Darwin and the Cell Have Collided. The cell’s Creator won!
Who is the cell’s Creator? There are two positions explaining the existence of the cell, only one of which can be the truth. 1) God’s Bible tells us God created the universe: heaven, Earth, sun, moon, and stars. On Earth, God Created birds, fish, animals and man in six days. (Genesis 1:1-31) Man was wonderfully and fearfully created as a fully formed man with all of his incredibly complex and intricately designed cells. Each cell began with God and His creation via the egg placed in the woman and the sperm placed in man (man calls this the zygote). 2) Evolutionists say it all happened by chance (accidentally). They suppose that after the big bang and the nebular hypothesis produced our solar system, Earth came to rest in its orbit 4.6 b-i-l-l-i-o-n years ago. Let me pause for a moment in this narrative to ask, Is this what men know because of recorded history or is that what men imagine may have occurred long ago and far away? (That’s easy, Brother Hughes. No man was alive when this all supposedly happened, so it is solely from some man’s imagination. ~RIGHT!) Okay, Earth was supposedly a hot molten mass. Since no one was around to see what happened, they speculate that it rained on the rocks of Earth for m-i-l-l-i-o-n-s of years. (Who made the rain? They do not know). Rain supposedly washed dead elements from the rocks. (What/Who first caused these elements? Evolutionists have no clue). They next imagine an ocean of dead elements formed. (Now read carefully the next assertion). They imagine that these dead elements spontaneously formed the first living cell. (How? They do not know how this first cell occurred. They also candidly admit the spontaneous generation of a living cell from non-life is impossible. And they have known this for more than one hundred years. ~Pasteur 1856; Wald 1954) This first imagined cell is guessed to have slowly (over m-i-l-l-i-o-n-s of years) changed from a tiny microscopic pre bacterial type cell to the complex cell of man and man himself. Also, they speculate the cell was able to become more complex and have various functions formed the under water plants, the horse with his hoof, the bird with his wings, the bee with his ability to gather nectar and make honey and at the same time develop into fish, cockroach and man. Somewhere along the line making changes in the way it reproduced, several times, from the passive pollen on plants to the active sperm in the donkey and man. This is all supposed to have happened through an accidental process, that did not KNOW what it was producing. Yet, the result was two perfectly matched, complimentary life forms: male and female. But, let us stop and think for a moment. What is the possibility of accidental chance making a male that has sperm, while making an egg in a complimentary but opposite woman. They contend that by accident some unguided process made the male delivery system and at the same time, the female receiving device. And at the very same time accidentally produced the many processes that would deliver the male and female counterparts and at the same time have accidentally produced the place for the baby to accidentally develop into an offspring. And, of course at the same time, having produced in the female the ability to nurture and produce a living offspring and the bodily devices to allow the mother to give birth.
On the other hand, the Bible tells us God planned this to happen and created the male and the female according to His plan and design. This was all intended by a loving God. Only one of these two explanations can be correct. The Bible explanation and big-bang evolution are in direct and total contradiction one to the other. Perhaps we can determine which one is true by focusing on the basis of all life . . . the cell.
The Cell The cell is the basic unit of all life. All living matter: plants, fish, reptiles, birds, mammals and humans are composed of cells. The creationist and evolutionist agree that IF evolution was true, the process (Darwin imagined) would have had to start in the cell. Darwinians believed the cell was an uncomplicated, simple blob of protoplasm with some sort of nucleus. Darwin and his confederates did not realize the incredible complexity and irreducibility of the cell, which 21st century science has revealed. This complexity and irreducibility clearly argues against Darwin's imagined ideas of slow, incremental changes from simple to complex. Allow me to explain.
As to complexity, Dr. Jerry Bergman, (PhD in Evaluation & Research as well as a PhD in Human Biology) writes:
Scientists once argued that [early cellular] life was relatively simple, could spontaneously generate, and regularly did so. They now realize the human cell is the most complex machine known in the universe, far more complex than the most expensive computer and that life couldn't evolve but must have been created instantly as a fully functioning unit. (In Six Days, chapter 2, p.29 Master Books Green Forest, AR 2001 A.D.)
A Theory in Crisis: Next, we hear the story of Dr. Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry, at Lehigh University. He was an avowed evolutionist. However, in the late 1980s he read Evolution, a Theory in Crisis (Michael Denton 1985 A.D.) As Dr. Behe read of all the weakness and problems in evolution, he became upset. So he set out to prove or disprove Darwin's evolution at the biochemical cellular level. This resulted in his book entitled Darwin's Black Box (the biochemical challenge to Evolution]) [Simon & Schuster NY -1996 A.D.] In that work, Dr. Behe introduced the concept of "irreducibility." Dr. Behe, focusing on the small bacterium cell, points out the wondrous complexity and irreducibility of the bacteria cell.
Irreducibility: Irreducibility is a concept in science that makes a statement about the ability of a unit, such as a cell, to function. The unit, or in this example the cell, cannot function unless several co-dependent parts exist and are operating. Professor Behe gave an example of irreducibility: the mousetrap. You must have all the parts of the mousetrap for it to work and catch mice. A mousetrap, without a spring, will not catch a mouse. If it is missing the bait holder, no mice will be attracted. If missing one part (no matter how unimportant the part may seem to be) without all parts the mousetrap is not a functional unit. The mousetrap, for its assigned purpose of catching mice, is irreducibly complex. A cell is similar in that many parts are needed before it can be alive. If one part is not functioning, it (mousetrap or cell or other unit) will not work. It is an irreducible unit that will not work until at the all the co-dependent parts function.
Complexity: The cell is irreducible, as just explained [fn]. The cell is also wondrously complex. To function the cell must have amino acids, proteins, protein chains, membrane, vesicle, cytoplasm, endo plasmic reticulum, lysosome, the nucleus, golgli complex, ribosomes, a nuclear envelope, nuclear pores, nucleolus, et cetera. All of these parts must be alive. They cannot be alive outside of the cell. They cannot be alive without all of the other parts fully functioning. They also need a blood supply, enzymes, nutrients and digestion, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. But, none of these will know where to work or how to operate without the information or master plan or blue print. This master building information is contained in the DNA. No DNA . . . no cell. DNA is thus an enormous problem for evolution.
Let us remember Mr. Darwin’s imagined evolution. Mr. Darwin said that every living thing came from a simple uncomplicated form to a much more complex form. Mr. Darwin said this happened, step by small step over vast periods and over numerous generations. But, the cell is the basic unit of life. The cell is already horrendously complex. If complexity itself is not enough, there is the problem of the co-dependency of DNA and the cell.
DNA: Admittedly Mr. Darwin had no idea that DNA existed. Yet, DNA is a disastrous problem for evolution because of the impossibility of an evolutionary process of DNA and cell. DNA is what makes up a cell, but DNA only resides and lives in a completed cell. The DNA and its residence is enormous problem for evolution.
Most scientists, evolutionary and creationist, agree that the information for building all (or any part of the cell) is deposited in the DNA. To use a building analogy, the DNA is, has, and transmits all building instructions. DNA is the master blue print, the intermediary to the Architect and the general contractor for the cell (or house). The blue print contains all the information for building everything from the foundation to the roof. It contains the location and placement of windows and doors. Information on the master plan shows the location and design of the interior rooms; the placement of electrical, plumbing, heating and cooling; the location of sinks, tubs, and kitchen appliances. Without the master plan of DNA the cell (house) cannot be built. Then there is the residence of DNA. The residence? Yes, the place DNA resides.
We admit: the cell cannot begin to be built or exist without DNA. DNA has to already exist to tell the cell how to be built. DNA is there when the cell is built. BUT, DNA can only exist (be alive) inside an already fully constructed, fully completed, fully functional and living cell. Do you begin to see the problem?
Also, DNA does not live just anyplace in the cell. It has a special interior place where it lives in all multi celled organisms. That place is called the nucleus. Thus, DNA lives in an interior room. In our building analogy, it could be in the kitchen. The DNA cannot live in this kitchen, until it is totally completed. The house (foundation to hold up the building, exterior walls, windows, doors, electrical, plumbing, heating-and-cooling systems have to be in place. The kitchen appliances, refrigerator, freezer, stove and oven, dish washer, and sinks; the cupboards, shelves, counters, counter tops, drawers, table, chairs, would all have to be in place and fully built, down to the last small screw or nail) before DNA could or would move into the house. DNA (that has to exist before the cell is built) only lives in the completed and fully functioning cell interior (nucleus) in an already existing cell.
DID YOU UNDERSTAND? The cell cannot begin to exist without DNA. BUT, DNA can only exist (be alive) inside of an already living cell. Which came first the DNA or the cell? The answer: neither. The Creator of the cell and DNA was. HE created the cell with the DNA inside. I will try one more time to see that you understand. (Smile)
DNA (deoxyribonucleic-acid) [fn] is necessary for every living cell. The awesomely complex DNA polymer is found in the microscopic bacterium and also DNA is in the cell of the most intelligent human brain. The vast majority of the scientific community agrees that DNA is “the” storehouse for all information of the cell. Secondly, it is agreed: the blue print information found in the DNA is necessary to produce any part of, and the totality of, the cell. DNA must exist before a cell can form. Thirdly: that, for DNA to exist, the cell must already be in existence since the DNA resides always in a cell (and almost always) in the nucleus of the already completed and existing cell. So, we have to ask ourselves significant questions?
1. How could a cell evolve from DNA since the DNA can only live in a cell? 2. OR how could DNA evolve from a cell, since the cell cannot be built, exist, be alive or know how to function without DNA’s master plan?
You must realize that when Mr. Darwin wrote Origin of Species (1859), he ignored the cell and its importance. It is not even defined in his glossary of terms. This indicates the lack of understanding of the “father of modern evolution” of the extreme importance of the cell in the development of life. Mr. Darwin’s pronouncements were rather simplistic, Mr. Darwin wrote:
Looking to the first dawn of life, when all organic beings, as we may believe, presented the simplest structure, how, it has been asked, could the first steps in the advancement or differentiation of parts have arisen? . . . But as we have no facts to guide us, speculation on the subject is almost useless. . . . (Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species, By Means of Natural Selection, For the Preservation of Favoured Races, in the Struggle for Life. John Murray London 1859 A.D.)
In the 21st century all agree that the cell and the DNA is where the battle lines are drawn in the war between the non-God naturalism (polite word for atheism) and Biblical creationism. The creationist points out that the cell is fearfully and wonderfully made by God, The Intelligent Designer. Evolutionist Professor Richard Dawkins, although believing he will one day find a naturalistic explanation, admits the evidence looks as if their was a design and a Designer (Creator): "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Dawkins, Prof Richard: The Blind Watchmaker (Norton Paperback, New York 1987 first published in London 1985 A.D.)
Richard Dawkins, professor of zoology Oxford University, (The Blind Watchmaker) further concedes that each and every plant or animal cell houses massive genetic codes (DNA). In the cell is: "a digitally coded database larger, in information content, than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together." Ibid.
Professor Dawkins says given enough time, he believes, natural selection could have worked on random mutations to produce the cell and the genetic code. (This had been disputed by MIT professor Murray Eden since 1966) And Professor Philip Johnson, Berkeley Law School professor, writes, refuting that the cell (or life) could have occurred through naturalistic processes: “Undirected material processes do not write encyclopedias, no matter how much time is available.” http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/crebw98.htm (2007A.D.)
Irreducibility alone shows Darwin’s imagination was wrong. There can be no development from simple to complex. The cell is already awesomely complex and, if any essential “parts” of the cell are missing or not working, the cell cannot live. There is no simple to complex direction in which evolution (if it were true) could work. Molecular biologist, Dr. Behe, states a cell is incredibly complex and irreducible (all parts are necessary for it to have viability) Thus, Dr. Behe (rejecting Darwinian evolution) concluded:
. . . The simplicity that was once expected to be the foundation of life has proven to be a phantom: instead, systems of horrendous, irreducible complexity inhabit the cell. The resulting realization that life was designed by an intelligence is a shock to us . . . (Behe, Dr. M., Darwin’s Black Box, Chapter 11, p. 252 Simon & Schuster NY - 1996 A.D.)
Dr. Behe deduces evolution could not have produced the cell. WHY? 1) There is no simple part that can evolve to more complex. 2) all parts must be functioning (it is irreducible) for the cell to have life. For Darwin to have been correct the cell would have had to be a device or mechanism that was simple, that lent itself to evolve from simple to complex. With irreducible complexity, (many intricate, co-dependent parts) the cell cannot evolve from simple to complex. The cell is and must be awesomely complex to have life. Therefore, Darwin’s imagination was wrong as to the first cell.
That’s Shocking News: It shocks most people to learn that at the primary level of life, the construction of the basic cell, scientific evidence is against Darwin’s evolution (slow incremental changes from simple to complex with natural selection).
This is crucial since if evolution cannot work in the primary form of life (cells) . . . evolution . . . does not work . . . anywhere! In rejecting evolution of the human body, Dr. Behe stated:
No one at Harvard University, no one at the National Institutes of Health, no member of the National Academy of Sciences, no Nobel prize winner- no one at all can give a detailed account of how the cilium, or vision, or blood clotting, or any complex biological process might have developed in a Darwinian fashion. But here we are. Plants and animals are here. The complex systems are here. All these things got here somehow: if not in the Darwinian fashion, then how? (Behe Dr. M., Darwin’s Black Box, Chapter 9, Intelligent Design p.187 Simon & Schuster NY 1996 A.D.)
The Protein: Let us continue our search for the truth with the construction of the protein. Why the protein? As you will remember from high school science, all cells contain proteins. Proteins are composed of amino acids. The question then is: Is it possible for Darwin’s evolution to produce the requisite amino acid chains to form a single viable (living, alive) protein? If the answer is “no” to this question, if evolution cannot produce the protein, it cannot begin the process to make the cell. If evolution cannot make a cell or it cannot make a new species. Thus, it CANNOT be the agent for species change. Species change by the neo-Darwinian imagination is now conceded to have to occur at the DNA or cell level. [fn]
Dr. Thomas Kindell, a creationist, reports that Howard Moskowitz (an evolutionist) of Yale long ago established that the smallest replicable protein is made up of 445 amino acids. There are several of these proteins in the smallest cell and most are much more complicated than this small protein. BUT, we will focus on this small protein and its amino acids.
In the protein there are about 8% nonessential amino acids that use either left or right handed amino acids. That leaves 410 regular amino acids to make up the one protein. Okay so far?
Remember that the protein is utterly worthless by itself and needs many proteins and other macro molecules working with it for the cell to have viability (to be alive). We isolate this one protein, for our inquiry. We then ask the question: can random Darwinian (neo-Darwinian) evolution produce the protein chain from already existing amino acids? (Who created the amino acids is not being considered).
Amino acids are depicted by molecular scientists as being in right-handed or left-handed. It has to do with the placement of the hydrogen (H) atom in relationship to the central carbon (C) atom. On left-handed amino acids, the hydrogen atom (H) is to the left of the carbon atom (C). Otherwise, the two are identical in structure. (Reprint from the internet. The web site or page is: http://www-space.arc.nasa.gov/~astrochm/aachiral.html
Right and left handed amino acids are produced in about the same numbers. Right-handed and left-handed can adhere one to the other. Thus in a random world of neo-Darwinian chance you expect them to adhere randomly approximately one half left-handed, one half right-handed. In a random neo-Darwinian chain of four hundred ten amino acids there should be approximately two hundred-five right-handed and two hundred-five left-handed amino acids. Also we see that when amino acids are allowed to mingle in lab tests they adhere left and right in about equal numbers. Is that what is necessary to form a protein? NO! All proteins are constructed of left-handed amino acids. What?
Amino acids must bind together against all laws of probability, and against neo-Darwinian random chance formation, to form one single protein. Why? Because instead of about 50% right handed amino acids, they cannot have right handed amino acids in the 410 amino acid chain.
Probabilities: - One cannot appreciate the difficulty for evolution (Darwinian or neo-Darwinian) and how daunting are the odds against an event happening, unless one has a basic understanding of the mathematical probabilities. A word of explanation:
Suppose you had eighty-four (84) white balls that each had its own number (such as ➀➁➂ up to 84) painted on them in black. Now if I threw up one ball into the air with the number 1 painted on it, when it came down it would line up as 1. There would be a 1 in 1 chance of it being correct. ➀ Okay? Okay.
Now suppose I threw up two balls numbered 1 and 2. What are the chances that it would come down lined up 1,2? The chances are 1 in 2. Every second time it should come down as 1,2. Now we move to four balls, numbered 1,2,3,4.
If you throw up the balls 1,2,3,4, what are the chances they will come down in order 1,2,3,4? Using math you multiply the numbers, 1x2x3x4=24. Therefore, it is a 1 in 24 chances that the balls will come down lined up 1,2,3,4. The other 23 times the balls will come down 2,3,1,4 or 4,2,3,1 or 3,4,1,2, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
When you come to eight balls, it is 1x2x3x4x5x6x7x8= 40,320. The balls will line up in proper perfect sequence only once in 40,320 attempts. So you would expect for them to line up only once in every 40,320 attempts. How do you like those odds against you?
When we move to as few as eighty-four (84) balls, the numbers are so astronomical against a proper chance occurrence so that the mathematicians call it mathematically zero probable. [fn] Any number greater than 84 balls or connections that must line up in perfect, proper sequence is said to be zero probable, i.e., it will not happen. A protein chain must have 410 left-handed amino acids in a row, (far more than 84). There can be no right handed amino acids in this viable protein. This occurrence is beyond the realm of mathematical probability.
Laws of Chance: What are the chances a chain of 410 amino acids could happen by random, undirected, Godless chance? Since we have two choices, left-handed or right handed amino acids, let us look at the example of a two-possibility random choice experiment: a coin toss. Flip a coin 410 times (the minimum number of amino acids) with a 50% chance of a head or a tail (or a right-handed or a left handed amino acid), how many of the flips (amino acids) would be “heads” (left handed amino acids)?
If you answered approximately two hundred five or about half, you would be correct. However, if you had even a few “tails” or right handed amino acids (let alone the two hundred plus (200+) right-handed amino acids you would expect by the laws of random chance) the protein would die. Or a better explanation is that it would not form as a protein. A protein requires 100% left handed amino acids. Neo-Darwinian random chance cannot provide the necessary four hundred ten left handed amino acids in a row to produce this protein. [fn]
Can unintelligent, unguided neo-Darwinian random chance be expected to select the 410 in a row, against the laws of random chance and probability, so as to make a protein? No. NO. Four-hundred-ten times: NO! There had to be “Intelligence” guiding them.
Brother Hughes, “How do we know that we had to have “Intelligence” create the amino acids chain?” We know because you need 100 percent left-handed amino acids in the chain. And you will need 410 in a row. Chance and the laws of probability tell us approximately one half (205) would have to be right-handed. But with any right-handed amino acids in the chain, the protein is useless (it is dead). Thus, since ALL biological proteins are constructed exclusively (100 %) with left-handed amino acid chains, it cannot happen by the laws of chance relied upon by neo-Darwinists.
The odds against the 410 all being left handed amino acids in a row are so great there is said to be a zero chance occurrence or have a zero probability. This is the closest mathematics comes to saying “it’s impossible.” How impossible Brother Hughes?
Dr. Thomas J. Kindell states:
. . . Instead of just one person flipping pennies we will replace all the atoms in the known universe (not just Earth’s) with tiny atom sized people who are each able to flip tiny pennies at the speed of 410,000 times per second. Working day and night at this fantastic speed it would take about 31 quadrillion years before even one of these people could reasonably be expected to flip 410 “heads” in a row. Of course expecting chance to accomplish this task in a mere 20 billion years is like asking an athlete to run the marathon (26 miles) in less than one second. (Dr. Thomas J. Kindell, Evolution on Trial -p.73 (1996 A.D.) (www.reasonsforfaith.homstead.com )
Poor Blind and Unguided natural selection. Someone will ask about natural selection. You could end that argument by telling them that you have not yet reached a self replicating system and thus natural selection would not be involved in the first protein. If they press you into the question by talking of the first protein in a second cell, answer them along these lines. If natural selection were involved and “got lucky” and selected ninety-five left-handed amino acids in a row in the chain, then in the next ninety-five amino acids, natural selection had only three right handed amino acids in the chain, you now have zero chance of forming a protein. WHY?
You MUST have the 410 left handed amino acids in a chain. The protein will not simply ignore the right-handed ones. Right-handed ones are fatal to its compilation. The mere presence of right-handed amino acids in the 410 chain, renders the protein unviable (dead) or in actuality, non existent.
Probabilities and The Lottery: Okay, let us apply this to something we hear about every week of our life: the State or Multi State Lottery.
We have heard of some people winning a state lottery a second time in the same decade. Once we heard that the same person won a state lottery twice in the same year. In 2005 A.D. we heard about a lady who had won a million dollars on the same slot machine in a casino in slightly more than one year. Those stories made headlines in the newspapers. Why? It is against astronomical odds or chance. [fn]
Yet, evolutionists ask us to believe blind, random chance natural selection can make selections equivalent to the same person winning the state lottery by chance, every week for more than five years. We KNOW that is preposterous without some intelligence helping. After the third or fourth weeks we would scream: “FIX!”
We would be correct. No one could randomly win over and over and over again. We therefore must conclude that for there to be these proper connections in the amino acids to make up a protein [fn] the fix is on! There must be “Intelligence” directing. Christians know that this Intelligence is God. ☺☻
This necessity of 410 exclusively left handed amino acids in a row is overwhelming evidence against neo-Darwinian chance evolution. Do you now understand why?
Neo Darwinian evolution is supposed to operate by the laws of random chance NOT against the laws of random chance. WHAT? Could you repeat yourself? (Selah)
Many evolutionists now conclude neither random chance nor unguided natural selection could cause the amino acid linking. Thus, Darwin’s imagined evolution [fn] is impossible at the very basic level of life. Chance cannot produce the amino acid chain to make this protein. Many former evolutionists now agree with the conclusion of Cambridge’s Sir Fred Hoyle (1915-2001 A.D.) made almost twenty years before the turn of the 21st century:
"How the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection managed, for upwards of a century, to fasten itself like a superstition on so called enlightened opinion? Why is the theory still defended so vigorously? Personally, I have little doubt that scientific historians of the future will find it mysterious that a theory which could be seen to be unworkable came to be so widely believed." (Hoyle, Sir Fred, PhD. The Intelligent Universe, Holt, Rineheart & Winston, NY [1984] p.25)
Conclusion: The conclusion, reached by many evolutionists and almost all creationists, is that it is impossible for evolution to work in the production of the simplest protein, of which countless chains make up the proteins of the basic cell. Thus we see evolution has failed in the basic cell and in the make up of the necessary component of a protein. Yet, there is another fatal problem for random-chance evolution that had been known since 1973 A.D.
The left-handed amino acid problem is compounded by the fact that DNA and RNA must be constructed with exclusively “right-handed” sugars in order to have biological usefulness. (J. Brooks & G. Shaw, Origins and Development of Living Systems p. 360 (1973 A.D.)
We have seen Darwin’s dreamed up evolution and/or neo-Darwinian evolution (IF evolution was true) would fail in its attempt to produce a cell, or the first protein for a cell. And what about DNA?
The massive information in DNA genetic codes [fn] is necessary for the cell to exist (or come into being). The cell cannot exist without the DNA being present and fully functional. Yet the DNA can only exist within an interior room (nucleus) of a living cell. This is a devastating problem for evolution.
Therefore we find that Darwin’s simple to complex, slowly changing evolution is not true. The cell is intricate and more complex than a computer, an jumbo jet, or the tallest commercial building in the largest cities. So much for simple to complex.
A companion problem for Mr. Darwin is the fact of irreducibility. Mr. Darwin said that all things go from simple to complex, step by small step. Yet, the cell which is the basic unit of all plant, bird, fish, animal and human life, needs to have several thousand parts that must fit together and be in existence at the same time for the cell to exist and/or function. That is the end of step by step change. All the steps have to be in existence for the basic unit of life to be or exist.
So, we have to ask ourselves, if Darwinian evolution cannot produce a cell can Darwin’s imagined evolution work at all? Can we conclude that Darwin was wrong? And if that is true, WHY is Darwinism taught in the public schools, as if it was true?
Is there any hope for Darwinism? Professor Richard Dawkins seemed to believe that if there was any hope for Mr. Darwin’s ideas, it lay in the thing Mr. Darwin labeled: natural selection. Mr. Darwin said natural selection was a process that gathered all of the favorable advantages and rejected all the injurious changes. Mr. Darwin wrote in Origin of Species, Chapter 4 (Natural Selection): can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can possibly survive~Darwin believes) that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection. Variations neither useful nor injurious would not be affected by natural selection, and would be left a fluctuating element, as perhaps we see in the species called polymorphic. Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species, By Means of Natural Selection, For the Preservation of Favoured Races, in the Struggle For Life. (6th Ed. John Murray London 1872)
Natural Selection or our Creator: Almost all evolutionists agree that mutations are necessary for evolution. Thus, 21st century scientists now concede Darwin’s imagined process (keeping the advantages, reject the injurious) would have to work in the DNA of the cell. This is where mutations occur. This is where the selection would have to be made by neo-Darwinian to make a species change. Darwin’s natural selection was supposed to work without guidance or direction. This natural selection was to select the good variations and reject the bad ones. Unguided natural selection was speculated to be a very slow, incremental, step by step process over m-i-l-l-i-o-n-s of years. Thus, a basic understanding of DNA should remove any lingering doubts about the ability of Darwin’s natural selection to have any chance to take the place of the Creator in the development of the various kinds of species one into another. Mutations or slight changes in the chemical structure of a gene occur at random and are caused by a variety of influences. Mutations occur at very low rates for individual genes, but, because of the large total number of genes in organisms, mutations are constantly occurring within a species. The majority of new mutations are deleterious because of their randomness; in fact, mutations can create lethal alleles that have phenotypic expressions which kill the organism. Because natural selection acts on phenotypes and only indirectly on genotypes, only dominant deleterious mutations can be selected against. Recessive mutations are not easily selected against because usually an organism will have one normal dominant allele that masks the deleterious mutated recessive allele. Such mutations remain in populations for long periods of time. http://www.scientia.org/cadonline/Biology/genetics/mutation.ASP
The helix strand of DNA comes apart to deliver all cell or protein building information. This coming apart and reassembling is where neo-Darwinian species changing mutations would occur and need to be selected by natural selection to make changes to produce new species. Thus it is another good test to see if evolution could select from DNA mutations, don’t you think? But, if Darwin’s species changing evolution could not work here, it could not work at all.
In an older book Not By Chance, (1997 A.D.) Lee Spetner PhD. (M.I.T.) explains the DNA helix strand.
The bases on the two strands of a DNA molecule are restricted in the way they pair with each other. The size and shape of the bases and the way they form their hydrogen bonds determine which base will pair with which. An A on one strand will pair only with a T on the other, and a C pairs only with a G.
The two strands of DNA are related in this way all along their length. Because of this restricted pairing, the bases of the two strands are said to be complimentary to each other. (Spetner, PhD, Lee. Not By Chance, Judaica Press, Brooklyn, N.Y. 1997-1998 pp. 213-215) (Image from the internet) http://occawlonline.pearsoned.com/bookbind/pubbooks/campbell/chapter16/medialib/1605a.jpgz )
Mathematical probability told us chance could not select all left-handed amino acids necessary for the protein. There we had two factors, left or right-handed amino acids and 410 connections. Darwin’s evolution is now asked to connect millions of DNA helix strand connections with two possible rungs on which to connect and additionally four connecter bases and the multiple connection points. So we have not only the two factors of the two rungs, but also the four possible connectors (a 1 in 2 plus a 1 in 4 probability x the million connections). Unguided, blind, natural selection would have to select the correct rung and also select the correct one of four connector bases for each bonding and go to the proper connection point.
Furthermore, all million connections have to be in proper perfect sequence and correct connections each time. There is no second chance. What are the chances mathematically that evolution could make the helix strand connections?
As you can imagine the odds against such a proper perfect connection on the first try and then again and again are frankly impossible. Remember that with only 84 balls or units or items the chances of it being correct on the first try are mathematically zero probable. That considers just the connections of the strands to the two rungs, not the correct one of four base connectors also.
It is well established that in the small, microscopic bacterium there are several million DNA nucleotides [fn]. When we apply probabilities to a very minimum one million exact perfect sequences needed in a DNA molecule, we ask the impossible of blind, unguided, natural selection. How can it properly choose the connections on the first try? They have to be correct on the first try or the information system (DNA) will not have viability (life). It would be an impossible task! [fn]. It is a mathematical “impossibility.” Darwin was Wrong. [fn] Also, it is against one’s common sense and logic for an unguided device (natural selection) to do this.
How DNA works in the cell: Remember: 1) DNA is the master blueprint holder for the entire cell. 2) every living form contains DNA. 3) DNA lives in the nucleus (inner part) of the cell. 4) DNA is composed of two strands like ladder sides. The sides are held together by nucleotides or bases like rungs on the ladder. The ladder is twisted. (Thus the twisted helix strands). On these strands is the information. Even with this complexity and intricacy, some may have lingering doubts about the ability or inability of Darwinian or neo-darwinian random natural selection to work in the DNA or cell. Allow us to present a rough explanation as to how DNA works in the cell.
When DNA wants to tell a certain protein to be made, it unwinds its double helix strand. Then amazingly along comes RNA from outside the nucleus (the cytoplasm) and reads the code on the DNA being displayed and copies it. The RNA leaves the nucleus goes out to the outer part of the cell (the cytoplasm) that contains proteins. There, RNA (mRNA) combines with other RNA (tRNA) to transmit the coded message to the ribosomes of the protein. Another part of the RNA attracts the proper amino acids to construct a requested protein. This all happens in seconds.
Certainly, some will say, when there are these many transactions occurring in such large numbers in a multi celled living form, many errors would be produced. It is argued, this is where natural selection would work to bring about species change. That may have been a concern for those who argued the stability of the species, until they discovered the cell has repair crews. What happens to DNA helix strand mistakes or errors.
This . . . cell contains different types of enzymes that rush to the rescue. The first group of enzymes pinpoint the incorrect or missed joint, while the next groups of enzymes have the capacity to repair the damage, take out the unacceptable section, insert correct sections and properly join the sections together. The end result is an exact duplication of the original twisted ladder, corrected or repaired to reflect the same exact sequence as programmed in the mother DNA. (I. L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong, (A Study in Probabilities) New Research Greenvale, NY 1984 p.44).
Darwin and neo-darwinism asks you to assume natural selection could select then preserve the good “chance” mistakes to change a species and make perfect proper sequence helix connections of at least one million helix strand connections, unguided by “Intelligence.” That is impossible! And now that we know most DNA errors are corrected, from what then is there to select? Add to that the propensity of the species is to reproduce itself. A species fights change. Finally we learn that a cell with too many mistakes (mutations) dies or goes out of existence. So, one concludes the impossibility of Darwin’s natural selection to take the place of Creator in the making of species.
Think about it. DNA is vastly more complicated than the protein. And the pure science of mathematical probabilities gives a probability of zero (impossible) for random neo-Darwinian chance to produce the protein. Now they are asking blind random neo-darwinian chance to connect one million proper, perfect connections of the helix strands of the DNA in the first cell on the first try. It is zero probable (impossible) for chance to produce more than 84 random choices. With the immeasurably more complicated one million connections, it is impossible for a blind random system to work at the DNA level.
Rational Belief? No. I. L. Cohen concluded that the last of the upper echelon evolutionists who actually may have rationally believed Darwin’s species changing evolutionary imagination, learned the truth with the development of the scanning electron microscope in the 1950s and 1960s. The illumination and magnification provided by the scanning electron microscope allowed science (for the first time) to be able to measure and examine the first principals of life. With this microscope, science finally had a specific idea of the blue print for all organic life, the living cell. They could see the awesome complexity of the so-called simple cell. Then, when Hoyle, Cohen, Spetner and others applied mathematical principles to the cell with all its parts, they discovered, (in mathematical terms or probabilities) that evolution, Darwinian or neo-darwinian, is an imagined concept which could not ever explain the founding of life in one single cell.
As we stated earlier the cell is fearfully and wonderfully created. In addition to the DNA in the nucleus, there is RNA outside the nucleus. RNA is also a complex chain of chemically bonded molecules in constant motion. Most cells contain many mitochondria. Mitochondria are described as power plants. Further, it is well established that mitochondria have their own DNA and RNA. There are many other parts of this complex basic building block: the cell. (Some cell parts are listed in footnote [fn])
Cohen, Spetner and Hoyle all agree that Darwin had erred. They wrote articles and books that so stated. Since then, they have been criticized, but no one has mathematically refuted them in public or peer level debate. Darwinian mathematicians could have stepped forward and challenged them. They did not. Why not? The math is correct. Mathematically, evolution of life . . . is impossible.
By the 21st century evolutionists had abandoned Darwin in throngs. Yet, Darwin continues to be taught in public school textbooks, as if it was true. Doesn’t that really upset you? It should!
So what have we learned? Darwin’s imagined ideas (evolution) cannot produce the first building block necessary for all cells: a protein. The pure objective science of mathematics teaches us it is impossible for random chance (neo-darwinian) evolution to produce the first cell. Evolution cannot connect the DNA helix strands. Further, Darwin’s natural selection cannot select from mutations that are not there. The necessary, large number of mutant changes needed for natural selection to cause a species change, would ruin (kill) the original species or at the least kill that cell and that cell would be eliminated.
Since Darwin and neo-darwinists imagination has zero probability to produce life or to preserve sufficient good mutations in DNA to facilitate species change, we conclude that chance and natural selection cannot make a new species. It is mathematically “zero probable.” This is math’s way of saying: it is impossible!
As to Darwin’s imagined evolution, Sir Fred Hoyle concluded:
Two points of principle are worth emphasis. The first is that the usually supposed logical inevitability of the theory of evolution by natural selection is quite incorrect. There is no inevitability, just the reverse. (Hoyle, Mathematics of Evolution Alcorn, Memphis, Tn. p.20 [1999A.D.])
Folks, most high ranking evolutionists now admit Darwin’s evolution is not possible for the simple bacterium’s cell. How could it work in multi-celled beings? (Medical scientists tell us the human body has approximately sixty trillion to one hundred trillion cells. [fn]) Since evolution has a zero probability in the simplest cell, it has zero probability times zero probability, times zero probability, times zero probability, et cetera in man. Stating it another way, as to human evolution, it is impossibility upon impossibility upon millions of impossibilities as high as sixty to one hundred trillion times impossible. This impossibility has been known by many upper echelon evolutionists since the 1960s. They now KNOW evolution was born and now is living only in the imagination of men. Yet, most of these men, who know Darwin’s evolution is untrue, encourage the false indoctrination of our elementary school children. Does that offend you? It should!
Darwin’s imagined ideas should be placed on the ash heap of history along with Aristotle’s earth-centered universe.
It is God, after all. If evolution is not the answer, what do scientists of the 21st century believe is the answer to the making of the cell? PhD Michael Behe, a 21st century professor at Lehigh University, wrote near the end of the 20th century, it is “intelligent design.” And perhaps, therefore “The” Intelligent Designer.
Intelligent design may mean that the ultimate explanation for life is beyond scientific explanation. That assessment is premature. But even if it is true, I would not be troubled. I don't want the best scientific explanation for the origins of life; I want the correct explanation.
Pope John Paul spoke of "theories of evolution." Right now it looks as if one of those theories involves intelligent design. (Behe, Prof. Michael J. Darwin under the Micro scope A Letter to Editor The New York Times, October 29, 1996, Page 25; Column 2; Editorial Desk)
Understand that many evolutionists, as Dr. Behe, now believe evolution could not have formed living cells. Intelligent design is the logical choice. What is the Name of that intelligent Designer? Bible believing Christians know His Name is God-Almighty. By revealing to us the complexity of the cell, God has quenched a fiery dart of your enemy, the current Darwinian ideology, which wars against God.
The Cemetery, er Seminary: When we, as Christians, ponder Who is the cell’s Creator, we should be most upset at our Bible schools, colleges, seminaries or universities, (whatever name they use). They are failing to properly equip ministers of the gospel. At the very least, seminary professors or others training ministers should have learned that since the 1980s and before, the problems in Darwinian evolution have been well known. It is not brand new information! . . . Why are we not properly equipping our young pastors? It is no wonder God declares. My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge! (Hosea 4.6) But, we never thought misinformation would come from Godly leaders and supposedly God “called” teachers.
WAKE UP!!! For the sake of the present and future generations, awake and know: God is God. God is Truth! Always has been and always will be. If you do not believe God is Truth, if you do not believe the Genesis account of creation, you need to be delivered from Darwinism. Honestly, you need God's Truth.
But, if you have learned the Truth from this essay, perhaps now you will join in, and with more conviction and understanding, echo that wonderful confession of King David.
I will praise Thee; for I am fearfully [and] wonderfully made: marvellous [are] Thy works; and [that] my soul knoweth right well. - Psalms 139:14
Yes, there are two opinions. Now you know one is an imagination, the other fact. The fact: God created man fully formed with all of his complex and intricately designed cells. The cell’s Creator and your Creator is Almighty God.