More evolution “half-truths” in our school testbooks -Miller-Urey Experiment. Truly Fantasia!

The Miller-Urey Experiment

Biologist Jonathan Wells holds Ph.D.s from both Yale and the University of California at Berkeley.  In his book, Icons of Evolution, he writes:

“Accompanied by music from Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring, the primordial Earth seethes with volcanic activity.  Red-hot lava flows over the land and tumbles into the sea, generating clouds of steam while lightening flashes in the sky above.  Slowly, the camera pans down until it reaches the calm depths of the ocean, where mysterious specks glow in the dark.  Suddenly, a single-celled animal darts across the screen.  Life is born.  The scene is from Walt Disney’s 1940 classic, Fantasia, and the narrator calls it “a coldly accurate reproduction of what science thinks went on during the first few billion years of this planet’s existence.”


Wow! Starting life is easy.  The primordial seas were ripe with the building blocks of life.  Previously in this paper, I documented that water, the universal solvent, continually opposes the assembly of proteins, DNA, RNA, and other biomolecules and attacks those that have successfully formed.  Starting life in water is chemically impossible – one can read one hundred biochemistry books and they all say the same thing.


Disney’s movie captured the imagination of many unsuspecting children and adults; but it remained an untested hypothesis until the early 1950s, when Stanley Miller and his Ph.D. advisor, Harold Urey, simulated the Earth’s primitive atmosphere in the famous Miller-Urey experiment.


We need oxygen because our cells produce energy through aerobic respiration.  Respiration, which breaks down organic molecules, is the opposite of synthesis, which build them up – so compartments of living cells exclude oxygen from the process of organic synthesis.  Miller concluded that the early atmosphere consisted primarily of the simple molecules of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor – with no oxygen.


The equipment used by Miller was a flask of boiling water and a mixture of methane, ammonia, and hydrogen gases.  As the vapor of water rose and passed out of the flask, they entered a compartment that contained two electrodes.  Sufficient voltage was maintained between the two electrodes to cause a spark discharge to jump across the gap that separated them.  The droplets then flowed back into the flask.


The original experiment was run for a week, yet in his very first attempt, no amino acids at all were detected by Miller.  I should note that amino acids are the only major building blocks of life that can form in the presence of water vapor.  In his second attempt, he obtained some interesting results.


The experiment performed by Miller yielded tar as its most abundant product.  There are fifty organic compounds that are called “building blocks”, as they are used to construct the larger types of molecules important to life (such as proteins, DNA, RNA, and polysaccharides).  Only two of these occurred in the Miller-Urey experiment – the two smallest amino acids in a rather weak percentage.  The other eighteen larger amino acids needed to synthesize a protein that gradually increase in size (up to 27 atoms) were beyond the probabilistic limits of the experiment.


As we have seen, the reaction product bears no resemblance to the actual content of a one-celled bacterium, which is an intricate, organized structure built using 100 billion atoms, all arranged in the right place.


To further muddy the waters, Princeton University geochemist Heinrich Holland and Carnegie geophysicist Philip Adelson concluded in the 1960s that the Earth’s primitive atmosphere consisted of water vapor, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and hydrogen.  Adelson concluded: “What is the evidence for the primitive methane-ammonia atmosphere on Earth?  The answer is that there is no evidence for it, but much against it.”


Since 1977, this view has become a near-consensus among geochemists.  As Jon Cohen wrote in Science in 1995, many origin-of-life researchers now dismiss the 1953 experiment because the early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller-Urey simulation.


The atmospheric assumptions made by Miller were probably false; but even if the assumptions were true, all that he produced were the two smallest amino acids in very weak amounts.  “Hoping a living cell would form from the two smallest amino acids, is equivalent to having one thread of one bolt of a Boeing 747 and hoping that chance would form the rest of the airplane”, proclaimed a chemist friend of mine.


So if the Miller-Urey experiment fails by a very wide margin to show “life in a test tube”, why does it appear prominently in all high school and college textbooks?  It seems that neo-Darwinists are holding on to this one for dear life because some of the other canons of evolution have been removed or receive far less coverage in the latest biology text books.

Posted in Evolution | Leave a comment

More Evolution fraud The Fossil Horses

The Fossil Horses

Three years before Charles Darwin’s death in 1882, Yale University paleontologist Othniel Marsh published a drawing of horse fossils.  Marsh’s drawing, which included only leg bones and teeth, was soon supplemented by an artist’s “slight of hand” with skulls; and illustrations of horse fossils quickly found their way into museum exhibits and biology textbooks as evidence of evolution.  The drawings showed evolution proceeding in a straight-line form from the small primitive ancestor through a series of intermediates to the large modern horse.

These drawing drew criticism from two sides – from neo-Darwinists and from scientists who knew the picture of horse evolution was very different from the neat, straight-line picture.  Neo-Darwinism is the modern synthesis of the process of evolution (formulated between 1920 and 1950) that combines the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection with the modern version of random genetic mutations.

Most evolutionists who were Darwin’s contemporaries believed that evolution was directed.  Since direction implies a director, this notion was rejected by neo-Darwinists such as Gould, Dawkins, and others.  Gould and Dawkins have openly assailed the horse icon, because it’s neat, straight-line drawings might indicate a pre-ordained goal.  Dawkins says, “Evolution is blind, unconscious and has no purpose in mind.”

Stephen J. Gould writes, “George Gaylord Simpson was the greatest and most biologically astute paleontologist of the 20th century”.  In 1944, Simpson wrote, “the trend toward larger size (in the horse) was not seen in all the extinct side-branches, some of which actually reversed direction and became smaller.”  He also verified that fossils that appear in the early horse drawings actually persist in later fossils.  Many other scientists confirmed Simpson’s research.  It turned out that the drawings were taken out of context from vastly different times and even different continents and were assembled to conform to someone’s predetermined idea of evolution.  Now, most scientists agree with Stephen J. Gould’s words about the horse drawings as being an “incarnation of concepts masquerading as neutral descriptions of nature.”

Not everyone has heeded Gould’s warnings.  Francisco J. Ayala, a prominent evolutionary geneticist and professor at the University of California at Irvine, has been named the recipient of the 2010 Templeton Prize in science.  I received his latest book, Darwin’s Gift, as a Christmas present and found that he mindlessly recycles the trite, horse fossil drawings on page 83 of his book along with hackneyed, over-used examples of evolution that have been debunked even by Darwinists.  This experience reinforced my belief to not confuse a drawing-room accent with actual intelligence and to not confuse a Darwinian pronouncement with actual/verified, empirical evidence.  Always look for details, the more details, the better – in the form of fossils, experiments, measurement, research, and observation.

The horse drawings have been removed from most high school and college biology text books.  Because Darwinists are very fond of their favorite symbols of evolution, they recently removed them only after evidence against them became overwhelming.  However, does this help people far-removed from high school who still remember the horse fossils as their favorite “Darwinian moment”?

Posted in Evolution | 1 Comment

My first post

This is exciting.  I’m rather an old person who is being technologically advanced because I’m actually writing a blog. I do think that God is mad at us (hence, the name of my blog).  Just pay attention to what is happening in the world.  Half of Japan (I exaggerate) is earthquaked or washed away; we had record breaking snow levels; our rivers are overflowing and drowning whole towns; volcanoes erupting and tornadoes ripping up everything in their paths.  Why?  Because we neither praise nor give thanks to our Creator.  We are promoting or accepting or supporting ideas, activities, theories and behaviors which are TOTALLY against God’s will.  As my blog continues I will bring up some of these ideas, activities, theories and behaviors but let’s start with Darwin’s theory of evolution.  This is being taught in our school’s as fact – not as a theory.  Here is an excerpt from my brother’s paper written on the subject:

Darwin’s Warm Little Pond

Charles Darwin at first did not extend his theories to the origin of life and publicly identified himself with a belief in Creation. The very last sentence of The Origin of the Species reads:

“ There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst the planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”

“From so simple a beginning” is one of the greatest misconceptions in the history of science.  Scientists have found the cell to be hopelessly complex and the chance assembly of its trillion atoms beyond the limits of all time and space.  Fred Hoyle, the former head of  The Cambridge University Institute of Theoretical Astronomy, said, “Belief in chemical evolution of the first cell from lifeless atoms is equivalent to believing that a tornado could sweep through a junkyard and form a Boeing 747.”

However, later in life, Darwin could not resist the temptation of thinking that life could emerge from the lifeless atoms of a warm little pond.  In 1871, Darwin wrote to Hooker: “But if (and oh! what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes.”  This quote is often reproduced in texts and the media on the origin of life.  It is remarkably current today, which is a tribute to our complete lack of progress.

Upon hearing the myth of the warm little pond, the skeptic, in the form of an organic chemist, is rolling on the floor with laughter and shouting, “coals to Newcastle.”

Robert Shapiro, a professor of chemistry at New York University, recounts his laboratory course when working with an organic compound: “But any trace of moisture would ruin the reaction.  No breath, no touch of saliva, no common whiff of laboratory air was permitted within the apparatus lest the procedure be ruined.”

We can now understand the organic chemist’s laughter.  Transporting coal to the Newcastle Region of England, with it’s overabundance of coal, is undesirable but not fatal.  Bringing water to an organic bond at the moment it must release a water molecule is fatal.  The opposite of bonding takes place.  “It pries nucleotides (the building blocks of DNA and RNA) apart from each other, breaks sugar-to-phosphate bonds and severs bases from sugars”, writes Shapiro.  Water continually opposes the assembly of proteins, DNA, RNA, and large biomolecules and attacks those that have successfully formed.

Water is indeed important in the cell for many functions, but the cell has extraordinary defense mechanisms to keep water out of the regions where biomolecules are forming.  The first primeval cell must form before it can function to protect itself.  It can never form in the presence of water.

Although many Darwinists may privately snicker when hearing the hackneyed tale about life forming in water, they put up with it because it is congenial with their agenda.  Since scientific “peer review” panels are always stacked with Darwinists, empirically-sound objections to evolution are always rejected. Thank goodness that Einstein did not have to submit his papers for peer review, because originally most physicists disagreed with his ideas.  So one should expect to see Darwin’s trite, warm little pond, swarming with the biomolecules of life, in text books and the popular media well into the future.

More to come on this subject soon -on the Fossil Horses.

Posted in Evolution | 1 Comment