5 REASONS CHEMICAL EVOLUTION IS FALSE: #1: Nature's simplest organisms enormously complex
To "prove" their Chemical Evolution theory, one of the first deceptions of evolutionists appears to be the suggestion that the simplest organisms on earth (bacteria) are simple organisms.

This deception is an easy one to sell, since many either don't care at all—or don't care enough—to investigate evolution's far-fetched claims.

But as we hope to point out shortly, bacteria are enormously complex—far beyond the capacity of random mathematical chance. (Please view the above video to see how complex the simplest organisms on earth are.)

In this series, we begin to unveil the glaring flaws of Chemical Evolution—and prove beyond doubt that a Super-intelligent Source (God) created the vast organization found in living organisms.

Tremendous intricacy in nature's simplest organisms

In the early days of evolution, the predominant thinking was that the simplest living creatures on our planet were truly simple indeed.

After all, you could hardly see the little critters, and nothing that small could be that complicated, right?

How could a little fellow that was invisible to the human eye be composed of more than a few organic compounds, compounds that nature could easily mass-produce by sheer and routine accident, by mere random interactions among molecules?

That certainly was the original thinking. But as technology vastly improved, it became embarrassingly obvious that those "simple little organisms" were not simple—but incredibly complex.

How complex?

Let's put it this way: Far beyond anything we've ever invented; including—but not limited to—space shuttles, jet planes, automobiles, computers, and the like (more on this in a moment).

Indeed, the more technology expands, the more we can marvel at how enormously involved bacteria are—and how utterly untenable both Chemical and Macroevolution really are.

But Evolutionists have refused to cave in by letting the facts cloud their thinking. Instead of abandoning Chemical Evolution, and admitting to the only Logical Conclusion—God—they resolved to repel deeper into the canyon of scientific senselessness.

The "simple" cell membrane

The cell's membrane is just one of many organelles that demonstrate the huge complexity of bacteria.

Initially, it was thought that about all the cell membrane did was to keep the cell's organelles from wandering off.

Further examination revealed a much more complex role: specifically, that the cell's membrane carries on the complex interface between life within the cell and everything else on the outside.

On the one hand, it must be impermeable enough to keep essential materials (like DNA and organelles) inside; on the other hand, it must also keep harmful objects (like viruses and poisons) outside.

Additionally, a cell's membrane can't form a perfect seal—or the cell would die. Instead, it must flush out waste and heat from its own system while absorbing nutrients from the environment. Failure to maintain this delicate balance would mean certain death for the organism.

Primitive scientists had reason to believe this all seemed so "simple." Now we know better—or should know better.

Yet this incredibly complex organelle is the simplest aspect of unicellular organisms, as we hope to demonstrate in the very near future...

The nucleus

If you really want a glimpse at how complex "simple organisms" are, and how incredible it is that anyone could believe they spontaneously formed by chance, just consider the cell's nucleus.

This organelle contains DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), a coiled supermolecule, a "digitally coded" database containing the roughly 4,000,000 pieces of information (nucleotide base pairs) required to replicate the cell.

And nucleotide sequencing along the DNA supermolecule must be exact "to the nucleotide" or results could be disastrous.

DNA is so complex that within the tiniest-known and simplest living organism (bacteria called mycoplasma genitalium), 111 of the roughly 300 protein-coding genes essential to the little organism's existence were of unknown function as of this writing.

Yes, more than one third of the DNA—of just this one organelle—is so complex its function is unknown.

In fact, it is said that a "simple" bacterium contains over 100 billion bits of data stored in the DNA's genes and chromosomes.

In other words, what experts "don't want you to know" is the fact that the "simplest organism" is not, as they mislead folks to believe, "simple."

It is the antithesis of simple.

Its astonishing complexity easily dwarfs any technology created by the human mind.

Stanford University's Dr. Lubert Stryer noted that the DNA from a single human cell contains roughly 2.9 billion base pairs. This means to record the human genome it would require roughly 3,000 books of 1,000,000 characters each (assuming each base pair was recorded as a character).

And yet, this incredible technology is most efficiently packaged. Experts tell us that if one could extract the DNA coils (~3 meters in length) from every cell of your body (~2-5 trillion) and unravel them—placed end to end the distance would span more than 5 billion miles. Yet the genetic information for reproduction of the entire human population would fit comfortably inside a thimble.

Quite plainly, experts don't come close to understanding—much less reconstructing or synthesizing—the simplest organisms on earth. And some of them are finally realizing this is not going to happen, that life will never be reproduced by any scientist from scratch.

The impossibility of DNA's vast complexity occurring by chance

Sir Fred Hoyle acknowledged that the notion that DNA's "high order of complexity" was a random act of mindless nature is itself "nonsense of a high order."

E.H. Andrews, in his book From Nothing to Nature, referring to the complex genetic code within DNA aptly explained it as follows:

"It is not possible for a code, of any kind, to arise by chance or accident...A code is the work of an intelligent mind. Even the cleverest dog or chimpanzee could not work out a code of any kind. It is obvious then that chance cannot do it...

"This could no more have been the work of chance or accident than could the 'Moonlight Sonata' be played by mice running up and down the keyboard of my piano...Codes do not arise from chaos."

Please don't miss that powerful point: "Codes do not arise from chaos."

It's like putting 1000 monkeys in a room with typewriters and wondering how long it would take them to type Hamlet perfectly.

Yet, the entire theory of Chemical Evolution is founded upon such inconceivable notions—along with a multitude of others just as impossible.

Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen, in their book The Mystery of Life's Origin, further pounded home this convincing point:

"We know that in numerous cases certain effects always have intelligent causes, such as dictionaries, sculptures, machines and paintings. We reason by analogy that similar effects have intelligent causes.

"For example, after looking up to see 'BUY FORD' spelled out in smoke across the sky we infer the presence of a skywriter even if we heard or saw no airplane...In like manner an intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source.

"Why then doesn't the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source?...

"We believe that if this question is considered, it will be seen that most often it is answered in the negative simply because it is thought to be inappropriate to bring a Creator into science."

Remember too that Chemical Evolution assumes that not only did the first little organism spontaneously generate, it then proceeded to explode into the macroevolution of every living creature on earth—including obviously humans.

In other words, all the complexities of your body, including your DNA, are simply amazing, confounding accidents of nature—according to experts that is.

But did life start with RNA?

Some scientists are now trying to show how RNA was "spontaneously formed" and subsequently advanced to DNA.

Why the new theory?

DNA, they have determined, is too complex to have been formed by the "random encounters of chemicals."

This is correct.

The odds of "random creation" of just 3% of the human genome are, conservatively, 1 in 1045,000,000 (more on this in a later article). This far exceeds the total number of collective events of hundreds of trillions of universes like ours.

Only problem is, how did RNA come into being? It too is enormously complicated.

And how did it, in turn, "randomly form to DNA?"

Andre Brack, a biologist at the Centre de Biophysique Moleculaire in France and president of the International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life, wrote: "The direct formation of RNA is not a generally accepted model for the origins of life."

It's far too complicated for scientists to conceptualize, which has forced some to suggest that an unknown, "more primitive" molecule evolved into RNA.

In other words, they have no informed idea.

Tom Abate of the San Francisco Chronicle, in his article "Human Genome Map Has scientists Talking About the Divine: Surprisingly low number of genes raises big questions" wrote:

"In modern cells, proteins help make RNA and DNA—just as DNA and RNA help make proteins. So it turns out science still can't explain the chemical interactions that gave rise to the DNA, RNA and protein molecules that form the triumvirate of life."

But all this entertaining speculation does nothing more than distract from the obvious, which is this:

Regardless of whether it's RNA, DNA, proteins, or anything else—eventually the human genome was formed. If, as they say, it occurred "entirely by chance"—then any way you look at it, it still reduces to a probability calculation.

And this is physically and mathematically impossible without the aid of Intelligence, as we plan to show in the near future.

More problems

As clear as these evidences are, I haven't even begun to tap the total complexity of even the simplest organism. In fact, the cell membrane and nucleus are just two of many examples of cell complexity that could be provided.

Additionally, inside the cell membrane, far greater complexity exists (as one would expect).

Take for example the ribosomes, where proteins are manufactured in an exceedingly complex process. Every one of the hundreds of cell proteins—each with a specific task—is produced by those ribosomes.

Or how about the mitochondria, that multifaceted power plant of the cell? Here the organism's energy (ATP) is generated, distributed, and recycled in a process so complicated experts are still trying to grasp it.

Inside the mitochondria, complicated enzymes produce the cell's energy. Although representing only a tiny part of the cell, enzymes are so absurdly complicated that some scientists believe (correctly so) that they alone prove beyond reasonable doubt that Chemical Evolution's version of Spontaneous Generation is a myth.

Each enzyme is composed of dozens of intricate proteins, together possessing thousands of precisely arranged amino acids. Remove or rearrange any one of those proteins, or a single amino acid, and the organism could die. Enzymes are specific to function, which means they must be precisely shaped to work correctly.

Finally, consider the lysosome, an organelle that also contains enzymes. Lysosomes are responsible for digesting foreign bodies.

So observationally complex is the cell—with its nucleus, DNA, mitochondria, and other organelles—that experts believe there are, at any moment in time, at least 20 different and specific chemical reactions taking place that are vital to the cell's survival.

Continuing deceptions of evolution

But instead of rejecting their hopeless assumptions, experts have chosen to deceive the public with the unreservedly dishonest mythical illusion that unicellular organisms are "simple."

In truth, human beings have never been able to produce anything that approaches the complexity of unicellular organisms.

Computers, space shuttles, video cameras, airplanes—you name it—all pale in comparison to so-called "simple" life form complexity.

That's why experts can manufacture airplanes and computers—but haven't approached the recreation of even the least complicated organism on the planet.

5 Reasons Chemical Evolution is False:
REASON #1—That "simple little organism" isn't so simple after all
REASON #2—Nature can't produce complex organic molecules
REASON #3—'Irreducible complexity' insurmountable problem
REASON #4—Thermodynamics is a deathblow to evolution
REASON #5—Chemical Evolution is mathematically and physically impossible

Additional recommended reading:

Evolutionists ecstatic over methane gas discovery on Mars


Print this article Email this article

How to be Saved

10 Tips

Christian Living

         Article Archives:   Feature Article Archives Video Archives Bible Mythbuster Archives
          Main Links:  
Home Make ReligiouslyIncorrect.org your Favorite Translate this page Join our Email List Contact Us
          Other Links:  
Submit Your Article Find Other Christians Near You
        © 2009 ReligiouslyIncorrect.org