Saturday, September 16, 2006
The Impossible Origin of Life
That Single Cell
It is obviously unlikely that a single living cell would under known conditions simply appear on a habitable earth. There has to be water and food and oxygen, or the cell dies immediately. That cell has to have proper nutrition, proper immunity from deadly attacks, a proper cell wall, a useful nucleus, and a suitable environment (protection from deadly radiation, for example, and enough light). The chemicals out of which the cells were made must have been available in sufficient quantity and in viable ratios.
We find life at the deep thermal vents and in the frozen tundra, so we know life is possible in “hostile” environments, but cells living there seem to have adapted to such environments rather than to have originated there. But ignoring that for the moment, we immediately face another problem.
What are the odds that the first mutation would have been a useful one. If it was not, that cell would die. What are the odds of many cells being formed (even through multiplication—a highly complex process). It is far more likely that the first cell (or the first small colony of cells) would die. Single cell creatures are quite vulnerable until they form large colonies. How many chances will early life get? How many cells have to spontaneously evolve in order to get one that will mutate favorably?
A favorable mutation is on all accounts rare in any case. But if it doesn’t happen early on, the original line of multiplying cells would eat up everything in the local area within which they can navigate and thus pollute their environment with waste without adapting to the environment in time, and everything would die.
The odds of multiple original cells are virtually zero because all life today works on the same chemistry, thus suggesting that all life came from a single source, not multiple sources.
So I have an extremely unlikely event producing a life form that somehow survives and successfully mutates in order to establish alternative life forms in case one form becomes extinct. The odds against this scenario are so high that the question is, why is it believed? The answer is, because we are here. Life must have started since it is here now. But could it happen without a template, a plan, without design? Richard Dawkins wants to say yes. It just happened! That is so very unlikely, that I think Dawkins should be ashamed of himself. The scientific odds against the spontaneous generation of life and its continuous development from molecule to man have reached well beyond the point of being scientifically impossible. For sure, it is not a reproducible event in the laboratory. So in the traditional understanding of science, it should be considered an unscientific notion to claim spontaneous generation and exclusively natural evolution from that point forward. In other words, the theory of naturalistic evolution (which is not the same as ideas of environmental adaptations, for example) is (shall I dare say it) a hypothesis, a speculation.
The evolutionary scenario of how life began spontaneously and survived is a theory. The fact that many assume it, never having seen it happen, is an indication of the fact that it is a faith assumption. It is a conclusion, so they think, that is “least offensive” to the scientific enterprise.
To suggest that life seems like a designed system of reality is a far better theory if we are seeking to explain how something might have actually happened. Life gives little evidence that it can be explained by unguided and undesigned processes and forces in nature. Even the chemical components necessary for life would not necessarily be everywhere all the time. The odds against chance spontaneous generation in a protective environment are so high as to be impossible. The odds that a cell thus formed would survive to reproduce successfully would seem to be astronomical. Digestion, reproductive systems, and DNA complexities simply would not happen in the real world all at the same time without a template or a plan to guide the chemical bonds. For that cell to evolve up to a complex religious being who would willingly die for others is simply beyond the pale.
Why do evolutionists believe it? They say it is the only viable “scientific” option (by which they mean “non-theistic” option). So to avoid seeing obvious plan and design, and to avoid having to explain that the scientist cannot fully understand and examine the “accepted” scientific stance on things, the accepted scientific theory simply affirms the impossible, and people buy into it because of their respect for science (which they should have), but so goes rationality. So goes meaning. So goes hope. So goes purpose. Is it worth it to believe a lie?
L. Russ Bush, Director
Center for Faith and Culture
Box 1889
Wake Forest, NC 27588
It is obviously unlikely that a single living cell would under known conditions simply appear on a habitable earth. There has to be water and food and oxygen, or the cell dies immediately. That cell has to have proper nutrition, proper immunity from deadly attacks, a proper cell wall, a useful nucleus, and a suitable environment (protection from deadly radiation, for example, and enough light). The chemicals out of which the cells were made must have been available in sufficient quantity and in viable ratios.
We find life at the deep thermal vents and in the frozen tundra, so we know life is possible in “hostile” environments, but cells living there seem to have adapted to such environments rather than to have originated there. But ignoring that for the moment, we immediately face another problem.
What are the odds that the first mutation would have been a useful one. If it was not, that cell would die. What are the odds of many cells being formed (even through multiplication—a highly complex process). It is far more likely that the first cell (or the first small colony of cells) would die. Single cell creatures are quite vulnerable until they form large colonies. How many chances will early life get? How many cells have to spontaneously evolve in order to get one that will mutate favorably?
A favorable mutation is on all accounts rare in any case. But if it doesn’t happen early on, the original line of multiplying cells would eat up everything in the local area within which they can navigate and thus pollute their environment with waste without adapting to the environment in time, and everything would die.
The odds of multiple original cells are virtually zero because all life today works on the same chemistry, thus suggesting that all life came from a single source, not multiple sources.
So I have an extremely unlikely event producing a life form that somehow survives and successfully mutates in order to establish alternative life forms in case one form becomes extinct. The odds against this scenario are so high that the question is, why is it believed? The answer is, because we are here. Life must have started since it is here now. But could it happen without a template, a plan, without design? Richard Dawkins wants to say yes. It just happened! That is so very unlikely, that I think Dawkins should be ashamed of himself. The scientific odds against the spontaneous generation of life and its continuous development from molecule to man have reached well beyond the point of being scientifically impossible. For sure, it is not a reproducible event in the laboratory. So in the traditional understanding of science, it should be considered an unscientific notion to claim spontaneous generation and exclusively natural evolution from that point forward. In other words, the theory of naturalistic evolution (which is not the same as ideas of environmental adaptations, for example) is (shall I dare say it) a hypothesis, a speculation.
The evolutionary scenario of how life began spontaneously and survived is a theory. The fact that many assume it, never having seen it happen, is an indication of the fact that it is a faith assumption. It is a conclusion, so they think, that is “least offensive” to the scientific enterprise.
To suggest that life seems like a designed system of reality is a far better theory if we are seeking to explain how something might have actually happened. Life gives little evidence that it can be explained by unguided and undesigned processes and forces in nature. Even the chemical components necessary for life would not necessarily be everywhere all the time. The odds against chance spontaneous generation in a protective environment are so high as to be impossible. The odds that a cell thus formed would survive to reproduce successfully would seem to be astronomical. Digestion, reproductive systems, and DNA complexities simply would not happen in the real world all at the same time without a template or a plan to guide the chemical bonds. For that cell to evolve up to a complex religious being who would willingly die for others is simply beyond the pale.
Why do evolutionists believe it? They say it is the only viable “scientific” option (by which they mean “non-theistic” option). So to avoid seeing obvious plan and design, and to avoid having to explain that the scientist cannot fully understand and examine the “accepted” scientific stance on things, the accepted scientific theory simply affirms the impossible, and people buy into it because of their respect for science (which they should have), but so goes rationality. So goes meaning. So goes hope. So goes purpose. Is it worth it to believe a lie?
L. Russ Bush, Director
Center for Faith and Culture
Box 1889
Wake Forest, NC 27588
# posted by burningbush @ 2:26 PM 
