Darwin
was a sincere and smart man, yet ignorant of reason for variation within
a species. With research spanning
25 years in his quest
for answers, Darwin amassed
evidence to support his theories,
yet the conclusive.proof
positives he needed remained elusive.
Biochemistry
has identified the molecular
basis for it by identifying the molecules
that allow for these variations and other functions.
Biochemistry is the study
of the very basis of life. Molecular evolution is not based upon scientific
authority.."There
is no publication in the scientific literature that describes how molecular
evolution of complex biochemical systems did occur or even might have occurred."....Michael
Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University, Pennsylvania.
Such is the Darwinian theory
encompassing molecular evolution today and focusing on transitional
steps in cell creation, when the true
essence
of cellular life is regulation.
That's like comparing vehicles; perhaps one a 4x4, the other a compact
car. Hmmm, they both have tires; they both have doors, etc., but one is
larger, so perhaps it progressed in design from the smaller one. This type
of reasoning says nothing about how the internal systems of each are regulated;
how one may be distinctly.advantageous,
which one exhibits higher efficiency, etc. Molecular biochemistry has answered
what Darwin called."the
mystery of mysteries", how life came to be
as it is.
Through careful measurements
and methods to mix and react chemicals, chemists have produced
proteins.and
nucleic
acids in their laboratories, by first making amino
acids and
nucleotides.
One problem for the gradualism
and natural selection
evolutionary believers is that amino acids dissolve in water.
Was there water in the prebiotic
soup from which evolutionists teach life proceeded? Would they not then
have disintegrated?
Having the chemicals in a
lab does nothing without purpose and design behind them where there is
a guiding hand ensuring the end result is according to what was in the
chemists mind to produce. Who did this 4 billion or even 39 trillion or more years ago?
From where did the chemicals
originate? "To reach a presumption
of non design requires the demonstration that a system is not irreducibly
complex, or does not have much specificity
between its components."....Michael
Behe..Albert
Einstein too!
And that's just for creating
them. To go on from there to joining amino acids together is extremely
difficult in the best equipped labs today; no equipment and labs 4 billion
years ago.."A
molecule must be removed for each amino acid and joined to the growing
protein chain and the presence of water strongly
inhibits
amino acids from forming proteins. Carefully controlled procedures are
required to produce proteins and nucleic
acids in a laboratory."....Michael
Behe.
The story many well versed
in evolutionary
tenets.tout
is about the amino acids being washed up on shore eons of time ago, where
the Sun heated them, evaporating the water to begin the coming forth of
life. This doesn't, shall we say 'hold water', as it has been shown that
heating amino acids gives a smelly dark tar, but no detectable proteins,
so necessary for life. There are staggering difficulties facing an origin
of life by natural processes idea, or to put it another way, staggering
difficulties are encountered when attempts are made to turn the fable
of Darwinian evolution into science.
Evolutionary biologists
make no attempt to test evolutionary scenarios
at the molecular level by experiment or calculation. Chemists do.
This places evolutionary
biology into the same category
as other so called 'sciences' known as behavioral,
like audiology, psychology, sociology,
etc. and is on about the same par
as
astrology. Statements made devoid
of scientific evidence don't stand up to commonsense.
Darwin observed the variation
in species. Some were larger, lighter in color, smaller, faster, etc. He
reasoned that it was limited food supplies which couldn't support all organisms
that are born. Is
the Creator limited in any way at all? The ones whose chance variation
gave them an advantage in the struggle for life would tend
to survive and reproduce, outcompeting the less favored ones. If the
variation were inherited, then the characteristics of the species would
change over time; over great periods, great changes might occur.
Darwin had trouble here too:."The
laws governing inheritance are quite unknown."
Darwin had trouble here
too and here
too.
Microscopes
in the 17th and 18th centuries.(the
1600's and 1700's).would
show very small, apparently living cells in liquid.(urine,
beer, milk).if
they were allowed to sit for several days. They became cloudy from something
growing in them. So it seemed reasonable.(to
those not seeing the bigger picture of creation).to
presume.that
living organisms could arise spontaneously
from liquids and postulated
that life came from some a prebiotic
soup.."Darwin
never imagined the exquisitely.profound
complexity that exists at the most basic levels of life, as evidenced by
his accounting
in his theory for his starting points, the origin of life and the origin
of vision."....Michael
Behe.
I mean, really, you just
have to question the intelligence
of anyone selecting the swamp
goo explanation for the beginning of life over the Creator created
us explanation.
Evolutionary theory presumed
cells were simple and so it could point to animals with different kinds
of eyes, etc. As to observation of these processes, imagination drastically
influenced their conclusions. All the while a quest
toward any pathway that evolution might have used to make a complex function
such as the eye, etc. was avoided; unavoidably so, in ignorance of the
science we have today.
