Dr. Leslie Orgel,
biochemist at the Salk Institute, California, 'Darwinism at the very beginning
of life',.New
Scientist.(newscientist.com),
April 15, 1982, p.150.."Prebiotic
soup is easy to obtain. We must next explain how a prebiotic soup of organic
molecules, including amino
acids and the organic constituents of nucleotides
evolved into a self-replicating organism. While some suggestive evidence
has been obtained, I must admit that attempts to reconstruct this evolutionary
process are extremely tentative."
p.151.."The
origin of the genetic code
is the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life and a
major conceptual
or experimental breakthrough may be needed before we can make any substantial
progress."
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
David E. Green, Institute
for Enzyme Research, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA, and Robert
F. Goldberger, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA,.Molecular
Insights into the Living Process, Academic Press, New York, 1967, pp.
406-407.."However,
the macromolecule
to cell
transition
is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable
hypothesis.
In this area all is conjecture.
The available facts do not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose
on this planet. This is not to say that some paraphysical.(para
= beside, near, alongside, beyond).forces
were at work. We simply wish to point out the fact that there is no scientific
evidence. The physicist
has learned to avoid trying to specify when time began and when matter
was created, except within the framework of frank.speculation.
The origin of the precursor
cell appears to fall into the same category
of unknowables."
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
John A. Eddy, Ph.D. (astrogeophysics),
Solar Astronomer at the High Altitude Observatory at Boulder, Colorado.
As reported by R. G. Kazman, 'It's about time: 4.5 billion years', a report
on a symposium at the Louisiana State University..Geotimes,
vol. 23, September 1978, p. 18.."There
is no evidence based solely on solar observations, Eddy stated, that the
Sun is 4.5 to 5 billion years old. I suspect, he said, that the Sun is
4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to
the contrary and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment,
I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher's value for the age of
the Earth and Sun. I don't think we have much in the way of observational
evidence in astronomy to conflict
with that."
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
As reported by Roger
Lewin, 'Evolutionary theory under fire',.Science,
vol. 210, 4472, November 21, 1980, p. 883.."The
central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying
microevolution
can be extrapolated
to explain the phenomena
of macroevolution. At the
risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting,
the answer can be given as a clear, No."
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
Professor Sir Edmund R. Leach,
addressing the 1981 Annual Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement
of Science. "Men, bishops and apes",.Nature,
vol. 293, September 3, 1981, pages.19,20."Missing
links in the sequence
of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin.
He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing
and seem likely to remain so. What we are to make of that fact is still
open to debate, but today it is the conventional
neo-Darwinians who appear as the conservative bigots
and the unorthodox
neo-Sedgwickians.(those
believing insects such as spiders came from worms, after the work of Adam
Sedgwick, 1854-1913).who
rate as enlightened rationalists
prepared to contemplate
the evidence that is plain for all to see."
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
Paul A. Moody, Ph.D., zoology,
Emeritus Professor of Natural History and Zoology, University of Vermont,
in.Introduction
to Evolution, Harper and Row, New York, second edition, 1962, p.513.."I
know the question in the minds of many of you who have followed me to this
point: 'Does not science prove that there is no Creator?' Emphatically,
science does 'not' prove that!"
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
George Wald, late Professor
of Biology, Harvard University 'The origin of life'.Scientific
American.(sciam.com),
vol. 191, 2, August 1954, Talking about Louis
Pasteur's disproof of spontaneous
generation of life. —Ed.,."We
tell this story to beginning students of biology as though it represents
a triumph of reason over mysticism. In fact it is very nearly the opposite.
The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only
alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation.
There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago
chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a 'philosophical
necessity'. Is it a symptom of a philosophical poverty of our time that
this necessity is no longer appreciated? Most modern biologists, having
reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis,
yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are
left with nothing."
o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
Harvard's Richard Lewontin
states in the.Scientific
American.(sciam.com).book.Evolution.."...the
marvelous fit of organisms to their environment ... was the chief evidence
of a Supreme Designer."
Lewontin says
that organisms."appear
to have been carefully and artfully designed".
He believes this to be a tough case for evolution to solve.
