Evolution Cruncher Chapter 7
materials on earth cannot produce life
This chapter is based on
pp. 233-263 of Origin of the Life (Volume Two of our three-volume
Evolution Disproved Series). Not included in this chapter are at least
52 statements by scientists. You
will find them, plus much more, in the 3 Volume Encyclopedia on this
1 - THE PRIMITIVE ENVIRONMENT
HOW THE THEORY TELLS IT—According to
the evolutionary theory, life began in this way:
(1) There was just the right
atmosphere—and it was totally different than the one we now have.
(2) The ground, water, or ocean where
life began had just the right combination of chemicals in it—which it
does not now have.
(3) Using an unknown source of
right amount of energy, amino acids then formed in sufficient quantities
(4) they could combine into lots of
proteins and nucleotides (complex chemical compounds).
(5) They then reformed themselves into
various organs inside a main organism.
(6) They did some careful thinking (as
with all the other points, beyond the mental abilities of even our best
scientists today), and developed a genetic code to cover thousands of
(7) At this point, they were ready to
start reproducing young. —Of course, this last point reveals that all
the previous six had to occur within the lifetime of just one bacterium.
Since microbes and bacteria do not live very long, this first one had to
think and act fast.
Charles Darwin did a lot of daydreaming
in his letters and in his book, Origin of the Species. Here was one of
his hopeful wishes, as expressed in a letter to a close friend:
"But if (and oh! what a big if!) we
could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and
phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etc., present, that a protein
compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex
changes."—*Charles Darwin, in *Francis Darwin (ed.), The Life and
Letters of Charles Darwin (1887 ed.), p. 202 (the parenthetical comment
is his also).
*Darwin was totally puzzled as to how
even one of the plant or animal species could have originated, much less
the millions we have today. Yet he wrote a book which, according to the
title, explained the problem. An ardent evolutionist refers to the
"Since Darwin’s seminal work was
called The Origin of Species one might reasonably suppose that his
theory had explained this central aspect of evolution or at least made a
shot at it, even if it had not resolved the larger issues we have
discussed up to now. Curiously enough, this is not the case. As
Professor Ernst Mayr of Harvard, the doyen [senior member] of species
studies, once remarked, the ‘book called The Origin of Species is not
really on that subject,’ while his colleague Professor Simpson admits:
‘Darwin failed to solve the problem indicated by the title of his
"You may be surprised to hear that
the origin of species remains just as much a mystery today, despite the
efforts of thousands of biologists. The topic has been the main focus of
attention and is beset by endless controversies."—*Gordon R.
Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 140.
One of the greatest scientists of the
last 200 years said this about the possibility of life making itself out
of water and mud:
"POND" STATEMENT—Reprinted below is a page from *Charles
Darwin’s letter in which he conjectured as to the possible origin of
living creatures. That conjecture was about as far as he took the
process; for nowhere, in his Origin of the Species, is the origin
of the species discussed or even hinted at.
The present writer does not have a
printed copy of the last part of the scribbled note, below. Blanks (on
the left) represent portions difficult to decipher. The spelling and
punctuation was revised when *Francis Darwin later (1887) placed in
print an edited version of his father’s writings. (*Darwin died in the
"Mathematics and dynamics fail us
when we contemplate the earth, fitted for life but lifeless, and try to
imagine the commencement of life upon it. This certainly did not take
place by any action of chemistry, or electricity, or crystalline
grouping of molecules under the influence of force, or by any possible
kind of fortuitous concourse of atmosphere. We must pause, face to face
with the mystery and miracle of creation of living things."—Lord
Kelvin, quoted in Battle for Creation, p. 232.
OUR WORLD BEGINS—Evolutionary
theorists tell us that long ago, our world spun off from a stellar
condensation or collision of some kind. At first it was a molten mass of
very hot rock. Gradually this is supposed to have cooled over a period
of millions upon millions of years.
THE PRIMITIVE ENVIRONMENT—(*#1/20 The
Primitive Environment*) Finally it was time for life to originate by
spontaneous generation from (according to which theorist is speaking)
warm wet dirt, seashore, hot and dry dirt, ocean water, desert sand,
lake, poisonous chemicals or fumes, electrified mud puddle, a volcanic
rim, or something else. An atmosphere of some type had formed, and
occasionally lightning would strike the earth.
Scientists have tried to analyze what
conditions would have had to be like in order for spontaneous generation
of life from non-life to occur. They call this the "primitive
What were conditions like at that first
moment when life is supposed to have created itself by random chance out
of a mud hole or sloshing seawater? Evolutionists have figured this out.
Their conclusions are not only astonishing; but, in this chapter, we
will learn—they further disprove evolution!
The theorists tell us that the first
life-form developed from nothing about 4.6 billion years ago. But
*Steven Jay Gould of Harvard, one of the leading evolutionary thinkers
of the latter part of the twentieth century, maintains that there would
have been very little time for this highly improbable event to have
"We are left with very little time
between the development of suitable conditions for life on the Earth’s
surface and the origin of life . . Life apparently arose about as soon
as the Earth became cool enough to support it."—*S.J. Gould,
"An Early Start," in Natural History, February 1978.
*Fred Hoyle wrote in the November 19,
1981 issue of New Scientist, that there are 2000 complex enzymes
required for a living organism,—yet not a single one of these could
have been formed on earth by shuffling processes in even 20 billion
2 - THE ERROR OF LIFE FROM
Spontaneous Generation*) Life from non-living things is the Dark Ages
error of "spontaneous generation," an error which was not
fully eliminated until more than a century ago. Modern evolutionists
believe in and teach spontaneous generation, which they now call
biopoiesis, so students will not recognize that they are still
advocating spontaneous generation. (Earlier in the twentieth century, it
was called abiogenesis.)
In contrast, Biogenesis is the
scientific name for the important biological truth confirmed by Louis
Pasteur and others, that life can only come from life.
"Biogenesis is a term in biology
that is derived from two Greek words meaning life and birth. According
to the theory of biogenesis, living things descend only from living
things. They cannot develop spontaneously from nonliving materials.
Until comparatively recent times, scientists believed that certain tiny
forms of life, such as bacteria, arose spontaneously from non-living
substances."—*"Biogenesis," World Book Encyclopedia, p.
B-242 (1972 edition).
Spontaneous generation was believed by
many scientists, prior to the careful experiments of Spallanzani (1780),
and Pasteur (1860), which totally disproved that foolish idea. People
thought that fruit flies spontaneously came forth from fruit, geese from
barnacles, mice from dirty clothes, and bees from dead calves. Even
Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon, *Hegel, and *Shilling believed it, but that
did not make it right. Great people believing an error does not make the
Evolution teaches spontaneous
generation. Think about that for a moment. We’re returning to the Dark
apparently laid the theory of spontaneous generation to rest
permanently. All this left a germ of embarrassment for scientists. How
had life originated after all, if not through divine creation or through
"They [today’s scientists] are
back to spontaneous generation, but with a difference. The pre-Pasteur
view of spontaneous generation was of something taking place now and
quickly. The modern view is that it took place long ago and very
slowly."—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science (1984),
In contrast, true science teaches
biogenesis, which means, in general, that life can only come from life
and, specifically, that species can only come from living parents in the
same species. Speaking of *Rudolf Virchow, the Encyclopedia Britannica
"His aphorism ‘omnis cellula e
cellula’ [every cell arises from a preexisting cell] ranks with
Pasteur’s ‘omne vivum e vivo’ [every living thing arises from a
preexisting living thing] as among the most revolutionary
generalizations of biology."—*Encyclopedia Britannica, 1973
Edition, Vol. 23, p. 35.
" ‘Spontaneous generation is a
chimera [illusion].’—Louis Pasteur, French chemist and
microbiologist."—*Isaac Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature
Quotations (1988), p. 193.
INSTANT SUCCESS NECESSARY—In order for
life to arise from non-life, there would have to be instant success. All
the parts would suddenly have to be there, and all would have to
immediately function with essential perfection.
In the next chapter (chapter 8), we will
learn that, in order for life to occur, DNA and protein would have to
link up with ease into long, extremely complicated coded strings. In
addition, thousands of other complicated chemical combinations would
have to be accomplished within a few moments. How long could you live
without a beating heart? How long without blood? And on it goes, item
after item. The situation would be no different for the simplest of
life-forms. Everything would have to be in place, suddenly,—instantly.
In structure, arrangement, coordination, coding, chemical makeup,
feeding, elimination, respiration, circulation, and all the
rest,—everything would have to be perfect—right at the start!
The formation of amino acids, protein,
DNA, enzymes, and all the rest needed to form the first living creature
had to occur within an extremely short amount of time! It would all have
had to occur within far less than a single generation or even half-hour.
It would have had to occur within a single moment! Otherwise the next
moment the organism would be dead. Millions of functions had to come
together all at once.
NEEDED—Biologists are deeply concerned how that first living cell
could have originated; but *Montalenti goes a step beyond that point and
says "what really matters, to start life, is the faculty of
reproduction" (*G. Montalenti, Studies in the Philosophy of
Biology, 1974, p. 13). What good would one amoeba be, if it did not have
all the needed DNA coding and fision ability to divide, or the
reproduction ability—and a mate—to produce offspring?
3 - CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS
CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND
LABORATORIES—Complicated chemical compounds are prepared in
well-equipped laboratories, staffed by intelligent, highly skilled
workers. They do not work with the sand in the back lot, but with
shipments of specialized chemicals which arrive at their loading dock.
About all that most evolutionists offer
for the original primitive environment for the first amino acids,
proteins, etc., is dirt or seawater. Yet when scientists want to
synthesize amino acids, they go to a very well-equipped laboratory, with
instruments, gauges, apparatus, chemicals, and machines costing hundreds
of thousands of dollars. They use high-temperatures, special solutions,
sparking devices, and glass traps. They do not go down to the seashore
and start sloshing around in seawater in the hope of producing those
Because they are intelligent and highly
trained, they know to do it in million-dollar laboratories, fitted out
with expensive equipment and lots of purified chemicals. Yet, according
to evolutionary theory, seawater somehow did it by itself.
CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND THE LAW OF MASS ACTION— Evolutionists recognize that, if a life-form suddenly appeared
from nothing, it would probably have had to do it in an ancient sea. It
is generally felt that water would have had to be present.
But the Law of Mass Action would
immediately neutralize the procedure and ruin the outcome. This is
because chemical reactions always proceed in a direction from highest to
lowest concentration (assuming that the exact amount of energy is even
present to perform that reaction).
"It is therefore hard to see how
polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones]
could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean,
since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big
molecules into simpler ones] rather than
polymerization."—*Richard E. Dickerson, "Chemical Evolution
and the Origin of Life," Scientific American, September 1978, p.
We are told that amino acids
miraculously formed themselves out of seawater. But the seawater needed
to make the amino acids would prevent them from forming into protein,
lipids, nucleic acids and polysaccharides! Even if some protein could
possibly form, the law of mass action would immediately become operative
upon it. The protein would hydrolyze with the abundant water and return
back into the original amino acids! Those, in turn, would immediately
break down into separate chemicals—and that would be the end of it.
"Spontaneous dissolution is much
more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous
synthesis . . [This fact is] the most stubborn problem that confronts
us."—*George Wald, "The Origin of Life," Scientific
American, August 1954, pp. 49-50.
The law of mass action would constitute
a hindrance to protein formation in the sea as well as to the successful
formation of other life-sustaining compounds, such as lipids, nucleic
acids, and polysaccharides. If any could possibly form in water, they
would not last long enough to do anything.
This law applies to chemical reactions
which are reversible,—and thus to all life compounds. Such reactions
proceed from reactant substances to compounds produced in the manner
normally expected. But these reactions tend to reverse themselves more
easily and quickly (*"Review of R. Shubert-Soldern’s Book,
Mechanism and Vitalism," in Discovery, May 1962, p. 44).
Not just a few, but hundreds of
thousands of amino acids had to miraculously make themselves out of raw
seawater devoid of any life. But the amino acids would separate and
break up immediately and not remain in existence long enough to figure
out how to form themselves into the complex patterns of DNA and protein.
The problem here is that, as soon as the chemical reaction that made the
amino acids occurred, the excess water would have had to immediately be
reactions are thermodynamically forbidden in the presence of excess
water."—*J. Keosian, The Origin of Life, p. 74.
CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND
CONCENTRATION—(*#3/4 The Primitive
Ocean*) We never find the
concentrations of chemicals in seawater that would be needed for amino
acid synthesis. All the elements are there, but not in the proper
concentrations. Most of what is in seawater—is just water! (*H.F.
Blum, Time’s Arrow and Evolution (1968), p. 158).
CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND
PRECIPITATES—Even if water loss could occur, enzyme inhibitors would
neutralize the results. The problem here is that a powerfully
concentrated combination of chemicalized "primitive water"
would be needed to produce the materials of life,—but those very
chemicals would inhibit and quickly destroy the chemical compounds and
enzymes formed (David and Kenneth Rodabaugh, Creation Research Society
Quarterly, December 1990, p. 107).
Even if they could survive the other
problems, many organic products formed in the ocean would be removed and
rendered inactive as precipitates. For example, fatty acids would
combine with magnesium or calcium; and arginine (an amino acid),
chlorophyll and porphyrins would be absorbed by clays.
Many of the chemicals would react with
other chemicals, to form non-biologically useful products. Sugars and
amino acids, for example, are chemically incompatible when brought
The chemical compounds within living
creatures were meant to be inside them, and not outside. Outside, those
compounds are quickly destroyed, if they do not first quickly destroy
CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND FLUID
CONDENSATION—In addition to synthesis problems, there are also
condensation problems. Fats, sugars, and nucleic acids can come from the
proteins only by very careful removal of fluid, amid other equally
complicated activities conducted by the laboratory technicians. Without
water loss, proteins cannot form in water.
CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND WATER—So most
of the chemicals needed by life could not arise in a watery environment,
such as seawater. In fact, the lab technicians do their work with fluids
other than water! They do not use seawater or even regular water, when
they prepare dead amino acids. (That which they synthesize is always
dead; it never has life in it.)
"Beneath the surface of the water
there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions;
water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex
molecules."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p.
CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND ENERGY—And then
there is the problem of an energy source. Scientists know that there had
to be some form of energy to work the chemical transformations. They
generally think it would have had to be a bolt of lightning, since there
were no wall outlets back in the beginning to plug electrical cords
into. But anything struck by lightning is not enlivened, but killed!
"[Arrhenius] contends that if
actual lightning struck rather than the fairly mild [electrical]
discharges used by Miller [in making the first synthetic amino acids],
any organics that happened to be present could not have
survived."—*Report in Science News, December 1, 1973, p. 340.
CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND OXYGEN—(*#4/20
Fighting It Out Over Early Environment*) Another problem is the
atmosphere. It is a well-known fact among biochemists that the chemicals
of life will decompose if oxygen is in the air.
"First of all, we saw that the
present atmosphere, with its ozone screen and highly oxidizing
conditions, is not a suitable guide for gas-phase simulation
experiments."— *A.L Oparm, Life: Its Nature, Origin and
Development, p. 118.
Living plants and animals only have
certain proportions of the 92 elements within their bodies. These
elements are arranged in special chemical compounds. Chemists say they
have been reduced. When the chemicals found in living beings are left in
the open air, they decompose or, as the chemists say, they oxidize.
similar process occurs when iron is left in a bucket of water; it
In the presence of oxygen, these
chemicals leave the reduced (or chemical combination) state and break
down to individual chemicals again.
"The synthesis of compounds of
biological interest takes place only under reducing conditions [that is,
with no free oxygen in the atmosphere]."—*Stanley L. Miller and
*Leslie E. Orgel (1974), p. 33.
"With oxygen in the air, the first
amino acid would never have gotten started; without oxygen, it would
have been wiped out by cosmic rays."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck
of the Giraffe (1982), p. 65.
CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND SUPPLY—There
simply would not be enough other chemicals available to accomplish the
Since most biochemicals contain
nitrogen, Gish, a biochemist, has discovered that there never has been
enough concentration of nitrogen, in air and water, for amino acids to
form by themselves. It does not occur naturally in rich enough
Similar studies have been made on the
availability of phosphorus by *Bernal. There would not have been enough
phosphorus available for the many chemical combinations needed.
Phosphorus is needed for DNA and other high-energy compounds. But
phosphorus concentrations are too low.
Even worse news: *Carl Sagan found that
adenosine triphosphate (high-energy phosphate) could not possibly form
under the prebiological conditions.
CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS AND RICH
MIXTURES—Extremely rich mixture of chemicals would be required
alleged formation of the first living molecule, there ought to be places
in the world where such rich mixtures are found today, but they do not
"If there ever was a primitive
soup, then we would expect to find at least somewhere on this planet
either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various
nitrogenous organic compounds, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, and
the like, or alternatively in much metamorphosed sediments we should
find vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes . . In fact, no such materials
have been found anywhere on earth. There is, in other words, pretty good
negative evidence that there never was a primitive organic soup on this
planet that could have lasted but a brief moment."—*J. Brooks and
*G. Shaw, Origins and Development of Living Systems (1973), p. 360.
4 - PROTEIN AND OTHER SUBSTANCES
PROTEIN SYNTHESIS—Protein is a basic
constituent of all life-forms. It is composed of amino acids. There are
20 essential amino acids, none of which can produce the others. How were
these made? How could they make themselves?
First, let us examine the
simplest of them: glycine. *Hull figured out that, due to inadequate
chemicals and reaction problems, even glycine could not form by chance.
There was only a 10-27 (minus 27) concentration of the materials needed
to make it. If one glycine molecule was formed, it would have to hunt
through 1029 other molecules in the ocean before finding another glycine
to link up with! This would be equivalent to finding one person in a
crowd that is 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 times larger than all the
people on earth!
But what about the other nineteen amino
acids? Checking out the others, *Hull found that it was even less
possible for the other 19 amino acids to form. The concentration needed
for glucose, for example, would be 10-134. That is an extremely high
improbability! (*D. Hull, "Thermodynamics and Kinetics of
Spontaneous Generation," in Nature, 186, 1960, pp. 693-694).
PROTEINS AND HYDROLYSIS—Even if
protein had been made by chance from nearby chemicals in the ocean, the
water in the primitive oceans would have hydrolyzed (diluted and ruined)
the protein. The chemicals that had combined to make protein would
immediately reconnect with other nearby chemicals in the ocean water and
self-destruct the protein!
A research team, at Barlian University
in Israel, said that this complication would make the successful making
of just one protein totally impossible, mathematically. It would be 1
chance in 10157. They concluded that no proteins were ever produced by
chance on this earth.
PROTEINS AND SPONTANEOUS
DISSOLUTION—Evolutionists bank on the fact that, somehow, somewhere,
in some way,—a small bit of inorganic matter formed some amino acids.
Yet even if such an impossible event could have happened,—it would
rapidly have disintegrated away!
"In the vast majority of processes
in which we are interested, the point of equilibrium lies far over
toward the side of dissolution. That is to say, spontaneous dissolution
[automatic self-destruct process] is much more probable, and hence
proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis [accidental
put-together process] . . The situation we must face is that of patient
Penelope waiting for Odysseus, yet much worse: each night she undid the
weaving of the proceeding day, but here a night could readily undo the
work of a year or a century."— *G. Wald, "The Origin of
Life," in The Physics and Chemistry of Life (1955), p. 17.
In the world of biochemistry, automatic
dissolution is always easier than accidental
once-in-a-thousand-lifetimes putting-together. Regarding this massive
obstacle to the initial formation of life, *Wald says it is "the
most stubborn problem that confronts us" (ibid.).
FATTY ACID SYNTHESIS—Scientists are
not able to even theorize how fatty acids could originally have come
"No satisfactory synthesis of fatty
acids is at present available. The action of electric discharges on
methane and water gives fairly good yields of acetic and propionic
acids, but only small yields of the higher fatty acids. Furthermore, the
small quantities of higher fatty acids that are found are highly
branched."—*S. Miller, and *L. Orgel, The Origins of Life on the
Earth (1974), p. 98.
OTHER SYNTHESES—There is more to a
living organism than merely chemical compounds, proteins, and fatty
acids. There are also enzymes, which scientists in laboratories do not
know how to produce. Yet there are thousands of complicated, very
different enzymes in a typical animal!
There are also massive DNA and other
coding problems. Has any scientist ever synthesized even one new animal
code? No, he would have no idea how to accomplish the task successfully.
The emphasis here is on "successful." If he could interject a
new code, it would only damage the organism. Scientists are now able to
slightly adapt existing codes (genetic engineering); but they do not
invent brand new ones. The list of necessities goes on and on.
WHAT ABOUT LIFE ITSELF?—But what about
life itself? One minute after it dies, an animal still has all its
chemicals, proteins, fatty acids, enzymes, codes, and all the rest. But
it no longer has life. Scientists cannot produce life; why then should
they expect rocks and seawater to have that ability?
5 - THE PRIMITIVE ATMOSPHERE
ATMOSPHERE WITHOUT OXYGEN—Could a
non-oxygen atmosphere ever have existed on Planet Earth? It surely seems
like an impossibility, yet evolutionary theorists have decided that the
primitive environment had to have a "reducing atmosphere,"
that is, one without any oxygen. Now, the theorists do not really want
such a situation, but they know that it would be totally impossible for
the chemical compounds needed for life to be produced outside in the
open air. If oxygen was present, amino acids, etc., could not have been
formed. So, in desperation, they have decided that at some earlier time
in earth’s history, there was no oxygen! And then later it somehow got
"At that time, the ‘free’
production of organic matter by ultraviolet light was effectively turned
off and a premium was placed on alternative energy utilization
mechanisms. This was a major evolutionary crisis. I find it remarkable
that any organism survived it."—*Carl Sagan, The Origins, p. 253.
But there is a special reason why they
would prefer to avoid a reducing atmosphere: There is no evidence
anywhere in nature that our planet ever had a non-oxygen atmosphere! And
there is no theory that can explain how it could earlier have had a
reducing atmosphere,—which later transformed itself into an oxidizing
one! As *Urey himself admitted, a non-oxygen atmosphere is just an
assumption—a flight of imagination—in an effort to accommodate the
theory (*Harold Urey, "On the Early Chemical History of the Earth
and the Origin of Life," in Proceedings of the National Academy of
Science, 38, 1952, p. 352).
*Stanley Miller was one of the pioneers
in laboratory synthesis of non-living amino acids in bottles with a
non-oxygen (reducing) atmosphere. (He was afterward hailed by the press
as having "created life.") Miller later said the theory that
the earth once had no oxygen is just "speculation" (*Stanley L
Miller, "Production of Some Organic Compounds under Possible
Primitive Conditions," in Journal of the American Chemical Society,
7, 1955, p. 2351).
A "reducing atmosphere" could
have had carbon dioxide, methane, hydrogen, ammonia, and nitrogen. An
oxidizing atmosphere, such as now exists, would have carbon dioxide,
water, nitrogen, and oxygen.
(1) A reducing (non-oxygen) atmosphere
never existed earlier on our planet; yet, without it, biological
chemicals could not form. (2) If a reducing atmosphere had existed, so
biological chemicals could form (and if they could somehow be injected
with life), they would immediately die from lack of oxygen!
Here are some of the reasons against a
(1) Oxidized iron. Early rocks contain
partly or totally oxidized iron (ferric oxide). That proves that the
atmosphere had oxygen back then.
(2) Water means oxygen. A reducing
atmosphere could not have oxygen. But there is oxygen—lots of it—in
water and in the atmosphere. According to *Brinkman, this fact alone
disproves the origins of life by evolution (*R.T. Brinkman,
"Dissociation of Water Vapor and Evolution of Oxygen in the
Terrestrial Atmosphere," Journal of Geophysical Research, 74, 1969,
p. 5366). Are the evolutionists daring to tell us that, anciently, our
planet did not have water?
(3) No Life without it. How long would
animals live without oxygen to breath? How long would plants live
without carbon dioxide? Without it, they could not make chlorophyll.
When plants take in carbon dioxide, they give out oxygen. But a reducing
atmosphere has neither oxygen nor carbon dioxide! Therefore no plants
could either live or be available for food.
(4) Deadly peroxides. In addition, a
reduction atmosphere would form, through the photolysis of water, into
peroxides, which are deadly to living creatures (*Abelson, "Some
Aspects of Paleobiochemistry, "in Annals of the New York Academy of
Science, 69, 1957, p. 275).
(5) No ozone layer. If there were no
oxygen in the atmosphere, there would be no ozone either. Without the
ozone layer, ultraviolet light would destroy whatever life was formed.
(6) Ultraviolet light. Ironically, it
could do more damage in an atmosphere without oxygen. Just as oxygen in
the air would destroy the chemicals of life, ultraviolet light beaming
in through a sky unshielded by ozone would be deadly!
Recent studies of the ozone layer have
revealed that, without it, most living organisms now on our planet would
die within an hour, and many within a second or two!
(7) Not with or without. Evolutionists
are locked into a situation here that they cannot escape from.
Spontaneous generation could not occur with oxygen—or without it!
FORMULA FOR THE PRIMITIVE
ATMOSPHEREOur present atmosphere (the air which we breathe) is
composed of carbon dioxide (C02), nitrogen (N2), oxygen (02), and water
The generally postulated primitive
atmosphere would have had to have been composed of almost totally
different chemicals: methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide
(C02), ammonia (NH3), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen (H2), and water (H20).
INSTANT ATMOSPHERIC CHANGE—As you
might imagine, all this bad news brought evolutionary origins to
something of a crisis, especially the problem about the atmosphere.
So the intransigent evolutionists came
up with the wild theory that at the very instant when life was created
on earth,—at that instant it just so happened that the entire world
changed its atmosphere! It dramatically shifted suddenly from reducing
But this possibility collapsed when a
*University of Chicago study found that the plants could not suddenly
have made all that oxygen,—and the oxygen had nowhere else to come
from! If all the plants NOW on earth were suddenly formed on Day One on
our planet, it would still take them 5000 years to produce as much
oxygen as we now have!
However, the plants were not there at
that time, and whatever plants might have been there would all have died
soon after, since they themselves need oxygen for their own cellular
In order to avoid the problem of mass
action degradation of amino acids formed in seawater, someone else
suggested that the amino acids were made in dry clays and rocks. But in
that environment either the oxygen or ultraviolet light would
immediately destroy those amino acids.
UNUSUAL CHEMICALS—Men began to beat
their brains against the wall, trying to figure out a way for those
amino acids to form by themselves in the primitive environment.
*Sidney Fox suggested that the amino
acids were made on the edges of volcanoes, *Melvin Calvin decided that
dicyanimide (a compound not naturally occurring in nature) did the job,
and *Shramm declared that phosphorus pentoxide in a jar of ether did it!
Another research worker came up with an even more deadly solution:
hydrogen cyanide—as the environment in which all the amino acids made
But again tragedy struck: It was
discovered that the volcanic heat would ruin the amino acids as soon as
they were formed. Phosphorus pentoxide is a novel compound that could
not possibly be found in earth’s primitive atmosphere. The hydrogen
cyanide would require an atmosphere of ammonia, which geological
evidence shows never existed in our atmosphere. Dicyanimide would not
work, because the original mixture in which the first amino acids were
made had to have a more alkaline pH.
On and on it goes, one conjecture after
another; always searching for the magic mixture and fairyland
environment needed to make life out of nothing.
"Every time I write a paper on the
origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because
there is too much speculation running after too few
facts."—*Francis Crick, Life Itself (1981), p. 153. [*Crick
received a Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA.]
6 - THE LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS
THE MILLER EXPERIMENT—It was *Stanley
Miller in 1953 who first produced amino acids from chemicals. We want to
know how he did it, for THAT is the way the so-called "primitive
environment" would have had to do it by merest chance:
The laboratory apparatus he used to
accomplish this consisted of two confluently interconnected, chemical
flasks (or bottles), arranged one above the other. The lower flask was
heated and contained boiling water. The upper flask contained a mixture
of gases including ammonia, methane, hydrogen and water vapor. (The
upper flask had the presumed "primitive atmosphere," since it
was known that if oxygen were present, the experiment would be a
First, he boiled a mixture of water,
methane, ammonia, and hydrogen gases in the upper bottle, while a small
electric spark continually played over them all. (That was supposed to
be equivalent to a gigantic lightning ball in the primitive environment
which might strike the spot once every so many years, instantly
destroying everything it touched.) The lower bottle of water was kept
boiling in order to keep the mixture in the upper bottle stirred up and
circulating. (The "primitive ocean" must have been pretty
hot!) There was a trap in the bottom of the glass apparatus to catch any
soluble organic products, so they would not be broken down after
formation by the spark. (Chemists knew that the Law of Mass Action would
almost immediately have destroyed the amino acids that were formed,
without a trap to catch them in quickly. The "primitive ocean"
must have had similar bottle traps in it.)
LABORATORY APPARATUS—This is how *Stanley Miller simulated lightning
hitting some dirty water. The few non-living amino acid specs, which he
produced, had equal amounts of L and D forms, so were biologically
*Miller’s simulation of a "primitive environment":
A vacuum pump to
continually circulate the vapors; special tubing to seal off the outside
world; special distilled water inlets and outlets; an electric element
producing 212o F. [100o C.] water temperature; electrical contacts to
make a continuous, very low-amperage spark; and a trap arrangement to
immediately siphon off nitrogenous products before they were destroyed
in the boiling water and resultant vapors.
Where in the world could you find such a
After a week of this, the fluid in the
traps were chemically analyzed—and were found to have microscopic
traces of a few L and D (right- and left-handed) nitrogen-containing
compounds—"amino acids," they called them—which had been
formed. (Of course, if both L and D amino acids were formed by chemical
action—as they always are when formed outside of living cells—it
would be impossible for the amino acid which formed to be usable for
Newspapers around the world heralded the
news: "Life has been created!" But no life had been created,
just a few biochemical compounds. Remember that neither nitrogen
compounds nor amino acids are, of themselves, living things. Just
because they are in living things, does not make them living things.
In summary then, *Stanley Miller’s
experiment was one of the early origin-of-life attempts. It used a
reducing atmosphere (with no oxygen in it). A significant part of his
experiment was a "cold trap." This was a glass cup at the
bottom of the tubing that caught the products of the week-long
water-chemical-spark activity. The purpose of the trap was to keep the
reaction going in the right direction. If it had not been there, the
simple amino acids would have been destroyed faster than they could be
" ‘This is the primitive
atmosphere,’ said Stanley Miller, the chemistry professor at the
University of California at San Diego, as he pointed to the transparent
mixture of gases inside the globe. ‘And this represents the primitive
ocean,’ he said, indicating a pool of water in the bottom of his
apparatus."—*Rick Gore, "Awesome Worlds Within a Cell,
"National Geographic Society, September 1976, p. 390.
What does that complicated lab
experiment have to say about the possibility of nature doing it by
accident—without the help of man? Outdoors, it could not be done
without his help, or with it.
"What we ask is to synthesize
organic molecules without such a machine. I believe this to be the most
stubborn problem that confronts us—the weakest link at present in our
argument."—*G. Wald, "The Origin of Life," in the
Physics and Chemistry of Life (1955), p. 9.
The test tube attempts to "create
life" have only resulted in dismal failure.
"In 1953, at the University of
Chicago, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey mixed ammonia, water
vapor, hydrogen and methane to simulate Earth’s early atmosphere, then
crackled lightning-like electrical sparks through it .
"Unfortunately, as Margolis admits,
‘no cell has yet crawled out of a test tube,’ and thousands of
similar experiments have produced goopy organic tars, but no
recognizable life. Decades of persistent failure to ‘create life’ by
the ‘spark in the soup’ method (or to find such productions in
nature) have caused some researchers to seek other approaches to the
great enigma. [Panspermia theories—bacteria flying in from outer
space—are then discussed.]"—*Richard Milner, Encyclopedia of
Evolution (1990), p. 274.
NOT LEFT-HANDED AMINO ACIDS—All types
of proteins in the animals are left-handed (L-aminos). None are ever
right-handed (D-aminos). Yet all amino acids synthesized in laboratories
consist of an equal amount of left- and right-handed amino acids (a
racemic mixture). It would require days of work in the laboratory to
separate just a few L from D forms. Researchers cannot figure out how to
produce only the L form. Yet no animals or man could live if they had
any of the D form in them. This is a major problem to the evolutionists.
More on this in the next chapter.
NOT THE ESSENTIAL AMINO ACIDS—Out of
the hundreds of possible combinations, there are 20 essential amino
acids, yet laboratory synthesis of amino acids produces only a few of
the 20 essential amino acids—plus a lot of non-essential or even
THE OPARIN EXPERIMENT—Prior to
*Miller, *A.I. Oparin, a Russian chemist, tried to produce living cells
from coacervates, which are like fat droplets in a bowl of soup. He
carefully kept all oxygen away from the soup and the bowl, and he hoped
that, given enough time, they would join together and, somehow, life
would enter into them! But the outer film kept breaking apart, and no
life entered into them. *Oparin was disappointed. No reputable chemist
today considers Oparin’s theory to be of any value.
THE FOX EXPERIMENTS—After Miller’s
experiment, *Sydney Fox in 1960 worked out a different arrangement, but
he began his with left-handed amino acids already formed. He took them
from a dead animal! He claims that his method is how it was done in the
primitive environment. This should have been good news for the
evolutionary world; but, when we learn his complicated procedure, we can
understand why few scientists have any faith in the possibility that the
Fox procedure was done by chance in the ocean, near a volcano, or in a
Here is how nature, armed with time and
chance, is supposed to have produced that first dead amino acid:
"Typical panpolymenzation: Ten
grams of L. glutamic acid (a left-handed amino acid] was heated at
l75o-l80o C. [347°-356° F.) until molten (about 30 minutes), after
which period it had been largely converted to lactum. At this time, 10
g. [.352 ay. oz.] of DL-aspartic acid and 5 g. [.176 ay. oz.] of the
mixture of the sixteen basic and neutral (BN) amino acids were added.
The solution was then maintained at 170° + or -2° under an atmosphere
of nitrogen for varying periods of time. Within a period of a few hours
considerable gas had been evolved, and the color of the liquid changed
to amber. The vitreous mixture was rubbed vigorously with 75 ml. [4.575
Cu. in.] of water, which converted it to a yellow-brown granular
precipitate. After overnight standing, the solid was separated by
filtration. This was washed with 50 ml. [3.05 cu. in.] of ethanol, and
as substance S dialytically washed in moving Multidialyzers in water for
4 days, the water being changed thrice daily. (The term dialytic washing
indicates dialytic treatment of a suspension.) In some preparations, the
solid was dissolved completely in sodium bicarbonate solution and then
dialyzed. The dialysis sacs were made of cellulose tubing, 27/32 in., to
contain 50 ml. [3.05 cu. in.]. The nondiffusible material was ninhydrin-negative
before the fourth day. The non-aqueous contents of the dialysis sac were
mainly solid A and a soluble fraction B recovered as solid by
concentration in a vacuum dissicator. The mother liquor of S was also
dialyzed for 4 days, and then dried to give additional solid
C."—*S.W. Fox and *K Harada, Journal of the American Chemical
Society, 82(1960), p. 3745.
We commend *Sydney Fox and his
associates for their remarkable intelligence and excellent lab equipment, days of exhausting work, and the university scientists who
trained them to perform such experiments. But we can make no such
commendation of sand, gravel, and seawater, which is supposed to have
done the same thing by itself.
Fox began with a quantity of left-only
(no right) amino acids and made sure no oxygen, sugars, etc. were
present, since they would doom the experiment. Then he underwent a lot
of tedious work that requires a high degree of intelligence, careful
planning, and many adjustments with pH, temperature, cooking time, etc.,
as he proceeded with a staff of assistants to help him succeed:
Fox is modest about his abilities, for
he says that random events, in a broad sea or on the slopes of a
volcano, could have done it just as easily. But HE began with pure,
left-handed amino acids, which are available nowhere outside of living
things; he did not begin with pebbles, mud, and water.
Fox then heated the amino acids for 10
hours at 150°-180° C [302°-356°] for several hours. Pretty hot way
to make amino acids!
Where would you find such conditions in
nature? *Stanley Miller, who first synthesized amino acids in a
laboratory later stated that his own experiment could not possibly have
been done by chance outside of a modern laboratory. Other scientists
"Such experiments are no more than
exercises in organic chemistry."—*P. Mora, "The Folly Of
Probability," in Origins of Prebiological Systems and their
Molecular Matrices, Ed. *S. W. Fox (1965), p. 41.
Three key ingredients are (1) proper
chemicals in exacting amounts, (2) a continuous energy source (such as a
continuous spark), and (3) quick-dry apparatus. As soon as the amino
acids are made, they must immediately be dried out. (Living tissue never
contains dried out amino acids or comes from it.) Fox tells us the
reaction must be "hot and dry" (op. cit., p. 378).
"To keep a reaction going according
to the law of mass action, there must be a continuous supply of energy
and of selected matter (molecules) and a continuous process of
elimination of the reaction products."—Op. cit., p. 43.
And there is a fourth key ingredient:
Whether done in nature, or by researchers in a high-tech laboratory,
these life substances are always the result of careful organization with
specific purposes by a high-level intelligence. No one tosses the
chemicals into a pan in the laboratory, walks off, hoping it will
produce amino acids all by itself.
A living organism is not just dried out
ocean soup. It is highly integrated, complex, and purposive. —It has
life, which no man can produce. And that living creature had to have all
its parts on Day One of its existence. And it had to have a mate and be
able to reproduce offspring.
Not even *Darwin could figure it out.
"Darwin never really did discuss
the origin of species in his [book] On the Origin of
Species."—*David Kitts, "Paleontology and Evolutionary
Theory," Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 466.
7 - THE MIRACLE OF LIFE
Reputable scientists tell us that life
could neither originate nor continue without intelligence being
"Any living thing possesses an
enormous amount of ‘intelligence’ . . Today, this ‘intelligence’
is called ‘information,’ but it is still the same thing . . This
‘intelligence’ is the sine qua non of life. If absent, no living
being is imaginable. Where does it come from? This is a problem which
concerns both biologists and philosophers, and, at present, science
seems incapable of solving it."—*Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of
Living Organisms (1977), p. 3.
A Nobel Prize laureate wrote this:
"An honest man, armed with all the
knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the
origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a
miracle."—*Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature
(1981), p. 88 [co-discoverer of the DNA molecule].
Even *Sydney Fox, the researcher who
went through so much scientific rigmarole to make amino acids out of
amino acids, admits it:
"The present laws of physics . .
are insufficient to describe the origin of life. To him this opens the
way to teleology, even, by implication, to creation by an intelligent
agent . . If he thinks he has shown conclusively that life cannot have
originated by chance, only two rational alternatives remain. The first
is that it did not arise at all and that all we are studying is an
illusion."—*S.W. Fox, The Origins of Prebiological Systems and
Their Molecular Matrices (1965), pp. 35-55.
Another Nobel Prize laureate and, like
the others, a confirmed evolutionist made this comment:
"All of us who study the origin of
life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too
complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith
that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its
complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it
did."—*Harold C. Urey, quoted in Christian Science Monitor,
January 4, 1962, p. 4.
THE MAGIC FORMULA—The formula for the
evolutionary origin and development of life goes something like this:
NOTHING + TIME + CHANCE =
ONE CELL + TIME + CHANCE = MAN
Is this modern science or is it a fairy
tale? It is an astounding thought that all modern biological, genetic,
and geological science is keyed to such a mythical formulation.
One evolutionist explains in
philosophical rhetoric how it all happened:
"Randomness caught on the wing,
preserved, reproduced . . and thus converted into order, rule,
necessity. A totally blind process can by definition lead to anything;
it can even lead to vision itself."—*Bur, quoted in *Jacques
Monod, Chance and Necessity (1972), p. 98.
That is neither true nor scientific. If
randomness can produce such living wonders as are all about us, then
highly intelligent scientists, working in well-equipped laboratories,
ought to be able to produce eyes, ears, and entirely new species in a
few months’ time.
The Great Evolutionary Myth is that
randomness plus time can do anything; the Truth is that randomness, with
or without time, can accomplish almost nothing. And those changes which
it does accomplish will quickly be blotted out by the next random action
or two,—that is, if they are constructive changes. If they are
erosional, they will remain much longer.
Throughout inorganic nature we see
randomness producing decay and inertness; we do not find it building
houses and, then, installing the plumbing in them.
"All the facile speculations and
discussions published during the last ten to fifteen years explaining
the mode of origin of life have been shown to be far too simple-minded
and to bear very little weight. The problem in fact seems as far from
solution as it ever was."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the
Giraffe (1982), p. 68.
THE EVOLUTIONARY ORIGIN OF LIFE IN A
NUTSHELL—The origin of life by random means is an impossibility. Only
evolutionists and the authors of children’s fairy tales say otherwise.
The following evolutionary five-step
theoretical program of events consists of little more than armchair
guessing combined with Alice in Wonderland hopefulness. Here it is:
"Evolution Model for the Origin of
Life on the Earth:
"According to the evolution model,
the story of life on the earth began some five billion years ago and
gradually unfolded through a series of five stages:
"Stage 1. Evolutionists have
imagined that the atmosphere of the early earth was quite different from
the present atmosphere. In contrast to the present oxidizing atmosphere,
which contains 21 percent free oxygen (02), 78 percent nitrogen (N2),
and 1 percent of other gases, supposedly the early earth was surrounded
by a reducing atmosphere made up mostly of methane (CHi), ammonia (NH3),
hydrogen (H3), and water vapor (H20).
"Stage 2. Because of ultraviolet
light, electric discharge, and high-energy particle bombardment of
molecules in a reducing atmosphere, stage 2 came about with the
formation of small organic molecules such as sugars, amino acids, and
"Stage 3. Presuming all of this
happened billions of years ago in a reducing atmosphere, then stage 3 is
imagined during which combinations of various small stage 2 molecules
resulted in formation of large polymers such as starches, proteins, and
nucleic acids (DNA).
"Stage 4. These large molecules
supposedly joined together into a gel-like glob called coacervates or
microspheres. Possibly these coacervates attracted smaller molecules so
that new structures, called proto-cells, might have formed.
"Stage 5. Evolutionists believe
that finally, at least one of these globs absorbed the right molecules
so that complex molecules could be duplicated within new units called
living cells. These first cells consumed molecules left over from
earlier states, but eventually photosynthesis appeared in cells, in some
way, and oxygen was released into the atmosphere. As the percentage of
oxygen in the early atmosphere increased, most of the known forms of
life on the earth today began to appear. Because of the presence of
oxygen, these early life-forms destroyed all the molecules from earlier
stages, and no more chemical evolution was possible."—John N.
Moore, "Teaching about Origin Questions: Origin of Life on
Earth," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1985, page 21.
APPLYING MATH TO IT—*Sir Fred Hoyle,
the famous British mathematician and astronomer, teamed up with *Chandra
Wickramasinghe in an analysis of the origin of life and the possibility
that it could possibly have begun by chance.
*Hoyle is an evolutionist, and *Wickramasinghe
a Buddhist. They mathematically determined that the likelihood that a
single cell could originate in a primitive environment, given 4.6
billion years in which to do it,—was one chance in 1040000! That is
one chance in 1 with 40 thousand zeros after it! (*Fred Hoyle and *Chandra
Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, 1981, p. 28).
Everything would suddenly have to be
there all at once. It would all have to work perfectly, and it would
have to split and divide into new cells immediately, and reproduce
offspring quickly. And, of course, it would have to be alive!
Living forms are too awesome to relegate
to the tender mercies of time and chance. It took special design,
special thinking, special power to make living beings.
And that brings us to our next chapter:
the incredible wonders of DNA and the impossibility of it accidentally
making itself out of chance, gravel, mud, and water.
SEARCH FOR LIFE IN OUTER SPACE—(*#5/2
Searching for Life Elsewhere*) Evolutionists are rabid about proving
their theory. For over 30 years, working through the National Science
Foundation and other agencies, they have gotten the U.S. Government to
spend vast amounts of money on attempts to achieve their goal. They are
searching for life-forms on other planets.
First, we will tell you of the
multimillion-dollar projects. Then we will give you the warning:
"exobiology" are the studies of life in outer space. These are
the only fields of "science" without evidence or subject
matter. Researchers in these fields are trying to detect signals from
outer space that would imply an intelligent source. Here is a brief
listing of 15 of the projects funded by the United States. The search
for life was not always the sole objective of each of these projects:
Ozma 1—1960 - $1 million - A Green
Bank radio telescope probe of two nearby stars (Epsilon Eridoni and Tau
Ceti) for signals indicating intelligent life. Result: No signals
Apollo—1969-1972 - $30 billion -
Exploration of the moon, in the hope of finding evidences of life.
Result: No life detected.
Pioneer 10—1972 - Cost not available -
This interspace probe was sent out beyond our solar system in the hope
that intelligent beings would find it and contact us. A plaque is inside
it. Result: No life/signals detected.
Ozma 11—1973 - Cost not available -
500 of the closest stars have been monitored for intelligent radio
signals. Result: No signals detected.
Arecibo—1974 - Cost not available -
This, the largest radio telescope on earth, was constructed for the
purpose of continuously monitoring nearby stars for signals. Result: No
National Radio Astronomy
Observatory—1974 - Cost not available - The NRAO scanned 10 nearby
stars for intelligent signals. Result: No signals detected.
Two Viking landers—1977 - $1 billion -
These two landers were sent out in the hope of finding evidences of life
on the planet Mars. Result: No life detected.
Voyager 1 and 2—1977 - Cost not
- Probes sent to outer planets; each carrying detailed
messages from earth. Result: No life/signals detected.
Pioneer Venus—1977 - $230 million -
Probes sent to planet Venus to measure atmospheric conditions and the
possibility of life on its surface. Result: No life detected.
Very Large Array—1980 - $78 billion -
27 radio antennas constructed in New Mexico. They are probing for
evidence of organic molecules in interstellar gas. Result: No life
Mariner—1980 - Cost not available -
This probe was specifically designed to analyze Saturn’s largest moon
for signs of life. Result: No life/signals detected.
Hubble Space Telescope—1990 - $1.5
billion - This newly launched orbiting telescope will be searching for
planets circling other planets. Result: No life/signals detected yet.
Cyclops—1990s - $20 billion - A large
array of radio telescopes, each 100 meters [109 yds.] in diameter.
Result: Not constructed yet. "Such an array would detect radio
beams of the kind Earth, is inadvertently leaking at a distance of a
hundred light-years, and should detect a deliberately aimed radio wave
beacon from another civilization at a distance of a thousand
light-years."—*Asimov’s New Guide to Science (1984), pp.
A WARNING FROM ROSS—Hugh Ross, an
astrophysicist at Caltech, did some checking and, about the year 1989,
came up with an intriguing observation. Immense pressure has been placed
on the U.S. Government and NASA to fund, at enormous expense, a manned
voyage to Mars. Ross has discovered a primary reason for this seemingly
senseless waste of money.
As you may know, winds carry small
living creatures, such as microbes and spiders, to high atmospheric
levels. Ross says that solar winds are able to waft particles of
formerly living substances out of our high-level atmosphere—and blow
them away from the sun, outward into space. Ross declares that some of
the particles, caught in Mar’s gravitational field, could well have
landed on the surface of Mars.
He believes that evolutionists are
well-aware of this possibility, and that they want to send that manned
flight to Mars to recover those particles. The main objective of the
mission would be to find dead life-forms on the surface of Mars, and
then use that as "evidence" that life once must have
independently evolved on Mars! It is felt that this would provide a
powerful boost to the evolutionary cause.
We have here another example of
evolutionary deceit at work, and such a "discovery" may be
made within the next decade or two.
COULD NOT DO THIS
Scientists estimate that over 400
million-million horsepower of solar energy reaches the earth every day. Photosynthesis
is the process by which sunlight is transformed into carbohydrates
(the basis of all the food on our planet). This takes place in the chloroplasts.
Each one is lense-shaped, something like an almost flat cone with the
rounded part on the upper side. Sunlight enters from above. Inside the
chloroplast are tiny cylinders, called lamelliae, that look
something like the small circular batteries used in small electrical
Each cylinder is actually a stack of several disk-shaped thylakolds.
Each thylakold is the shape of a coin. Several of these are stacked on
top of each other, and this makes a single stack, or lamelium. A
small narrow band connects each stack to another stack. They look like
they are all wired like a bunch of batteries. Sunlight is processed by
chlorophyll in those stacks, and is then stored (!) there as chemical
energy in the form of sugar molecules.
Chlorophyll, itself, is very
complicated and never exists outside of the plant, just as DNA and ten
thousands of other chemical structures never exist outside plants and/or
animals. If they are not found outside, how did they ever get inside? In
many plants, the tiny discs containing chlorophyll move about within
plant cells and adjust for different light and heat conditions. When the
sunlight is too strong, the little disks turn edgewise. On an overcast
day, they lie as parallel to the sky as they can in order to take in the
most light. They have brains?
7 - STUDY AND REVIEW QUESTIONS
GRADES 5 TO 12 ON A
- List 3 reasons why water could not change itself into an animal.
2 - Discuss with your
class the reasons why evolutionists are desperately trying to figure out
a way that water could change itself into an animal.
3 - List at least 10
body organs or functions that would need to instantly be present and
fully operating, in order for a living creature to not die within 3
4 - Scientists generally
agree that spontaneous generation of living creatures from non-living
materials cannot happen. Is there any way, other than by spontaneous
generation, that non-living materials could make themselves into a
5 - Evolutionists only
offer lightning as a possible energy source for the formation of the
first living creature. Why would lightning not be able to accomplish the
needed task? Where would that first living creature afterward be able to
find food to give it nourishment and provide it with an ongoing energy
6 - List six reasons why
the oxygen problem (oxygen in water or oxygen in the atmosphere) would
eliminate the possibility of a life-form coming into existence from
7 - Could the oxygen
problem—alone—be enough to doom to failure the chance formation of
8 - Declaring that
"life had been created!" the Miller experiment was said to
have provided important evidence about the possibility of [non-living]
proteins initially forming themselves from non-living materials. What
did the Miller experiment actually reveal?
9 - The facts about
left- and right-handed amino acids provide important evidence regarding
the possibility of non-living materials making themselves randomly into
protein. Explain why left-handed amino acids are a great wall forbidding
the chance formation of living protein.
10 - List several
reasons why the Miller experiment could not be duplicated by raw
materials out in nature.
You have just completed
Chapter 7 THE
Go to the next file in
Chapter 8 DNA and Protein