Church On The Street Las Vegas

Navigation



QUESTION:

Science: Didn't Scientists Prove That It Is Possible For Life To Have Formed Spontaneously?

ANSWER:

The short answer is no, science has not proven that life formed spontaneously. If anything, the emperical evidence currenly held by science is in agreement with the Biblical account of creation.

Explanation:

Spontaneous Generation is a corner post of Darwinian evolution. Without it, the rest of Darwin’s evolutionary model falls apart. Everything that evolution postulates demands that life started through the spontaneous appearance of life. Per chemical evolution, all life – plants, bacteria, fish, land animals, and man originated from chemical compounds.

Renowned Biologist, Dr. Gary Parker, stated “One of the fundamental laws of biology is the law of biogenesis that states life comes only from preexisting life. And, of course, for a creationist that’s certainly no surprise. Life, God’s life, created life to multiply after its kind. That makes sense to a creationist but to an evolutionist there was a time in the past when there wasn’t any life. And so chemicals somehow got together and made living things. This is often called spontaneous generation.”

There have been some enormous problems faced in trying to get a group of chemicals to come to life. A few years ago, Dr. Stanly Miller did a famous experiment when he took some simple materials – some methanes, ammonia, water vapor, and zapped them with an electric spark to simulate lightning, and in just a week, he produced amino acids, the building blocks of protein. That was hailed in scientific and medical journals and the MSM as life having been created in a test tube. It impressed academic scientists and the enlightened public. After the hoopla died down, scientists interested in repeating the experiment began to discover problems with Miller’s methodologies. Their findings hit the back pages of the periodicals and news papers – next to the classified adds – because they rained on the party.

What they found was that there were three problems with Miller’s work.

1) He had the wrong starting materials. His experiment assumed an atmosphere of methane and ammonia, gasses that were not present in large amounts (certainly not the amounts used by Miller) because Ammonia would have been decomposed by ultraviolet light and Methane should be found attached to ancient sedimentary clays but is not found in earlier geologic sediments, only much later. Miller also left out oxygen because he knew that oxygen would destroy the very amino acids he was trying to create. The problem is that as deep as we dig, deeper than sediments in which life first appears, we find vast quantities of oxidized rocks which tell a story of an oxygen rich atmosphere long before life spontaneously generated.

The earth did not have the required reducing atmosphere (an atmosphere of methane, ammonia, and hydrogen) that even remotely came close to the conditions of Miller’s experiment. The earth never had such an atmosphere ever. The earth has always had an oxygen rich atmosphere which scientists now concede would preclude any spontaneous formation of complex amino acids.

2) He used the wrong conditions. He used an electric spark to combine the gas molecules. The problem is that the spark that binds the elements into amino acids also tears them apart. The ionization created in an electrically charged field is much more likely to tear the amino acids apart. Miller’s problem was that he knew that any amino acids produced would need to be immediately isolated from the very environment that created them in order to not be decomposed by the environment. So, in his experiment, he separated out the amino acids using a complex set of apparatuses and isolators which could not have been present outside of the lab. His methodology was cheating because he was supposed to be saying “this is how life formed before the intelligent design of a research lab. Again, I stress that the conditions that Miller used could not and did not ever exist in earth’s history. The conditions that did exist were antagonistic towards the formation of complex amino acids and proteins.

3) He got the wrong results. The main product of Miller’s experiment was tar, a prohibitor in organic reactions. Trace amounts of amino acids were produced. The problem is that Miller’s experiment produced both left handed and right handed amino acids. Only left handed amino acids make up the proteins of life. The presence of right handed molecules prevents the formation of proteins by left handed molecules. What Miller produced was a poisonous concoction that consisted of 85% tar, 13% Carboxylic acids (very toxic to any form of life), 1% left handed amino acids and 1% right handed amino acids. What he created was so non-conducive to life so as to be impossible for life’s proteins to be formed at all.

In a debate at San Diego State University, Dr. Miller was presented with the analysis of his experiment and was asked to comment on the findings. Dr. Miller replied “No.” He hasn’t believed in the conclusion of his own experiment for decades.

For years and even to this day, Miller’s experiment is taught as the basic proof of spontaneous generation. In fact, the key evidence used in the case for acceptance of the evolutionary model hinges on junk science.

What Miller and other biologists were looking for was proof that the absurdity of logic that spontaneous generation demands could possibly exist.

The case for chemical evolution weakens when one considers that long chains of 2000 to 3000 left handed amino acids must fit all in exactly the right position to form the most basic protein that makes up all life. Amino acids do not naturally link up to form protein but rather will break down in the presence of right handed amino acids, other caustic elements in the environment, and in the presence of oxygen.

When you consider that each amino acid molecule must fit together perfectly sequenced much like a computer program. If one of the amino acids is wrong in orientation, position, or in its bonding site, the whole protein is useless.

The improbabilities of Darwinian evolution start at the very beginning even before life began. How did the first protein molecule form? It would have required the chance presence of the 2000 – 3000 left handed amino acids materializing in an environment that would have been hostile to their formation in the first place. Then, assuming that they did form, their viable existence would be for no longer than milliseconds due to ultraviolet radiation, oxygen, right handed amino acids, other toxic acids formed in the same processes, caustic minerals, and very low levels of methane and ammonia required to produce the amino acids. The next problem is that any protein would need at the onset of its formation, physical isolation from the very processes that formed it because those processes are biased in magnitudes towards destroying it instantly.

There has been a lot of work done in the fields of information theory and molecular biology to estimate the statistical probability of the first protein forming in perfect conditions. The work of both groups has found that the formation of a protein coming about by chance is so great that it is virtually impossible. It is possible if you have eternity but it is impossible in the framework of time in which life must have spontaneously generated in the brief lifespan of our universe and even less time in which the earth would have supported life. Darwinists don’t have eternity at their disposal to make the math work.

Information theory scientist Dr. Hubert Yaki calculated and MIT biologist Robert Sawer confirmed that that probability that a protein containing only 100 amino acids would form spontaneously is less than one chance in 10 to the 65th – so improbable that it could be compared to taking a deck of cards, throwing it out a two story window and having all cards land face down in perfect alignment and in perfect order every time the deck is tossed out the window.

Ignoring the above statistical odds and assuming the protein could have formed in a toxic environment antagonistic towards the event occurring, the new protein would then need the incredibly more complex programming for replication. Keeping in mind that replication will require a full recurrence of all of the protein’s amino acid chains in close proximity, splitting the existing chains, rebinding with a whole new chain of only left handed amino acids standing by in perfect molecular order, and reassembling of both proteins with no errors. The statistical odds again exceed 10 to the 65th power. Now, you have two impossibilities requiring that they both occur at almost the exact same time. The probability of that happening is incalculable.

The next problem is that the formation of a protein does not constitute the formation of a living cell with a cell membrane which isolates the bare amino acids against their environment which will indeed destroy any one, if not all of the molecule of the complex chain. The cell membrane must have developed at a later time following multiple regenerations. The programming for the cell membrane would have required much greater complexity, and progressive mutations of the amino acid chains. The statistical problem now introduced is that without a fully formed cell membrane to isolate the protein from its destructive environment, the protein would not remain viable for more than a few microseconds. The amount of time required to develop the necessary instructions to form a more complex molecular membrane would have taken tens of thousands if not millions of years. The statistical probability of any one protein surviving un-isolated from its environment long enough to replicate are again incalculable.

Another problem is that for all of these processes to occur require energy. The protein must very tightly regulate the energy in the processes of molecular splicing else incorrect sequences and orientations of amino acids will form in the process. A simple protein would have lacked the necessary programming and structures to produce and regulate the required energy. The probability that the energy surrounding the protein in such an antagonistic environment would play favorably in such a precise order of processes again is incalculable.

The final problem is that of the complex progression of mutations that must occur for the protein to develop the necessary structures and programming to facilitate reliable reproduction. Evolutionary scientists agree that with only very rare exception, all mutations result in an error that work against the organism’s survival. The chances that a complex chain of mutations all working in favor of the organism’s eventual ability to reliably reproduce are again a virtual impossibility.

Now work the math:

The first non-viable protein spontaneously forming10^65th power
The formation of a matching set of amino acids for splicing at protein replication the first time> 10^65th power
The protein developing the necessary structure to regulate the energy in the molecular recombination processeincalculable
The protein surviving un-isolated from its environment long enough to survive to regenerationincalculable
The proteins following sufficient increases in programming, structure, regenerations, and mutations to create a living cell capable of viable reproductionincalculable

To sum up the answer, most mathematicians generally agree that any proability that is less than 10^50th power is considered to be an impossibility. The probability of life forming spontaneously in a form that can replicate exceeds 10^200 power and is therefore of zero probability. In fact recent scientific research in information theory has proven that life is far more complex than the evolutionary model based it’s currently held assumptions on. For most scientists working today in theoretical sciences, evolution makes no mathematical, organic, or rational sense.

The statistical odds are now so large that no evolutionary scientist holdouts have been able to overcome the problem without resorting to philosophical arguments that are likewise so improbable as to be nothing short of religious zealousness. The fact is that life can only come from life. The earliest life through the several epochs of sudden appearance of new species and extinction of old species bears out through scientific study that all life forms and species appeared fully formed, functional, and with a biological purpose. This agrees with the Biblical account of how life was created. While Darwinian evolutionists still insist that the building blocks for life have been created in a test tube, their claims are founded on pure junk science.

L.W. Hancock (COTS Science Commentator)