by Bill Nugent
The letter below is the text of an email I sent to a defender of evolution who had responded harshly to an article I posted to a creation versus evolution debate group. Debates with evolutionists over the Internet can be very lively and freewheeling. It is best to stick with tightly reasoned, concise arguments and be prepared for some nasty rebuttals from the evolutionists. I haven’t yet had one climb through the computer screen and hit me. I will hasten to point out that not all evolutionists respond with nastiness.The email below is slightly edited and the name of recipient is changed. Bill’s reply to Larry:
Larry, you replied with shrillness to my sober, rational argument that “simple” life forms such as bacteria are far too intricate and complex to have formed by unguided processes in the primordial ooze. You even stepped over the line and used the “s” word in this debate. The losing side in any debate tends to be the side that resorts to insults and sarcasm.
This is but further evidence that the very foundation of evolution is crumbling. The foundation of evolution is the claim that the first living cell formed by random collisions of atoms in the primordial ooze. This has been called spontaneous generation, chemical evolution, proto-evolution and abiogenesis. Contrary to your protests, I can document that the probability of proteins forming in the primordial ooze has been calculated by not just one but by several of the greatest minds in science. Men like Hoyle, Crick, Wickramasinghe and the microbiologist Harold Morowitz have performed probability analyses.
Even the building blocks of cells such as proteins are very complex molecules. A simple cell requires at least 200 distinct varieties of protein and each protein typically contains over 400 amino acids arranged in precise order. Scientists, including those listed above have done rigorous probability analyses and found that even the proteins could not form by unguided processes in a trillion years if the whole universe consisted of primordial ooze.
Can you imagine 200 varieties of protein forming all at once in the same place and then randomly coalescing to form a living entity of some kind and this living thing would be self replicating? The truth is that the proteins would never form in the first place because these long chain organic molecules are very fragile and would break apart as they form and never completely form. It is overly generous to assign any probability to such complex molecules forming and remaining stable long enough to randomly assemble into a living cell.
Some like Dawkins have said that complex molecules randomly form and some of these molecules are self replicating. But even viruses which are living things and have long, complex DNA are not even self replicating but must take over the replicating machinery of cells in order to reproduce!
In the early days of evolution Darwin and others thought cells were just little bags of fluid with a dot (nucleus) in the center. The evolutionists boldly claimed that natural processes can explain all of existence. Now we know that bacteria are infinitely more complex than first thought. I’ve read of some of the origin-of-life theories put forward by today’s evolutionists. Affinity theory has been proven wrong and currently there is no theory in general acceptance among origin-of-life scientists. They can’t even agree with each other and the theories they offer are so far fetched as to offer only unintended humor.
Nowadays evolutionists implicitly say “just trust us, give us time, we can’t explain how the first cell formed but we know it formed!” In other words they ask people to make a faith commitment to them. It’s really a religious commitment, a commitment to the secular faith. Evolution is the origins myth of the secular faith. The secular faith offers no moral code and that’s why the morals of our country are in such steep decline.
It is a FACT that bacteria and viruses are more complex than the computer you’re using to read this. It is a FACT that bio-polymers like proteins, to say nothing of DNA and RNA are also very complex. The foundation of evolution is crumbling and microbiology is the wrecking ball.
Shall I bring up the subject of genetics and explain at length how it too is a wrecking ball to evolution? What about Mueller’s fruit fly experiments where he irradiated fruit flies and watched as no uphill change for the better occurred over hundreds of generations? The overwhelming majority of genetic mutations are disadvantageous.
Bioinformatics expert Dr. Lee Spetner has shown that out of hundreds of genetic mutations studied, none of the mutations caused addition of chemical base pairs to the DNA but just rearranged preexisting ones or deleted them. For uphill change in an organism, such as a reptile gaining feathers to evolve into a bird, new information, consisting of base pairs, must be added to the DNA. Mutations don’t do this in any practical way. For further study on this I recommend Spetner’s book Not By Chance (Judaica Press).
Microbiology and genetics deal evolution two death blows before we even get to the fossil record. The fossil record is an arena more open to subjective analysis and opinion making and posturing. It is not necessary for me to venture there in this short letter but it’s hardly necessary since evolution is demolished by microbiology and genetics. Let me point out in passing that evolution predicts that millions of transitional forms should be found in the fossil record. It is reasonable to expect that at least one transitional form be found for each of the several million species. Yet there are only a few dozen fossils that evolutionists have found that they can tweak into a case for transitional form and even then the cases are not airtight. Microbiology and genetics are airtight and they both demolish evolution.
I ask that you, Larry, in your response to this, to give sound rational answers and lay off the insults and sarcasm.