITELY what happened. I was only pointing out your errors. However, once I get around to some of your evolution pages, things will be very different.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      I think abiogenesis did occur, and by naturalistic means. But we are not close to understanding nature. We know just a tiny bit of an immense entity. Evolution pretends like it knows all and it fools its followers. You didn’t point out any errors. The “billion year” thing that you evos tout is such a joke. No biochemical in a non-living natural environment is stable even for a few years. Don’t you know that? Of course you do, but you overlook that fact to support your belief. Abiogenesis could not occur the way evo-scientists and potholer touts.

  11. Latimeria said,

    [[You didn’t point out any errors. ]]]

    Yes, I did. Let’s look at one of them…. again. You claim the only way to separate two strands of RNA is with an enzyme. I then reminded you that there is another way: heat.

    If there is another way, and you claim there is not, you have made an error. I have pointed it out. Ergo, you’re wrong and that section of your article is misleading to people who know better.

    • stevebee92653 said,

      At just the right temp replicated RNA unzips? Right. I don’t think RNA invented itself, then copied itself in a location on earth the was just the right temperature so it could perfectly unzip. And if it did, who cares? It would just be biochemical junk with no use and no code. Do you think RNA can invent itself? A highly specialized biochemical with absolutely no use at the time it invented itself? Then it copied itself, then slithered into a lipid micelle, then got to a location with just the right temperature so it could unzip? Then……what then? How can you possibly believe this scenario. HOW? The error is yours for being so gullible.

      • Latimeria said,

        I was going with YOUR scenario, the “life from the depths” abiogenesis scenario in which hydrothermal vents traditionally play an important part… and why do you insist on anthropomorphizing a chemical? This is no way to begin a logical discussion.

      • stevebee92653 said,

        Re: “traditionally play an important part?” Is this TIC? Can you have “tradition” in a fantasy?
        Re: “anthropomorphizing”: exactly where do I do this?

  12. Latimeria said,

    Correction: people who don’t know any better

    • Kent Perry, AZ. said,

      Latimeria, you should have quit when you were ahead and no one knew a person named “Latimeria” could be so presumptuous and stupid. You must think Steve is a rookie at this, that he just got off the turnip truck this morning and small minded arrogant condescending little varmits like you, could destroy him with a bunch of bullshit YOU assume he hasn’t already seen, read and argued successfully.

      If your evidence was any good and it was valid for supporting evolution, do you think Steve wouldn’t have changed his position?

      Not everyone skeptical of evolution has some secret alterior creationist motive moreover not every creationist believes creation the way you think they do. Some have read the Bible and believe it by faith, and some have come to it, thanks to you evolutionists who seem unable to come up with any model more compelling than the Genesis account and that is pretty sad when you think about how great you all see yourselves.

      The Philosopher Kings of Infallible Science!

      You need more practice son

  13. Kent Perry, AZ. said,

    Jeez I got to quit typing as I talk, “alterior” ulterior lol

  14. Dwilkes7 said,

    Your right Steve. I’m sure you already are familiar with polymerase chain reaction, or better known as PCR. If this is what Latimeria is referring to, his arguement is total JUNK! PCR is a very HIGHLY controlled reaction requiring an ENZYME, very precise temperature control and timing, with an abundance of DNA oligonucleotides .

    This process CAN”T work in any “uncontrolled” environment. It is NOT life of any form! Even if it was, it would only prove that it took “intelligence” to do it!

    • stevebee92653 said,

      There is no biochemical system or cycle that can be explained by evolution and without intelligence. You would think that would stop them. But, no. This is fantasy, and it needs support!

  15. Dwilkes7 said,

    If you want something for the evos to wrap their “brains” around, I have been studying the blood brain barrier recently and it proposes some very real problems for evolution. Once we became the complex system of parts, especially the brain (imagine the brain that studies itself!!!), our bodies and all of the organ systems that sustain us are really just a “LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM” for our brains. Since that is true, the LACK of a BBB would make EVERY BIT of the rest of the support system totally USELESS! One bacteria and the brain is mush. When I was a child, my younger brother developed Meningitis. At that time, it was almost always fatal. I remember seeing my parents crying as they signed a release form to allow the doctors to perform a HIGHLY dangerous and almost always fatal surgical procedure. They drilled some “burr” holes in his head in order for the doctors to release pressure on his brain as they pumped him full of several antibiotics. He was in an “Isolation” room for one and a half months and slowly recovered. They called it a MIRACLE, he was the first child to survive without suffering any brain damage at all.

    So again I say, how could the BBB evolve since without it the brain most assuredly will become infected before they could procreate or live very long at all?!

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: