Abiogenesis Impossible

[Guest guest]

There was a time when spontaneous generation was believed to produce

life. Worms developed out of putrid flesh, lice from dirt, frogs from

the mud of pools, etc. But Pasteur’s experiments demolished that

theory.

 

During Pasteur’s time the debate in the scientific community was

heated. To confront the proponents of spontaneous generation was a

real challenge. But as a result of what he had learned in his research

on fermentation, Pasteur was confident. So he undertook experiments

intended to put an end to the idea of spontaneous generation once and

for all. Later, on a spring evening in April 1864, an audience present

at a meeting hall at the Sorbonne University in Paris heard a

masterful presentation before a commission of scientists, Louis

Pasteur successfully refuted, point by point, the theory of

spontaneous generation. François Dagognet, a French philosopher

specializing in the sciences, observes that Pasteur’s "adversaries,

both materialists and atheists, believed that they could prove that a

unicellular organism could result from decomposing molecules. This

allowed them to take God out of creation. However, as far as Pasteur

was concerned, there was no possible passage from death to life."

 

Charles Darwin’s book The Origin of Species was published in 1859. It

did not comment on abiogenesis. It was T. H. Huxley, an ardent and

eloquent supporter who coined the word "abiogenesis". If it is argued

that abiogenesis does not occur now but did occur in bygone ages, that

is merely speculation. It is not a scientific argument, since it would

not be based upon observation and experiment, but rather upon blind

assertions that can neither be observed nor proved.

 

Harold Morowitz, a Yale University physicist, has calculated that the

chances of getting the simplest living bacterium by random changes is

1 in 1 followed by 100,000,000,000 zeros. "This number is so large,"

Shapiro said, "that to write it in conventional form we would require

several hundred thousand blank books." He charges that scientists

committed to the chemical evolution of life ignore the increasing

evidence and "have chosen to hold it as a truth beyond question,

thereby enshrining it as mythology" -Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the

Creation of Life on Earth, by Robert Shapiro, 1986 , pp. 32, 49, 128.

 

There must be a membrane enclosing the cell. But this membrane is

extremely complex, made up of protein, sugar and fat molecules. Bernal

says, in The Origin of Life: ‘What we lack still, as mentioned

earlier, is a plausible model for the origin of fats." (Page 145)

Without the fats there could be no membrane; without the membrane, no

living organisms. But to form the membrane a "protein synthetic

apparatus" is needed, and this "protein synthetic apparatus" can

function only if it is held together by a membrane. - Evolution: A

Theory in Crisis, by Michael Denton, 1985, p.168

 

Five histones are involved in DNA (histones are thought to be involved

in governing the activity of genes). The chance of forming even the

simplest of these histones is said to be one in 20100—another huge

number "larger than the total of all the atoms in all the stars and

galaxies visible in the largest astronomical telescopes." - Evolution

>From Space, by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981 p.27

 

Yet greater difficulties for evolutionary theory involve the origin of

the complete genetic code—a requirement for cell reproduction. The old

puzzle of ‘the chicken or the egg’ rears its head relative to proteins

and DNA. Hitching says: "Proteins depend on DNA for their formation.

But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein."-The Neck of the

Giraffe, by Francis Hitching, 1982

 

Nature magazine, in an article entitled "Real Engines of Creation,"

reported the discovery of tiny motors within each cell of the body.

These rotate to create adenosine triphosphate, the power source of

cells. One scientist mused: "What can we do when we learn how to

design and build molecular machine systems that are similar to the

molecular systems we find in cells?"

 

To get some idea of the enormous complexity of a cell, consider that

each one is made up of trillions of much smaller units called

molecules. Yet, when scientists observe the structure of a cell, they

find tremendous order and evidence of design. Philip Hanawalt,

assistant professor of genetics and molecular biology at Stanford

University, says: "The normal growth of even the simplest living cell

requires that tens of thousands of chemical reactions occur in

coordinated fashion." He also states: "The programmed accomplishments

of these tiny chemical factories go far beyond the capabilities of the

scientist in his laboratory."

 

What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random

in an organic soup? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in

10113 (1 followed by 113 zeros). But any event that has one chance in

just 1050 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening. Not just

a few, but 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes are needed for the cell’s

activity. What are the chances of obtaining all of these at random?

One chance in 1040,000! " A typical protein has about one hundred

amino acids and contains many thousands of atoms. In its life

processes a living cell uses some 200,000 proteins. Two thousand of

them are enzymes, special proteins without which the cell cannot

survive. What are the chances of these enzymes forming at random in

the soup—if you had the soup? One chance in 1040,000. This is 1

followed by 40,000 zeros. Written out in full, it would fill 14 pages

of this magazine. Or, stated differently, the chance is the same as

rolling dice and getting 50,000 sixes in a row. And that is for only

2,000 of the 200,000 needed for a living cell. -The Intelligent

Universe, by Fred Hoyle, 1983, pp. 12-17. So to get them all, roll

5,000,000 more sixes in a row! "Whenever two amino acids unite, a

water molecule is released. Two molecules of water must be set free in

assembling a nucleotide from its components, and additional water is

released in combining nucleotides to form nucleic acids.

Unfortunately, the formation of water in an environment that is full

of it is the chemical equivalent of bringing sand to the Sahara. It is

unfavorable, and requires the expenditure of energy. Such processes do

not readily take place on their own. In fact, the reverse reactions

are the ones that occur spontaneously. Water happily attacks large

biological molecules. It pries nucleotides apart from each other,

breaks sugar-to-phosphate bonds, and severs bases from sugars." -

Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, by Robert

Shapiro, 1986, p. 173

 

The cell can function only if the complete complement of its

components are present at the same time and only if they begin their

functions simultaneously. A cell is both a case of "irreducible

complexity" (which means that none of the parts could be missing for

it to still work). But in addition, a cell is the epitome of "assigned

complexity": the complexity is made up of individual components which

are unique from each other and in their relationship in regard to one

another in order for the entire unit to work. The gulf in complexity

between a cell and a snowflake is a chasm greater than the universe in

scope. It is not just a question of adding more snowflakes in order to

add up to the same degree of complexity since there must be

differences between them relating to an assigned function and they

must all be synchronized with each other to work together

simultaneously and in the correct placements and functions. All the

snowflakes on earth, and even of the entire universe, would not equal

the complexity of a single cell since the latter works not just

because of the number of it's parts but because of the complex design

indicating what those parts accomplish when together. We could compare

the Taj Mahal with a structure-less pile of sand, except that the gulf

between a cell and anything non-living and not acted on by an

intelligence is much, much greater.

 

http://groups.msn.com/EvolutionBloopersVSGodCreates/general.msnw?actio

n=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=1856