HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
June 22, 2003 “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad.” Aldous Huxley. “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” Jesus Christ. Should you casually peruse a Beagle (irony intended), you might note his floppy ears and active disposition and perhaps his yodel in the right circumstance. You would perceive him as a being, as a whole. In 1859, Charles Darwin proposed that organisms were evolved from simpler beings by the means of mutation and natural selection. Should it have been absolutely certain that God did not exist, and at the stage of knowledge to which man had attained at that time, his supposition was logical. But Darwinists of the 19th century would not have been able to comprehend that a Beagle consists of billions of different components, a far more complicated being than they would have expected. Evolution was a concept based on a perception of life that truly does not apply. Does 21st century science support even the remotest possibility that Macroevolution can bring about population change? Is the constant drumbeat of Darwinist doctrine in the media, in the classroom and at scientific seminars around the globe based on truth? Mathematics is a fine field that never appealed greatly to me. But it certainly has ways to consider the odds involved in either the production of life from non-life or the evolution from one cell up to a viable organism. I defer to the research of Drs. William and Annabel Johnson “The Theory of Evolution Revisited (Spring 2001 Quodlibet Journal)“on the mathematics involved concerning macroevolution. Quoting from their research: “In February of 2001, the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium announced that there are about 30,000 to 40,000 protein-coding genes in the human genome… Each gene is a sequence of DNA about one thousand nucleotides long…According to Hoyle (1960), the probability that the chance occurrence of random mutations could, through the long process of time, accidentally create the complex ordered relationships expressed through the genetic codes could be likened to the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 (Woodward, 1988). “In his book, Algeny, Jeremy Rifkin (1984) noted that in the world of mathematics, events whose probability occur within the range of 1/1030 to 1/1050 are considered impossible. In terms of information alone, it is estimated that a one- cell bacterium of E. coli contains the equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. There are an estimated four million instructions in the DNA of E. coli. Even in the 'simplest' organisms, the information standard is enormously high (Hoyle & Wickramasinghe, 1981). A tiny one- cell organism is definitely something to contend with. George Gaylord Simpson (1967) wrote that the evolutionary journey leading up to the simplest one-cell organism was as impressive as the rest of the evolutionary trip put together. “Apparently, the mathematical odds more than agree with Simpson's analysis. In fact, according to the odds, a one-cell organism is so complex that the likelihood of its coming together by sheer accident and chance is computed to be around 1/1078,000 . Remember, nonpossibility, according to statisticians, is found in the range of 1/1030 to 1/1050 . The odds of a single-cell organism ever occurring by chance mutation are so far out of the ball park as to be unworthy of even being considered on a statistical basis. Such an occurrence, we might add, would be indistinguishable from a miracle. When one moves from the single-cell organism to higher, even more complex forms of life, the statistical probability shifts from to ridiculous to preposterous. Huxley, for example, computed the probability of the emergence of the horse as 1/103,000,000 (ibid., p.154)…. “Wysong (1976) wrote that the most basic living organism would require 124 proteins of properly sequenced amino acids. The odds of even the simplest living organism forming by chance was 10-78,436. Furthermore, the total probability of the chance formation of the proteins and DNA required by the smallest self-replicating entity is 10-167,626 (Hadd, 1979). “ Macroevolution is mathematically impossible! In fact, the formation of life by chance is mathematically impossible. There are plenty of scientists who realize this. Why don’t they admit it? CONCEPTUAL BIAS The overwhelming evidence aligned against Evolution in the fossil record, geological record and other sciences would logically convince the scientific community at large to abandon Darwinism. Why has it not? Conceptual Bias. There are a large percentage of scientists who belong to the ABG club, “Anything But God!” For them, Macroevolution is part of their belief systems, a part that allows them to throw God aside in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Ironically, Darwinist Scientists today find themselves in the same position as the Catholic Church of the 1600’s, who defended the idea that the earth was the center of the solar system from the teachings of Copernicus. Galileo was imprisoned for spreading that word and Bruno was tortured and killed. Now it is the immense body of evidence that cries out for Creationism and the growing number of scientists who proclaim that fact who are, like the followers of Copernicus, being vilified and ridiculed for speaking truth. Creation scientists often face an inquisition of words. Consider the book by Lehigh Professor of Biochemistry Michael J. Behe, “Darwin’s Black Box.” In the book, he explains the concept of “Irreducible Complexity”: By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.” Behe uses a simple mousetrap as an example of an IC system, merely to explain what he means by IC. I have since seen scientists go to great lengths to try to prove that a mousetrap is NOT irreducibly complex! But Behe simply wanted the term understood, and when he also used an example of a Rube Goldberg contraption it certainly made the point. “Darwin’s Black Box” looks at five systems as examples of IC systems, where a gradual evolution to the current system would not happen, since anything taken from one of these systems would not allow it to function and therefore would not be naturally selected. All five of the systems are immensely complex. To give you an idea, the flagellum of a bacteria: “Flagella consist of a hollow, rigid cylinder composed of a protein called flagellin, which forms a filament anchored to the cell by a curved structure called the hook, which is attached to the basal body. Flagellae are, in effect, rotary motors comprising a number of proteinaceous rings embedded in the cell wall. These molecular motors are powered by the phosporylation cascade responsible for generating energy within the cell. In action, the filament rotates at speeds from 200 to more than 1,000 revolutions per second, driving the rotation of the flagellum. The organization of these structures is quite different from that of eukaryotic flagella. The direction of rotation determines the movement of the cell. Anticlockwise rotation of monotrichious polar flagella thrusts the cell forward with the flagellum trailing behind. Peritrichous cells operate in the same way.” (University of Leicester course notes on Bacterial Motility.) ” …some scientists have called the bacterial flagella the most efficient machine in the universe with its:1) self assembly and repair; 2) water-cooled rotary engine; 3) proton motive force drive system; 4) forward and reverse gears; 5) operating speeds of 6,000 to 17,000 rpm; 6) direction reversing capability within 1/4 of a turn; and7) it's hard-wired signal transduction system with short-term memory." (Access Research Network). Behe goes into detail of the incredible complexity of this motor and challenges the scientific community to explain how in may have evolved. He also goes into detail about the body’s blood clotting system, protein transportation within a cell (a must read!), the functioning immune system and the function of metabolic pathways. I have perused many of the articles that have been written in response to Behe’s book, most of them extremely critical of the findings of the book and some very long and complex. Behe is consistently belittled in the attacks upon his book and his level of knowledge. But although the credentials of a few of the writers (Dr David Ussery, for example) are impressive, they have not answered Behe’s call. No one is able to step up to the plate and give a detailed answer to Behe’s main question. They suppose, they give examples of similar systems and simpler systems and find minor points to critique the book. They do not come up with a means by which any one of the five systems listed might have evolved. By now, I am convinced that they never shall. HELP FOR THE DARWINISTS It seems that Macroevolution is simply absurd and Darwinists are faced with the terrible concept of a Creator God. In sympathy, I have thought of a couple of alternatives that they might want to kick around. PANSPERMIA. In this concept, an alien race is responsible for seeding life on the planet, arriving by rocket and then………..oh, Crick thought of that one already. Well, it was stupid, anyhow! (Although Sagan kind of liked it.) Hoyle preferred a comet or maybe light beams. HEINLEINISM. Here is a good one! By the year 2300 scientists have perfected time travel. Aware of the problems of Macroevolution, they realize it is up to them to act. They go back millions of years and plant some simple life forms. But then they find that when they go visit several million years later that the few simple life forms have stubbornly refused to evolve into anything else. Ooops! REVISED HEILEINISM. It is those awful Creationists who go back in time and not only remove every conceivable transitional form from the fossil record, they plant things like hammers in peat marshes and carvings of dinosaurs co- existing with man. They must go back and walk around during the time of the dinosaurs to produce some nice footprints and other nasty tricks. They effectively remove any evidence of evolution until 23rd century scientists discover them and the day is finally saved! SPONTANEOUS GENERATION. Life just kind of happens anytime a bunch or rags or trash are piled together, so if a big bunch of stuff is lying around a few zillion years ago all sorts of life could have happened. But darn it, Louis Pasteur laid that idea to rest for good around 1859. Ironic, eh? The same year a guy named Darwin published a book entitled “Origin of Species.” TAKE MY BALL AND GO HOMEISM. Call Creationists “Flat Earthers” and refuse to listen to them at all. Shut yourself off from any facts that fly in the face of your beliefs. Watch CNN, read the New York Times, listen to NPR and just keep wishing and hoping and proclaiming to yourself that evolution is a fact until you drown out everything the nasty old Intelligent Design people tried to tell you. TRUTH. Hmm, you could just look at the evidence and decide to follow the truth. It will be uncomfortable and maybe a tad embarrassing. Your peers may look at you askance. Yet it is going to feel so good to look for and follow truth instead of doctrine. It gets to be a habit. Pretty soon it is a necessity and you will wonder why you ever did it any other way! ------------ About the author Kimbal Ross Binder: Erstwhile gym-rat, former independent driven by disgust for the Democratic Party into the arms of the Republicans, current parent and expert at puns, jokes that make people groan and eating Debbie's cooking. Mr Binder lives out in the boondocks of NW Indiana. Email Kimbal Ross Binder: radar@eternalisp.com Comment on this column in the forum. ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
