You will not read these facts in the newspapers or the popular press. But
scientists are wringing their hands over the lack of evidence or mechanisms for
how life forms on our planet could have originated. Evolutionary theory is
unworkable. It is a myth. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution
Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.
In the list below, full caps at the beginning of a
hyperlink show it begins a new page.
CONTENTS: Scientists Speak about the Primitive Environment
An Ongoing Puzzle: The
origin of living creatures is an astounding mystery
Evolution is Based on
Spontaneous Generation: This is the big secret you are not
supposed to know
The Correct Chemical
Environment Would Not Exist: There are many reasons for this
Other Problems: For example, why do living systems operate intelligently?
Conclusion: There is only one solution to the puzzle
This material is excerpted from the book,
PRIMITIVE ENVIRONMENT.
An asterisk ( * ) by a name
indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000
quotations in the books this Encyclopedia
is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
You will have a better understanding of the following
statements by scientists if you will also read the web page,
Primitive Environment.
"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a
single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They
are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their
appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin
Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.
"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present,
still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science
(1933), p. 95.
"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for
the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully
developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from
pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a
fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent
intelligence."—*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.
"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat
embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it
could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on
myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to
create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long
effort could not be proved to take place today, had, in truth, taken place in
the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey (1957), p. 199.
"Since Darwin's seminal work was called The Origin of Species one
might reasonably suppose that his theory had explained this central aspect of
evolution or at least made a shot at it, even if it had not resolved the larger
issues we have discussed up to now. Curiously enough, this is not the case. As
Professor Ernst Mayr of Harvard, the doyen [senior member] of species
studies, once remarked, the `book, called The Origin of Species, is not
really on that subject' while his colleague, Professor Simpson, admits: `Darwin
failed to solve the problem indicated by the title of his work.'
"You may be surprised to hear that the origin of species remains just as much
a mystery today, despite the efforts of thousands of biologists. The topic has
been the main focus of attention and is beset by endless controversies."—*Gordon
R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 140.
"Mathematics and dynamics fail us when we contemplate the earth, fitted for
life but lifeless, and try to imagine the commencement of life upon it. This
certainly did not take place by any action of chemistry, or electricity, or
crystalline grouping of molecules under the influence of force, or by any
possible kind of fortuitous concourse of atmosphere. We must pause, face to face
with the mystery and miracle of the creation of living things."—Lord Kelvin,
quoted in Battle for Creation, p. 232.
"We are left with very little time between the development of suitable
conditions for life on the Earth's surface and the origin of life . . Life
apparently arose about as soon as the Earth became cool enough to support it."—*S.J.
Gould, "An Early Start," in Natural History, February 1978.
"Biogenesis is a term in biology that is derived from two Greek words meaning
life and birth. According to the theory of biogenesis, living things descend
only from living things. They cannot develop spontaneously from nonliving
materials. Until comparatively recent times, scientists believed that certain
tiny forms of life, such as bacteria, arose spontaneously from nonliving
substances."—*"Biogenesis," in World Book Encyclopedia, p. B-242 (1972
edition).
"Pasteur's demonstration apparently laid the theory of spontaneous generation
to rest permanently.
"All this left a germ of embarrassment for scientists. How had life
originated after all, if not through divine creation or through spontaneous
generation? . .
"They [scientists] are [today] back to spontaneous generation."—*Isaac
Asimov, Asimov's New Guide to Science (1984), pp. 638-639.
"His aphorism `omnis cellula e cellula' [every cell arises from a
pre-existing cell] ranks with Pasteur's `omne vivum e vivo' [every living
thing arises from a pre-existing living thing] as among the most revolutionary
generalizations of biology."—*Encyclopedia Britannica, 1973 Edition, Volume
23, p. 35.
" `Every cell from a cell.' "—Rudolf Vircho,
German pathologist. `Every living thing from a living thing.'
`Spontaneous generation is a chimera [illusion].'—Louis Pasteur, French
chemist and microbiologist."
Quotations in Isaac Asimov's Book of Science and Nature Quotations (1988), p.
193.
Chemical compounds would not have been rich enough.
"It is commonly assumed today that life arose in the oceans . . But even if
this soup contained a goodly concentration of amino acids, the chances of their
forming spontaneously into long chains would seem remote. Other things being
equal, a diluted hot soup would seem a most unlikely place for the first
polypeptides to appear. The chances of forming tripeptides would be about
one-hundredth that of forming dipeptides, and the probability of forming a
polypeptide of only ten amino acid units would be something like 1 / 1020.
The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known
proteins seems beyond all [mathematical] probability."—H.F. Blum, Time's
Arrow and Evolution (1968), p. 158.
"If there ever were a primitive soup, then we would expect to find at least
somewhere on this planet either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of
the various nitrogenous organic compounds, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines,
and the like, or alternatively in much metamorphosed sediments we should find
vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes . . In fact, no such material has been found
anywhere on earth . . There is, in other words, pretty good negative evidence
that there never was a primitive organic soup on this planet that could have
lasted but a brief moment."—*J. Broks and *G. Shaw, Origins and Development
of Living Systems (1973), p. 360.
Enzyme inhibitors would surely have been present and would quickly have
destroyed that which had been produced.
"It is clear that enzymes were not present in the primordial soup. Even if
they were formed, they would not have lasted long since the primeval soup was,
by definition, a conglomeration of nearly every conceivable chemical substance.
There would have been innumerable enzyme inhibitors present to inhibit an enzyme
as soon as it appeared. Thus, such molecules could not have formed; however,
even with the assumption that they had formed, they could not have remained."—David
and Kenneth Rodabaugh, Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1990, p.
107.
Rapid fluid loss would not have occurred.
"One well-known problem in the formation of polymerized proteins in water is
that water loss is necessary for this process. Living organisms solve this
problem with the presence of enzymes and the molecule ATP. It is clear the
enzymes were not present in the primordial soup."—David and Kenneth
Rodabaugh, Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1990, p. 107.
"Beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to
activate further chemical reactions; water in any case inhibits the growth of
more complex molecules."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982),
p. 65.
If oxygen were present, the required chemicals would quickly decompose.
"First of all, we saw that the present atmosphere, with its ozone screen and
highly oxidizing conditions, is not a suitable guide for gas-phase simulation
experiments."—*A. Oparin, Life: Its Nature, Origin and Development, p. 118.
"The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under
reducing conditions [that is, with no free oxygen in the atmosphere]."—*Stanley
Miller and *Leslie Orgel, The Origins of Life on the Earth (1974), p. 33.
"With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have gotten
started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays."—*Francis
Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 65.
Just producing the needed proteins would be an impossible task.
"The conclusion from these arguments presents the most serious obstacle, if
indeed it is fatal to the theory of spontaneous generation. First, thermodynamic
calculations predict vanishingly small concentrations of even the simplest
organic compounds. Secondly, the reactions that are invoked to synthesize such
compounds are seen to be much more effective in decomposing them."—*D. Hull,
"Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Spontaneous Generation," in Nature, 186 (1960),
pp. 693-694.
"In other words, the theoretical chances of getting through even this first
and relatively easy stage [getting amino acids] in the evolution of life are
forbidding."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 65.
"In the vast majority of processes in which we are interested, the point of
equilibrium lies far over toward the side of dissolution. That is to say,
spontaneous dissolution [atomic self-destruction process] is much more probable,
and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis [accidental
put-together process] . . The situation we must face is that of patient Penelope
waiting for Odysseus, yet much worse: Each night she undid the weaving of the
preceding day, but here a night could readily undo the work of the year or a
century."—*G. Wald, "The Origin of Life," in The Physics and Chemistry of
Life (1955), p. 17.
Not even the scientists know how to produce the required fatty acids.
Yet sand and seawater are said to have figured out the process.
"No satisfactory synthesis of fatty acids is at present available. The action
of electric discharges on methane and water gives fairly good yields of acetic
and propionic acids, but only small yields of the higher fatty acids.
Furthermore, the small quantities of the higher fatty acids that are found are
highly branched."—*S. Miller and *L. Orgel, The Origins of Life on the Earth
(1974), p. 98.
A reducing atmosphere (one without oxygen) would be required, yet it
would produce peroxides, which are lethal to living creatures.
"The hypothesis of an early methane-ammonia atmosphere is found to be without
solid foundation and indeed is contradicted."—*P. Abelson, "Some Aspects of
Paleobiochemistry," in Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 69 (1957), p.
275.
A continuous supply of energy would, from the very first, be required.
"To keep a reaction going according to the law of mass action, there must be
a continuous supply of energy and of selected matter (molecules) and a
continuous process of elimination of the reaction products."—*P. Mora, "The
Folly of Probability," in Origins of Prebiological Systems and their Molecular
Matrices, Ed, S.W. Fox (1965), p. 43.
There are other amazing aspects to life. For example, where did the
built-in intelligence come from?
"Any living thing possesses an enormous amount of `intelligence' . . Today,
this `intelligence' is called `information,' but it is still the same thing . .
This `intelligence' is the sina qua non of life. If absent, no living
being is imaginable. Where does it come from? This is a problem which concerns
both biologists and philosophers, and, at present, science seems incapable of
solving it."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p.
3.
There can be only one solution to the mystery of how living creatures
originated.
"Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never
write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few
facts." —*Francis Crick, Life Itself (1981), p. 153. [Crick received a Nobel
Prize for discovering the structure of DNA.]
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only
state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost
a miracle."—*Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature (1981), p. 88.
"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it,
the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe, as
an article of faith, that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is
just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it
did."—*Harold C. Urey, quoted in Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 1962,
p. 4.
"All the facile speculations and discussions published during the last ten to
fifteen years explaining the mode of origin of life have been shown to be far
too simple-minded and to bear very little weight. The problem in fact seems as
far from solution as it ever was."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe
(1982), p. 68.
"The probability of life origination from accident is comparable to the
probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a
printing shop." —*Edwin Conklin, Reader's Digest, January 1963, p. 92.
"From the probability standpoint, the ordering of the present environment
into a single amino acid molecule would be utterly improbable in all the time
and space available for the origin of terrestrial life."—*American Scientist,
January, 1955.
"Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the
great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century . . The origin of life and of new
beings on earth is still largely as enigmatic as when Darwin set sail on the
Beagle."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 358.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
To the next topic in this series: WHY LIFE
COULD NOT SELF-ORIGINATE: 30 scientific reasons why it could
not happen
|