Simple Apologetics.org
  Humble, easy, not elaborate and complex, straightforward
 



Simple Bible Facts

Simple Apologetics

Defending Your Faith Network

 
 

Let's Explore Cells!

You're looking at a manufacturing process carried out by an amazing array of miniature biochemical machines with intricacy of design and complexity Darwin never dreamed. All life is made of cells. The irreducible complexity of which shows they could have never evolved slowly or incrementally through a random non-directed process. Macroevolution is best fought at the informational, cellular level. Without cells, evolutionists have no foundation for their argument. Without information, they have no cells. So....

Let's explore... CELLS!
But remember, they only look intelligently designed...

                          

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." 

Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

Evolution simply cannot produce complex structures in a single generation as would be required for the formation of irreducibly complex systems. To imagine that a chance set of mutations would produce all 200 proteins required for cilia function in a single generation stretches the imagination beyond the breaking point. And yet, producing one or a few of these proteins at a time, in standard Darwinian fashion, would convey no survival advantage because those few proteins would have no function-indeed, they would constitute a waste of energy for the cell to even produce.

Darwin recognized this as a potent threat to his theory of evolution-the issue that could completely disprove his idea.

So the question must be: Has Darwin's theory of evolution "absolutely broken down?" According to Dr. Michael Behe, the answer is a resounding "yes."



"In the abstract, it might be tempting to imagine that irreducible complexity simply requires multiple simultaneous mutations - that evolution might be far chancier than we thought, but still possible. Such an appeal to brute luck can never be refuted... Luck is metaphysical speculation; scientific explanations invoke causes.”
Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution


“The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself—not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs. Inferring that biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent is a humdrum process that requires no new principles of logic or science. It comes simply from the hard work that biochemistry has done over the past forty years, combined with consideration of the way in which we reach conclusions of design every day.” ― Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution


“Is the conclusion that the universe was designed - and that the design extends deeply into life - science, philosophy, religion, or what? In a sense it hardly matters. By far the most important question is not what category we place it in, but whether a conclusion is true. A true philosophical or religious conclusion is no less true than a true scientific one. Although universities might divide their faculty and courses into academic categories, reality is not obliged to respect such boundaries.” ― Michael J. Behe, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism


“The most essential prediction of Darwinism is that, given an astronomical number of chances, unintelligent processes can make seemingly-designed systems, ones of the complexity of those found in the cell. ID specifically denies this, predicting that in the absence of intelligent input no such systems would develop. So Darwinism and ID make clear, opposite predictions of what we should find when we examine genetic results from a stupendous number of organisms that are under relentless pressure from natural selection. The recent genetic results are a stringent test. The results: 1) Darwinism’s prediction is falsified; 2) Design’s prediction is confirmed.” ― Michael J. Behe
                                 
 
                                 
."No human research can be called true science unless it can be mathematically proved... There is no certainty in sciences where one of the mathematical sciences cannot be applied, or which are not in relation with these mathematics."  Leonardo da Vinci, The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci

.

Actually Doing The Math

Jim Elvidge, M.S.


The math doesn't look good for the atheists. Francis Crick, molecular biologist, physicist, and Nobel Prize winner for the discovery of DNA, commented on the miracle of constructing a single protein from evolutionary combinatorial selection: "all the cell need do is to string together the amino acids (which make up the polypeptide chain) in the correct order. This is a complicated biochemical process, a molecular assembly line, using instructions in the form of a nucleic acid tape (the messenger RNA). Here we need only ask, how many possible proteins are there? If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare of an event would that be?... the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred times. This is conveniently written 10E260, that is a one followed by 260 zeros!" [1]

Dr. Robert L. Piccioni, Ph.D., Physics from Stanford says that the odds of 3 billion randomly arranged base-pairs matching human DNA is about the same as drawing the ace of spades one billion times in a row from randomly shuffled decks of cards.

Dr. Harold Morowitz, a renowned physicist from Yale University and author of Origin of Cellular Life (1993), declared that the odds for any kind of spontaneous generation of life from a combination of the standard life building blocks are one chance in 10E100000000000 (you read that right, that's 1 followed by 100,000,000,000 zeros). [2]

Famed British Royal Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle proposed that such odds were one chance in 10E40000 that the proteins of an Amoeba could evolve, or roughly "the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard could assemble a 747." [3] "… it is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must, therefore, have been the product of purposeful intelligence." [4]

By the way, scientists generally set their "Impossibility Standard" at one chance in 10E50 (1 in a 100,000 billion, billion, billion, billion, billion). So, it seems that the likelihood of life forming via combinatorial chemical evolution from t
he periodic table of dead lifeless elements
is, for all intents and purposes, zero.


The Directed Panspermia Hypothesis?

Directed Panspermia suggests that the seeds of life may have been purposely spread by an advanced extraterrestrial civilization, or can be spread from Earth to other planets by humans. Since Francis Crick found it impossible that the complexity of DNA could have evolved naturally, Crick along with British chemist Leslie Orgel proposed the theory of directed panspermia. Crick posed that small grains containing DNA, or the building blocks of life, could be loaded on a brace of rockets and fired randomly in all directions. Crick and Orgel estimated that a payload of one metric ton could contain 1017 micro-organisms organized in ten or a hundred separate samples. Carl Sagan, Francis Crick, Leslie Orgel, and Boris Shklovskii held that life on Earth may have been seeded deliberately by another civilization. [5]


1. Crick, Francis. Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature. Simon and Schuster; 1st edition. 1981. pp 51-52.
2. Morowitz, Harold J. Energy Flow in Biology. Academic Press, 1968.
3. Hoyle, Sir Fred. Nature, vol. 294:105, November 12, 1981.
4. Hoyle, Sir Fred. Nature, vol. 294:105, November 12, 1981.

5. Mosteller, D.P. excerpt from Panspermia-Theory.com,added to article January 2015

 .

                                 
 

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution

Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world.
He is famous for
his work on nanocars (picture courtesy of Wikipedia), nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction.

He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents. Although he does not regard himself as an Intelligent Design theorist, Professor Tour, along with over 700 other scientists, took the courageous step back in 2001 of signing the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, which read: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” From, Uncommon Descent