Evolution is NOT science! Here's why..

[fakeman123]

Evolution is a very nice idea, which is nevertheless completely un-provable and unsupported by science. Therefore, it is simply another religion or form of belief, just like any religious creation story. It is no different from the native creation belief that man was made out of clay and put in the oven until he came out the right colour. Those who believe in it do so because they have faith in it, not because it has been proven by science.

 

The main problem we have with evolution today is that the information presented to us in our textbooks seems very credible and very realistic, because we haven’t been told the whole truth. We haven’t been told all the details surrounding those scientific discoveries which support evolution. What I am going to try to do is prove that evolution is scientifically unfeasible using facts which have not been taught to us in our textbooks. I will be using biology, chemistry, physics and math to do this.

 

Before I begin, I would like to simply set some facts straight:

 

Evolution is the belief that about 4.6 billion years ago, the planet earth came into existence by itself through chemical processes. Then after several thousand years, the chemicals evolved and became what we now know as the primordial soup. Then over even more long periods of times the chemicals in the primordial soup bonded to make molecules, and then after more long periods of time the molecules bonded to make the first living cell.

 

We are going to be dealing with: Atoms  make molecules

Molecules  make amino acids

Amino acids  make proteins

 

Evolution originally started with the idea of spontaneous generation, the belief that life could magically spring out where there was no life. Then the idea of evolution was developed. However, Louis Pasteur proved that spontaneous generation was inexistent. This is interesting, because it means that evolution was born from an erroneous idea. In other words, it started out with the left foot.

 

Once the idea of spontaneous generation was no longer acceptable, the Evolutionary Theory had to change; it now became chemical evolution. They have nevertheless remained basically the same: both ideas are the belief that life can be created from non-life. The main difference lies in the fact that with chemical evolution, we are working at the chemical level, meaning, with very, very small things. So what I must do, is prove that, contrary to what evolution says, it is impossible for chemicals to bond together to create a living cell.

 

Let’s start with the Miller experiment, one of the ways in which our textbooks attempt to prove that evolution is plausible. In the 1950’s, Miller wanted to prove that it was possible for amino acids, the building blocks of life, to have generated spontaneously in what is denominated the “primordial soup,” so he built a chamber and tried to recreate the atmosphere of the earth millions of years ago. He used gasses like methane and ammonia, and did not use oxygen. Then electrical sparks were used to drive reactions, and indeed, the experiment did result in amino acids. In our textbooks, the evidence has been presented in such a way that it makes us believe that Miller did prove that life can be created from nothing. Now let’s examine the experiment critically:

 

To begin with, how did Miller know what gasses composed the earth’s atmosphere millions of years ago? Miller supposed that the atmosphere did not contain any oxygen, as does the rest of the evolutionary community today. Why is that? It is because they have no alternative, as it has been scientifically proven that in the presence of oxygen, amino acids cannot bond together. So evolutionists aren’t deciding that there was no oxygen presence in the earth’s atmosphere because of scientific proof, they are making this decision because otherwise the theory of evolution would not be possible.

 

Before we criticize evolutionists for teaching this, however, we must find out if there is any scientific proof that indicates that the oxygen was not present in the earth’s atmosphere in the beginning. For this we turn to an article of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Foundation called “New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life.” This is a direct quote:

 

“Geologists know from their analysis of the oldest known rocks that the oxygen level of the early atmosphere had to be much higher than previously calculated.”

 

Later on the article states,

 

“Analysis of these rocks, estimated to be more than 3.5 billion years old, found oxidized amounts that called for atmospheric oxygen to be at least 110 times greater and perhaps up to one billion times greater than otherwise accepted.”

 

If this is not convincing enough, the geological periodical Geology published an article entitled “Oxygen in the Atmosphere: An evaluation of the Geological Evidence,” says,

 

“There is no scientific proof that Earth ever had a non-oxygen atmosphere…Earth’s oldest rocks contain evidence of being formed in an oxygen atmosphere.”

 

So scientific evidence points to the fact that there has always been oxygen on earth. However, oxygen does not allow amino acids to bond together, as it corrodes the bonds, and thus the first cell could have never been in an oxygenated atmosphere. This is why evolutionists insist that the earth’s atmosphere was oxygen-free millions of years ago. This is the first flaw in Miller’s experiment.

 

However, even if we were to ignore the scientific evidence, and believe that the world did indeed start without any oxygen, both the Miller experiment and evolution itself run into another problem that our textbooks have failed to consider; without oxygen, there is no ozone. And if there is no ozone, it really does not matter whether life started at all or not, because any life would have been instantly fried to a crisp by the sun’s rays, as there would be no protection from them.

 

So if there was oxygen in that first atmosphere, life can’t start, and if there was no oxygen, life can’t start either. Evolution is in trouble here. Of course, some say life didn’t start on land; they believe life started in the water, and we crawled out of the ocean. Let’s see if, according to chemistry, this is possible; water, H2O, contains an oxygen atom in it. And if you remember what we just learned, amino acid bonds cannot form in the presence of oxygen. As soon as the bond starts to form, the oxygen molecule inserts itself between the two amino acids, and pulls them apart. This is a process termed by our chemistry textbooks as hydrolysis. So if any amino acids had formed, they would have been destroyed within weeks. This means that life could not have started on land with oxygen, not on land without oxygen, and not in the water. So far, both the Miller experiment and the theory of Evolution are scientifically not sound.

 

So far, we have proven that there are several problems with the atmosphere Miller used while creating amino acids. Now let’s explore a second problem; intelligent design. You see, if we put the evolution model of creation in a formula, matter + energy + time = life. There is no intelligent design at all involved in the process. Logically therefore, if Miller was recreating how amino acids came to be, he would not have used intelligent design in his model. However, did he? Well, let’s see, he decided exactly which gasses would go in the experiment, and exactly what quantities…a decision which has no scientific backing, as we have seen. Then he generated the electrical sparks that drove the reactions. He didn’t leave this to chance. Already here we are seeing a degree of intelligent design. However, even if these details were to be dismissed, there is a third detail which we are interestingly not told when we learn about the Miller experiment: He equipped his experimental chamber with a trap door, through which he extracted his amino acids once they had been created. Why is that? Because Miller knew that amino acids cannot survive in the environment of the primordial soup. So if despite all the evidence which has been given contradicting the experiment and the primordial soup, we were to accept the experiment, it would still prove nothing, as amino acids cannot survive in the atmosphere of the primordial soup. At the same time, Miller broke the rules, as he used intelligent design by interfering with the “creation process.” Thus Miller’s experiment has been ruled inadmissible, and along the way we have also proven that it would in fact have been impossible for life to begin in any of the ways which we have been told it did, namely in an atmosphere with oxygen, in an atmosphere without oxygen, and in the water. We have also proven that our textbooks have lied by omission to us. And if they have lied in this, what can we believe them in? I am not implying that everything they say is a lie, but I am implying that everything they say at least in the realm of evolution, should be very carefully tested against the scientific facts and against the whole truth. In fact, if our textbooks were being used as witnesses in a court, anything they said would no longer be admitted even if it was true, because they have been found to be lying by omission at least once.

 

It all gets even better, though. What would you say if you knew that Miller’s own evidence, the amino acids he created, are actually the biggest detriment to the success of his experiment? Yet that is exactly what happened.

 

There are over 20 000 amino acids out there, but only 20 are used in life. And there are two types of amino acids. Each type has a similar, yet different shape. They are actually mirror images of each others. It’s sort of like a left hand and right hand. We will call the two types of amino acids left- and right-handed amino acids. They have the same components, just like both your hands have four fingers and thumb, but they are mirror images of each other. What is interesting is that every single amino acid in every single protein in all of life is “left-handed.” There can be no “right-handed” amino acids in life. Once you die, the amino acids in your body will begin reverting into a mixture of roughly 50% left-handed and 50% right-handed amino acids. In fact, all experiments conducted by scientists using amino acids always end up in a mixture of left and right handed amino acids even if they started off with all left handed amino acids, they will always go back to a mixture. When we look at the Miller experiment, we find that Miller did indeed achieve amino acids, but these amino acids were actually a mixture of roughly 50% left handed and 50% right handed amino acids. This tells us two things; #1, Miller did not, contrary to what our textbooks tell us, create life. He actually created death. So if the experiment had actually not had all the problems we have previously outlined, and could be scientifically accepted, it would have proven that in this mythical primordial soup (mythical because there is no proof for it) using electrical stimulation and a degree of intelligent design, death can be created. This gets evolutionists exactly nowhere. Instead, it helps to prove that evolution is not supported by science, and must be accepted by faith alone. #2, If the tendency is always for amino acids to move away from life, not towards life, then how can we justify a mysterious switch of amino acids from 50-50 % to 100% left handed amino acids, which goes against the way in which amino acids behave?

 

Now this leaves us with a very interesting question: Why is it that our evolutionist textbooks insist on deceiving us? It is because they have not been able to find any substantial proof for evolution, and therefore need to turn this experiments which actually disproves their theory into something that appears to support it, lie by omission, and deceive us. If they had real evidence, they would have no need for doing this.

 

Contrary to what we are taught today, the Miller experiment is not heralded accepted as a triumph by the scientific community. As a side note, it is important to realize that the evolutionary community and the scientific community are not synonymous. This is what one notable scientist has to say about the Miller experiment:

 

 

 

“Since Miller’s beguiling picture of a pond full of dissolved amino acids under a reducing atmosphere has been discredited, a new beguiling picture has life originating in a hot, deep, dark little hole on the ocean floor”

 

--Princeton University Professor Freeman Dyson in his Origins of Life,

 

Notice how the only real effect of Miller’s experiment was to prove that life can’t start in a reducing (that means lacking oxygen) atmosphere. However, remember that life can’t start in the water either due to hydrolysis.

 

Organic Chemist William Bonner from Stanford University, one of the world’s leading experts in “left-handed” amino acids, says of the beginning of life that “Terrestrial explanations are impotent and non-viable.” This means that he believes that there is no way that life could have originated on this earth. Incidentally, Bonner is not a creationist. Neither was Karl Popper when he stated that evolution was not scientific, but rather it belonged to the field of metaphysics. These are just two of many honest scientists who know that science teaches that evolution is impossible.

 

So now that Miller’s experiment, his scientific integrity, as well as the integrity of the information given to us through our textbooks, and several other concepts have been duly addressed, we can move on to explore a different flaw in the evolutionary theory.

 

Let’s take one single cell. This tiny, invisible cell is much more complex than any computer ever built in human history. If I begin to claim that my laptop finds itself today recording these words due to random processes over long periods of time….chances are, I would find myself in a mental institution rather quickly. So if it’s not logical to believe that a computer could form itself by random chance, then why would it be logical to believe that a cell, many times more complex than a computer, could form itself randomly?

 

Now lets look at mathematics: probability. There are two types of amino acids, so we will use a coin to represent them. Heads is left-handed amino acids, tails is right-handed amino acids. Remember that for there to be life, there can only be left-handed amino acids. The presence of even one right-handed amino acid will prevent life.

 

According to evolution, left-handed amino acids bonded in order to create life by pure accident, or random chance. So we are going to illustrate the chances of getting enough left-handed amino acids in a row to form a protein. If we do a coin toss, this would be easily achieved. So let’s see what happens:

 

According to probability, to get one heads (left-handed amino acid) we must flip the coin twice, and one of those will be heads. To get two heads in a row, we must flip the coin 4 times. To get three heads, we must flip 8 times. In other words, if you flip a coin 8 times, somewhere in there you will have three heads in a row, and if the process is repeated enough times, three heads in a row will become your average. The observable pattern here is 2 to the first power, 2 to the second power, etc. Now an average-sized protein has over 200 left-handed amino acids. This means that we would need to randomly get over 200 heads in a row. Just to get 8 heads in a row, we would need to flip a coin 256 times. To get 100 left-handed amino acids in a row, or 100 heads in a row, that’s 2 the 100th power. You would need to flip the coin 31 million times a second for more than 1 quadrillion years, in order to get this result. This means that there would need to be more than 31 million chemical reactions a second for more than a quadrillion years just to get 100 left-handed amino acids to bond together. We’ve only got half a protein here, nowhere near even one living cell. But the universe is only 20 billion years old at the most. So in the history of the universe, there isn’t enough time for even one protein to form. This poses a significant problem for evolution

 

But even if for some strange reason the laws of mathematics were defied, and one protein was somehow created, this would not accomplish anything; proteins don’t have instructions to replicate themselves, or create DNA, much less to create a living cell. Besides this, if there is oxygen in the atmosphere, the amino acids cannot bond, if there is no oxygen there is no ozone and the protein will fry, and if the protein is in water, it will be pulled apart due to hydrolysis.

 

Furthermore, the law of probability states that if the chances of something happening are beyond 10 to the 50th power, it will never happen. However, mathematicians have calculated that the probability of a single protein forming is 10 to the power of 191. And the probability of a single cell? 10 to the 40 000th power. This means neither of these would ever happen. According to mathematics, evolution is impossible.

 

Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, states in his book “Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature,”

 

“If a particular amino acid sequence were selected by chance, how rare an event would this be?…The majority of sequences can never have been synthesized at all, at any time.”

 

By the way, Francis Crick is an evolutionist. How he can manage to reconcile his knowledge with his beliefs, I’ll never know.

 

Robert Gange, a research scientist with a PhD, says that “The likelihood of life having occurred through a chemical accident is, for all intents and purposes, zero.”

 

Now let’s look at this interesting piece of information:

 

An amino acid has about 20 atoms. To get the right amino acid, you need to have all the right atoms. Then they have to be in the right order, and then, it has to accidentally happen to be a left-handed amino acid. H.J.C. Berendsen says in an article from the Scientific Journal Science,

 

“Scientists have been attempting to be able to determine a protein’s native conformation (or folding) by examining the amino acid sequence. Despite years of study, the ability to do this using even the fastest computers is beyond our reach.”

 

Later on he states,

 

“Using a super fast computer (10 to the 15 computations per second) it would take 10 to the power of 80 seconds, which exceeds the age of the universe by a factor of 60 orders of magnitude!”

 

I’d just like to point out that the computer we are talking about here would be doing a quadrillion computations a second. Our average computer does about a billion computations a second. And this super fast computer would take a trillion years to be able to make one protein.

 

In another experiment, researchers from Los Alamos National Laboratory, in New Mexico, and from the University of California, in San Diego, created a simulation in which they gave a computer all the right atoms in the correct order. The only thing required of this computer was to simulate to fold the protein the correct way. It was a simple protein of 18000 atoms. It took the computer 6 months on 82 parallel processors just to accomplish this task. This is equal to 34 years of CPU time. The cell completes this same job 100 trillion times faster, in about 10 microseconds. And you think this cell formed accidentally?

 

Moving on, let’s quickly look at the primordial soup in terms of Chemistry, Biology and Physics:

 

Chemistry- Hydrolysis. Water decomposes molecules. Therefore, it’s necessary for life, but it’s detrimental to the creation of life.

 

Biology- All amino acids are left handed. Similarly, there are two types of sugars, left handed and right handed sugars. But in DNA only right-handed sugars are utilized. Evolution just ran into another probability problem here.

 

Physics- Physics is the study of motion and movement. In physics there is what is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and it has been proven that anything that contradicts this law cannot happen. This is the Second Law of Thermodynamics:

 

Energy goes from a state of usable energy to a state of less usable energy for doing work in an isolated system.

 

In Plain English, this just means that everything is using up energy in order to work, which results in everything going from a state of complexity to a state of less complexity. Evolution contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics, because according to evolution everything is gaining complexity, and evolving. There are two arguments which evolutionists make against this claim, both of which I will address. The first one is that the law applies to an isolated system only, while we live in an open system. Open system means that energy can be added to or taken away from the system, while Isolated system means that no matter or energy can get in or out. The only thing scientifically known to be an isolated system is the universe, as scientifically no energy or matter can get in or out. Everything else is an open system, such as the earth, or our bodies.

 

What most people don’t know is that although the Second Law of Thermodynamics mentions only isolated systems, it is known throughout the scientific community that this very rule applies to open systems as well. One clear example of this is yourself; as you get older, you will realize that you have less and less energy, and the complexity of your body will decrease, until you die, and decompose, and turn into even less complex dust. The same applies to everything else. Harvard University scientist Dr. John Ross, an evolutionist, says,

 

“There are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems.”

 

The other argument that evolutionists use is that of an animal embryo or a seed; they say that an animal embryo is an example of an open system which, in defiance of the second law of thermodynamics, grows and therefore becomes more complex. The same applies to a seed; it grows and becomes more complex. Although this argument sounds convincing, upon critical examination it is not difficult to determine that it is inadmissible, because neither an embryo nor a seed is becoming more complex, as the information was in the embryo or seed since the beginning. It is only developing, and the information is being expressed in a different manner. But it has not gained complexity. On the contrary, the seed or embryo will eventually die, decompose, and then it will have lost complexity. On the other hand, were I to ask an evolutionist how exactly did the DNA get there in the first place, he would find himself unable to answer scientifically.

 

Let’s look at what we have learned so far:

 

1. If there was oxygen in the earth’s atmosphere millions of years ago, life couldn’t have started

2. If there wasn’t oxygen, life couldn’t have started either

3. Due to hydrolysis, life couldn’t have started in the water either.

4. Mathematics and probability say that it was impossible for life to have started in the way evolution teaches it did

5. The second law of thermodynamics states that organisms don’t become more complex. They in fact lose complexity, and anything that contradicts this law cannot be. This destroys evolution.

6. Our textbooks have deceived us, and evolutionists aren’t telling the whole truth, because otherwise they have no scientific backing for their theory

 

Now that a degree of scientific evidence has been established, let’s use some common, everyday logic to think out the matter of evolution. Let’s begin by looking at that formula of the evolutionary model:

 

matter + energy + time = complex codes (or life, in the case of evolution)

 

All of science is based upon observations. The only way in which we can prove that something is true or could be true, is through observations. However, the occurrence of matter plus time and energy ending up in complex codes has never been observed before. If I take my computer apart, no matter how much sun(energy) shines on it and no matter how many billions of years(time) pass by, it will never assemble itself and become a complex code. If we have never observed this equation at work, how can we call evolution science? It is alright for it to be metaphysics, a religion, a belief system, maybe even history. But science?

 

Let’s look at a quote by Dr. Werner Gitt, who was the director of the Germany Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, and one of the top Information Scientists in the World:

 

“Since the findings of James D. Watson and Francis H.C. Crick, it was increasingly realized by contemporary researchers that the information residing in the cells is of crucial importance for the existence of life. Anybody who wants to make meaningful statements about the origin of life would be forced to explain how the information originated. All evolutionary views are fundamentally unable to answer this crucial question.”

 

Imagine we take a 747 Boeing airplane, disassemble it into its original 1.4 million pieces, scatter them on the ground, and fly it. Impossible. Now let’s disassemble it, let the sun shine on it for billions of years, and fly it. It’s still impossible, because matter + energy + time cannot equal complex codes. According to scientist Chandra Wickramsinghe in the article “Threats on Life of Controversial Astronomer,”

 

“The chances that life just occurred are about as unlikely as a typhoon blowing through a junkyard and constructing a Boeing 747.”

 

Here is what a few more scientists have to say about evolution

 

Evolutionist Dr. Klaus Dose, director of the Institute for Biochemistry at Johannes Guttenberg university in West Germany, says in “The Origin of Life: More questions than answers” in the Interdisciplinary Science Reviews,

 

“More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.”

 

Paul Davies, leading evolutionist, claims in The 5th Miracle: The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life that

 

“Many investigators feel uneasy about stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they freely admit they are baffled. They worry that a frank admission of ignorance will undermine funding”

 

This is significant. One of the leading evolutionists is admitting that evolutionists themselves know that they actually have no proof for anything, but they won’t admit it because of money? Very troubling. It’s not about education, science, the Truth. It’s about money.

 

I leave you with this thought:

 

“If I tell you only part of the evidence, and you believe it, you have not been taught, you have been indoctrinated. If I tell you all the evidence and you make a decision, then you have been taught.”

--Michael Riddle

 

This means that because of the deception by omission that high school students are being subjected to, such as in Miller’s experiment, we are being indoctrinated, as we are not being given all the evidence. My point in making this argument is not that evolution is erroneous and shouldn’t be believed, although I can’t say that it’s very difficult to arrive to that conclusion, but that evolution is not supported by science. If you want to believe it, go ahead. I won’t be the one to stop you. Simply realize that you are accepting it by faith, and not because it is scientifically sound.

 

.

[iNow]

Please tell me you're being sarcastic. Evolution IS supported by science. How many references do you want? 10? 100? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000?

 

 

Tell me Watson, what falsifyable predictions does creationism offer?

[fakeman123]

Please tell me you're being sarcastic. Evolution IS supported by science. How many references do you want? 10? 100? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000?

 

 

Tell me Watson, what falsifyable predictions does creationism offer?

 

im not for creatonism..did you even read my post?

[BhavinB]

there are many errors in your post. I suggest you look each of your points up very carefully.

 

Example: http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/5513.html

 

There is definitely evidence of an early reducing atmosphere.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Before I begin, I would like to simply set some facts straight:

 

Evolution is the belief that about 4.6 billion years ago, the planet earth came into existence by itself through chemical processes. Then after several thousand years, the chemicals evolved and became what we now know as the primordial soup. Then over even more long periods of times the chemicals in the primordial soup bonded to make molecules, and then after more long periods of time the molecules bonded to make the first living cell.

And therein lies the flaw in your argument. Evolution is not the belief that Earth came about through various processes and then life formed. The Earth's formation is covered under various fields in cosmology, and life's formation is abiogenesis, not evolution.

 

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB0

[CDarwin]

im not for creatonism..did you even read my post?

 

Who on earth do you expect to read that monstrosity? It got up to the Miller experiment and got bored.

 

In short: You're not being original and you're not smarter than the millions of scientists out there that do the sort of work that you're distorting. That's maybe the thing I find most incredible about Evolution deniers (I won't say Creationists for your benefit). Do you really think you're so smart because you read that paperback that was so brilliant and gave those Darwinians the one-two?

[BhavinB]

Who on earth do you expect to read that monstrosity? It got up to the Miller experiment and got bored.

 

In short: You're not being original and you're not smarter than the millions of scientists out there that do the sort of work that you're distorting. That's maybe the thing I find most incredible about Evolution deniers (I won't say Creationists for your benefit). Do you really think you're so smart because you read that paperback that was so brilliant and gave those Darwinians the one-two?

 

POINT!

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

So now that Miller’s experiment, his scientific integrity, as well as the integrity of the information given to us through our textbooks, and several other concepts have been duly addressed, we can move on to explore a different flaw in the evolutionary theory.

 

Let’s take one single cell. This tiny, invisible cell is much more complex than any computer ever built in human history. If I begin to claim that my laptop finds itself today recording these words due to random processes over long periods of time….chances are, I would find myself in a mental institution rather quickly. So if it’s not logical to believe that a computer could form itself by random chance, then why would it be logical to believe that a cell, many times more complex than a computer, could form itself randomly?

Flaw.

1. It wasn't random. Evolution discards the mistakes and keeps the good advances.
   
2. Nobody said early cells had to be complex with all sorts of organelles. They could easily just be goop that can reproduce. That's all that's necessary.
   
3. Life has high tolerances. Don't fool yourself by thinking that the way life works now is the only way it can work. Life could work many thousands of different ways, using different compounds and different processes.
   

[CPL.Luke]

also your points about the second law do not gel at all.

 

I'm a physics major, I work with thermodynamics all the time. And I can tell you that the equations apply just as well to open systems as they do to closed systems however they produce different results, an open systems entropy can decrease, however the entropy had to have gone to a different system, usually you talk about the entire system and then analize the different parts.

 

for instance you can produce hydrogen and oxygen out of water, the hydrogen and oxygen out of water, which on the surface reduces entropy but if you were to analyze the water, electrons and air that the h and o escaped to you will see that the entropy increased.

 

similarly your body makes complex hydrocarbons out of simpler ones.

 

 

 

the primordial earth is still not very well understood, but there are various enviroments on the planet where you can expect the conditions of the miller experiment to hold, for instance underground caverns, deep sea volcanic vents etc.

[Sisyphus]

So you guys really don't think "fakeman123" is a troll?

[CPL.Luke]

there also is a chance that a computer could form randomly, I would guess that if you were ever to analyze silicon deposits carefully every few thousand tons you would find a simple transistor circuit, and probably every few trillion tons a complex processor

[fakeman123]

not a troll, just a high school kid who wrote that monster on behalf of another and wanted to get an online community of people interested in science to comment on it

[bascule]

not a troll, just a high school kid who wrote that monster on behalf of another and wanted to get an online community of people interested in science to comment on it

 

Most of us aren't going to read it. This comes down to the fundamental problem that it's quite large and we can sense right away that it includes far too many fallacious arguments to warrant stepping through and debunking.

 

Your best bet would be to break it down into self-contained sections that make specific arguments and post those individually if you really want responses to it all. Spread them out over a longer period of time so that each of the points can get addressed individually.

 

Right away I can see you're confusing evolution with abiogenesis, and making the assumption that unless abiogenesis can be demonstrated to be true then evolution is discredited. This is false, because evolution is supported by a wealth of empirical evidence in an of itself. Evolution stands on its own regardless of the demonstrability of feasible abiogenesis. Evidence of evolution includes the fossil record, massive surveys of the genotypes and phenotypes of innumerable species, the existence of ring species, evidence of genetic drift, observed speciation among several kingdoms of life, including animals, plants, fungi, protists, and monerans, detection of gene banding similarities among various species showing a specific progression as well as absorbtion and retention of parasitic DNA, and a whole host of other areas that would be too exhaustive to keep your attention.

[iNow]

not a troll, just a high school kid who wrote that monster on behalf of another and wanted to get an online community of people interested in science to comment on it

 

Don't take it personally. Listen to the criticisms, and recognize where you can do better next time. This is how science works. You have some information, you make a prediction, you run a test, and you go from there. So far, you made some claims which are being challenged. The next step is to update your points, and adjust your reasoning and outcome as appropriate.

 

 

Evolution by natural selection is probably the single most robust theory we've ever had the opportunity to explore. Do you have a question for us that interests you? You seem like an explorer.

[doG]

Evolution is a very nice idea, which is nevertheless completely un-provable and unsupported by science.

 

For the benefit of others please request last years vaccine when you get your flu shot this year. Sieze the opportunity to prove to the world that you believe the flu does not evolve each year....

[someguy]

Who on earth do you expect to read that monstrosity? It got up to the Miller experiment and got bored.

 

lol me too, and i had already found many things i think are wrong with it. and i'm glad i quit when i did because it was sooooo long. i mean, i know sometimes i write long posts but holy sh*t.

 

you should have posted it in chunks with your main fundamental points first. that way i could have read them all. but honestly darwinism is one of the things i am most sure of, and i find the evidence plentiful and everywhere. you might be able to convince me that life did not originate on earth and was brought here by comets or whatever, but once it got here evolution took over, well probably a little before too.

[foodchain]

Evolution is a very nice idea,

Life I would suggest did not form in the atmosphere. I would also suggest that a protocell such as a protobiont for example could have an internal environment. Abiogenesis is in itself not evolution. If you want some proof on evolution just read up on scorpions, or any other organism really, or just look at the human genome. Organic evolution is a natural process that has been scientifically verified with what amounts to nothing short but a mountain of physical evidence. I would also suggest as you do in your own post that the exact physiochemical nature of the early earth at any point in such a time frame in all respects is not perfectly understood. Lastly it seems as if life today on any particular scale you would want to bring up manages to persist in the presence of if simply put even require in many cases oxygen to survive.

 

 

 

 

 

http://fig.cox.miami.edu/~cmallery/150/life/protobionts.htm

 

http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/biog105/pages/demos/106/unit04/3a.protobionts.html

[Pre4edgc]

Believe it or not, I read the entire thing, but I still wasn't convinced. It seems that most of the quotes you got from the professors were from an article that was trying to disprove it anyway. If you want some good research, look at the articles about it NOT being doubtful. They will provide evidence as well.

[the tree]

Evolution originally started with the idea of spontaneous generation, the belief that life could magically spring out where there was no life.

No, no no and no. Evolution is not Abiogenesis and Abiogenesis is not Evolution.

 

Get straight the basic definitions before thinking your ready to make claims about the fundamentals of modern biology.

[lucaspa]

Evolution is the belief that about 4.6 billion years ago, the planet earth came into existence by itself through chemical processes. Then after several thousand years, the chemicals evolved and became what we now know as the primordial soup. Then over even more long periods of times the chemicals in the primordial soup bonded to make molecules, and then after more long periods of time the molecules bonded to make the first living cell.

 

As several people have noted, this is abiogenesis, not evolution. Abiogenesis --getting life from non-living chemicals -- is chemistry.

 

Let me get this out: whenever a person comes along and tries to make evolution = abiogenesis, they are not really talking about evolution. Instead, they are arguing atheism vs theism and using god-of-the-gaps theology. Fakeman, in case you don't know, god-of-the-gaps theology is a theology that says: if there is not a "natural" explanation, then God did it by directly making the thing.

 

Evolution originally started with the idea of spontaneous generation, the belief that life could magically spring out where there was no life.

 

1. Evolution assumes that life already exists. This is what Darwin wrote in Origin of Species:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

 

As you can see, evolution kicks in AFTER you have living organisms. Darwin wasn't concerned with how those first living organisms got here and, in fact, suggests that they were directly made by "the Creator".

 

2. Spontaneous generation is not abiogenesis! Spontaneous generation is the theory that complex organisms -- mice, maggots, etc. -- appear from decaying living matter (grain, rotting meat, etc.).

 

So what I must do, is prove that, contrary to what evolution says, it is impossible for chemicals to bond together to create a living cell.

 

Sorry, but data says it happens. Start here and we can discuss it further:

http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

 

In our textbooks, the evidence has been presented in such a way that it makes us believe that Miller did prove that life can be created from nothing.

 

No, it's not. It's presented as what it was: getting amino acids and sugars from a simpler chemical mixture. Now let’s examine the experiment critically:

 

To begin with, how did Miller know what gasses composed the earth’s atmosphere millions of years ago? Miller supposed that the atmosphere did not contain any oxygen, as does the rest of the evolutionary community today.

 

Untrue. Miller and Urey had some evidence that the early earth had a reducing atmosphere. Today we know that it was not. That's why the experiments were repeated in several different atmospheres, some of which contained low levels of oxygen. What were the results? The same as Miller-Urey:

1. Kawamoto K, Akaboshi H. Study on the chemical evolution of low molecular weight compounds in a highly oxidized atmosphere using electical discharges.**Origins of Life and Evolution of the*Biosphere 12: 133-141, 1982.

2. http://sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa004&articleID=9952573C-E7F2-99DF-32F2928046329479

 

This is where we often get incensed at professional creationists: they lie to people. You are the victim of that fraud.

 

It is because they have no alternative, as it has been scientifically proven that in the presence of oxygen, amino acids cannot bond together.

 

"amino acids bond together" is different from Miller-Urey! Miller-Urey is getting amino acids from hydrogen, cyanide, carbon dioxide, ammonia, etc.

For this we turn to an article of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Foundation called “New Evidence on Evolution of Early Atmosphere and Life.” This is a direct quote:

 

“Geologists know from their analysis of the oldest known rocks that the oxygen level of the early atmosphere had to be much higher than previously calculated.”

 

Later on the article states,

 

“Analysis of these rocks, estimated to be more than 3.5 billion years old, found oxidized amounts that called for atmospheric oxygen to be at least 110 times greater and perhaps up to one billion times greater than otherwise accepted.”

 

If this is not convincing enough, the geological periodical Geology published an article entitled “Oxygen in the Atmosphere: An evaluation of the Geological Evidence,”

 

What is the complete citation? That is, who were the authors, what is the volume number of the journal, the pages of the article, and the year? Before you accept any scientific citations, you MUST have all of those. Your source didn't give it to you, did they? Probably didn't want you reading it for yourself.

 

However, oxygen does not allow amino acids to bond together, as it corrodes the bonds, and thus the first cell could have never been in an oxygenated atmosphere.

 

That is simply not true. Oxygen has NO effect on amino acids bonding together. Think about it: if this were true, how can we have proteins (amino acids bonded together) in our own bodies? After all, we live in an oxygen atmosphere and there is oxygen dissolved in the water in our cells!

 

And if there is no ozone, it really does not matter whether life started at all or not, because any life would have been instantly fried to a crisp by the sun’s rays, as there would be no protection from them.

 

Again, not true. UV light doesn't break up proteins or DNA/RNA. In fact, one way to measure the concentration of proteins or DNA/RNA in solutions is to shine UV light on them and see how much is absorbed! The proteins are fine!

 

UV light tends to break the double bonds in lipids.

 

water, H2O, contains an oxygen atom in it. And if you remember what we just learned, amino acid bonds cannot form in the presence of oxygen. As soon as the bond starts to form, the oxygen molecule inserts itself between the two amino acids, and pulls them apart. This is a process termed by our chemistry textbooks as hydrolysis. So if any amino acids had formed, they would have been destroyed within weeks.

 

If this were true, you couldn't be alive. In fact, it's not true. Any scientist has had protein solutions in sterile water for years and there is no hydrolysis! Do you know how hydrolysis is actually done in labs? You need 6 N hydrochloric acid and heating at 110°C for 15 minutes!

 

Logically therefore, if Miller was recreating how amino acids came to be, he would not have used intelligent design in his model. However, did he? Well, let’s see, he decided exactly which gasses would go in the experiment, and exactly what quantities…a decision which has no scientific backing, as we have seen. Then he generated the electrical sparks that drove the reactions. He didn’t leave this to chance. Already here we are seeing a degree of intelligent design.

 

No, you are not. What you are seeing is recreation of natural conditions. Miller-Urey were recreating a thunderstorm. So, there was lightning (electrical sparks) and rain (what you call "a trap door") to wash the chemicals out of the atmosphere.

 

There can be no “right-handed” amino acids in life.

 

Oh yes there are! Once again people have lied to you. Here's a paper describing some of the D-amino acids in living organisms. There are quite a few:

Biomed Chromatogr 2001 Aug;15(5):319-27 Amino acid sequence and D/L-configuration determination methods for D-amino acid-containing peptides in living organisms. Iida T, Santa T, Toriba A, Imai K.

 

Not only that, but proteins made of racemic mixtures of amino acids also function quite well.

 

Living organisms today use 20 amino acids and use L-amino acids in directed protein synthesis. The mistake is thinking that life requires only these 20 amino acids and that they must be L. That simply is not true.

 

“Since Miller’s beguiling picture of a pond full of dissolved amino acids under a reducing atmosphere has been discredited, a new beguiling picture has life originating in a hot, deep, dark little hole on the ocean floor”

 

--Princeton University Professor Freeman Dyson in his Origins of Life,

 

Physicists think they are experts in all of science. They are not. Dyson is simply wrong here.

 

[qoute]Neither was Karl Popper when he stated that evolution was not scientific, but rather it belonged to the field of metaphysics.

 

1. Popper was a philosopher, not a scientist.

2. Popper changed his mind. Your source didn't bother telling you about that, either, did it?

 

Strange, you keep saying that "evolutionists" don't tell you important facts. Yet we keep finding that creationists conceal facts from you.

 

Remember that for there to be life, there can only be left-handed amino acids. The presence of even one right-handed amino acid will prevent life.

 

As we have seen, a lie. Modern living organisms contain far more than "one right-handed amino acid" and they don't die.

 

According to evolution, left-handed amino acids bonded in order to create life by pure accident, or random chance.

 

Another lie. Amino acids bonded to form proteins by chemistry, which is not chance. Nor is it random. The following calculations are GIGO: garbage in, garbage out.

 

the real odds of getting a protein with A biological activity by chemistry are 1: virtual certainty.

Robert Gange, a research scientist with a PhD, says that “The likelihood of life having occurred through a chemical accident is, for all intents and purposes, zero.”

 

Since we aren't talking about "a chemical accident", this is irrelevant. Chemistry is deterministic, not "accident".

 

“Scientists have been attempting to be able to determine a protein’s native conformation (or folding) by examining the amino acid sequence. Despite years of study, the ability to do this using even the fastest computers is beyond our reach.”

 

You need to do a later search of the literature. This is routinely done now. The quotes you used are another example of GIGO. Proteins aren't formed by random association of atoms, but are polymers of amino acids. Know the amino acid sequence, and you get a very good idea of the folding. Again, it's a matter of chemistry. This time it's the chemistry of being either "water-loving" or "water-hating".

 

The SLOT argument has been dealt with a lot. Personally, I think it was devised by creationists to avoid getting out of cleaning the garage:

"Dear, go clean the garage."

"But you know I can't because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You know a disordered system can't go to an ordered system. So I can't go out and bring order to the garage. It's impossible. Now let me finish watching the football game."

 

What you have repeated is the falsehoods creationists have been saying for years. It makes a lot of us angry. Mostly because professional creationist say these lies with a straight face to people like you.

 

However, you must accept some responsibility here. If you repeat a false witness as true without checking it out, aren't you also responsible for false witness.

 

Now, the question I have is: I've done my best to give you some of the truth. Do you have the courage to stick around and listen to the rest of it?

[Reaper]

What you have repeated is the falsehoods creationists have been saying for years. It makes a lot of us angry. Mostly because professional creationist say these lies with a straight face to people like you.

 

Quoted for truth. What makes it even more irritating is the fact that the evidence is right in their face, and yet they pretend that it doesn't exist.

[foodchain]

"There have been some discoveries right here on Earth, however, in the past decade or so that suggest that this pessimistic view of the possibility of extra-terrestrial life is too rigid. Life exists on the Earth under the most "un-lifelike" conditions.

 

Consider the forms of anaerobic life, that is, life that does not depend on oxygen. The ability to metabolize and create life-giving energy in non-oxygen environments is now understand to support life miles into the earth itself, into the rock - it is now estimated that the mass of life (primarily bacteria) beneath the Earth's crust is greater (by far) than the mass of life in and on and above the crust.

 

Life has been found in all temperature extremes.

 

These discoveries are showing us that life is persistent and downright stubborn when it comes to invading every possible niche on Earth. Toxic gas environment? no problem. Live in pool of acid? you got it. How about inside a rock? can do...

 

The amazing story of Life in our Inner Space is no less wonderous than the mysteries and marvels of our Outer Space. Perhaps the Key to Life Extraterrestrial is to be found in these hidden places."

 

http://www.resa.net/nasa/onearth_extreme.htm

 

"Although the anaerobic metabolism of sugars took front stage early, observations that pure cultures of organisms could also grow anaerobically on single-amino-acid nitrogenous compounds such as glutamate, which was converted to butyrate, formate, and ammonia, were made in the early 1900s. But it was Stickland who opened the modern era of study of anaerobic metabolism of nitrogenous compounds in 1934 (24). Anyone who has ever grown Clostridium sporogenes cannot escape the impact of its dynamic biochemistry! By use of cell suspensions Stickland made sense out of one of nature’s strategies of anaerobic amino acid metabolism by showing that whereas single amino acids could not be metabolized, certain amino acids when added in pairs were rapidly metabolized, one amino acid being oxidized (the electron donor) and the second being reduced (the electron acceptor). Thus, for example, alanine was oxidized to carbon dioxide and ammonia, and glycine (2 mol) was reduced to acetic acid and ammonia. In the next decade these experiments were extended by others who showed that at least 15 species of clostridia could grow by Stickland reactions. The gateway to knowledge of the anaerobic metabolism of nitrogenous compounds was greatly widened by H. A. Barker’s laboratory in the 1940s and 1950s (4, 5) with the isolation of different species and strains of anaerobes that could metabolize amino acids, purines, and pyrimidines. By use of 14C-labelled substrates, the fate of each carbon atom in the substrate could be determined by chemical degradation of each product of fermentation. Similarly, specific nitrogen atoms in the substrate could be labelled with 15N and the origin of nitrogen atoms in products could be ascertained."

 

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=93796

[lucaspa]

Quoted for truth. What makes it even more irritating is the fact that the evidence is right in their face, and yet they pretend that it doesn't exist.

 

This makes the behavior of the professional creationists even more immoral. I can understand that fakeman123 would be unaware of some of the data, but professional creationists go thru ALL the scientific literature for 2 reasons:

 

1. Looking for quote mining.

2. Finding evidence supporting evolution that they then have to try to explain away.

 

So the professional creationists don't have the excuse of "not knowing" what the data is. A major irony here is that the professional creationists are telling people like Fakeman123 that they are Christians and believe in God and the Bible. Yet here they are consistently and repeatedly violating the 9th Commandment.

 

Guys, it looks like we have a drive-by posting from Fakeman.

[ParanoiA]

Guys, it looks like we have a drive-by posting from Fakeman.

 

That's too bad too, because I thought you restrained yourself from beating him up quite well.

[DrDNA]

Wow! What a racey, heated argument. Wonderful!

 

In fact, anyone with an agenda (creationist, evolutionist, whomever,...) will conceal data/information. You probably did this on your tax returns last year didn't you; you cheeky monkies?

 

I think some are confusing evolution with theories relating to biogenesis. These are absolutely NOT mutally inclusive. Parts of one or the other may be correct or incorrect, but these parts do not substantiate nor invalidate the remaining parts.

 

Scientific support and evidence are never sufficient to "prove" any theory (except perhaps for some relatively "simple" mathematical examples); which is why the cigarette companies ultimately prevail in court. Scientific theories exist only long enough to be knocked off by better, (hopefully) more sound theories.

 

Importantly, most biogenesis and evolution theories do not necessarily exclude creationism; which can be in sync with any number of scientific theories because there is no mention of the MECHANISMS used to accomplish human creation, biogenesis or earth/universe creation in the bible; although that would certainly be a fun read..

 

Peace.

 

there also is a chance that a computer could form randomly, I would guess that if you were ever to analyze silicon deposits carefully every few thousand tons you would find a simple transistor circuit, and probably every few trillion tons a complex processor

 

I lost my right sneaker, but no need to worry. Somewhere is the universe floats a randomly generated, exact copy.