QUANDO Charles Darwin propose la sua teoria dell’evoluzione ammise che la vita poteva essere stata ‘originariamente impressa dal Creatore in poche forme, o in una forma sola’.1 Ma l’attuale teoria dell’evoluzione non fa di solito no mention of a Creator. On the contrary, the theory of spontaneous generation of life, once rejected has been revived in a different form.
2 The hypothesis of spontaneous generation of life can be traced back to centuries ago. In the seventeenth century, even prominent scientists like Francis Bacon and William Harvey accepted this theory. But by the nineteenth century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had struck a blow to the seemingly decisive experimental demonstration that life could come only from other life existing. However, by necessity, the theory of evolution based on the assumption that, long ago, life at the microscopic level is somehow spontaneously created by inanimate matter.
A new form of spontaneous generation
3 This view current evolutionary origin of life is summed up in a book by Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene. Dawkins suggests that early Earth's atmosphere was composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Under the pressure of sunlight energy, and possibly lightning and volcanic eruptions, these compounds would split the elementary and later reassembled to form amino acids. Several of these would gradually accumulated in the sea, then form compounds similar to proteins. Finally, Dawkins says, the sea became a "primordial soup" organic, although ancora privo di vita.
4 “A un certo punto”, sempre secondo la descrizione di Dawkins, “una molecola particolarmente ragguardevole”, una molecola dotata della capacità di riprodursi, “si formò accidentalmente”. Pur ammettendo che un simile evento accidentale sarebbe stato estremamente improbabile, Dawkins afferma che deve comunque essere avvenuto. Molecole affini si sarebbero raggruppate, e poi, per un evento fortuito estremamente improbabile, si sarebbero ricoperte di una parete protettiva formata da altre molecole proteiche a mo’ di membrana. Così, ci vien detto, si autogenerò la prima cellula vivente.2
5 A questo punto il lettore potrebbe cominciare a capire il sense of the claim that Dawkins makes in the introduction to his book: "This book should be read as if it were science fiction" .3 If you do a search on the subject, one realizes that this approach is not an isolated case. Most texts on the evolution of flying over the enormous difficulty of explaining how life may have originated from inanimate matter. Hence the words of William Thorpe, Institute of Zoology, University of Cambridge, to my colleagues: "All the speculation and simplistic arguments published in the last ten or fifteen years to explain how life originated has proved to be too naive and not very credible. In fact, the problem seems far from solution as much as before ".4
6 The explosive growth of scientific knowledge in recent years has done nothing but accentuate the chasm that separates the living from inanimate matter. Even the oldest known one-celled organisms have proved infinitely complex. "The problem for biology is to achieve a simple principle," say the astronomers Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. "The fossil residues of ancient life forms found in the rocks do not reveal a simple principle. . . . Therefore, the theory of evolution lacks a proper basis ".5 And with the increase of knowledge is increasingly difficult to explain how they are able to come to the existence of microscopic life forms so incredibly complex.
7 main stages to arrive at the origin of life, according to evolutionary theory are: (1) the existence of suitable primitive atmosphere and (2) the concentration of a nutrient in the oceans of organic molecules "simple" necessary for life. (3) formed from these proteins and nucleotides (chemical complex) (4) aggregate and is covered with a membrane, after which (5) developed a genetic code and began to reproduce copies of themselves. These steps are consistent with the data available?
The primitive atmosphere
8 In 1953, Stanley Miller subjected to electric shocks an 'atmosphere' of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor. It produced some of the many existing and amino acids that constitute the building blocks they are made of proteins. Miller won only 4 of the 20 amino acids essential to life. More than thirty years later, scientists were not able to experimentally produce all 20 amino acids necessary conditions that could be considered plausible.
9 Miller was assumed that the primitive atmosphere of Earth was similar to that of the ball used in his experiment. Why? Because, as dissero in seguito lui e un suo collaboratore, “la sintesi dei composti di interesse biologico può verificarsi solo in condizioni riducenti [in assenza di ossigeno libero nell’atmosfera]”.6 Ma secondo le teorie di altri evoluzionisti, l’ossigeno c’era. Il dilemma che questo pone all’evoluzione è così riassunto da Hitching: “Se nell’aria c’era ossigeno, il primo amminoacido non si sarebbe mai formato; senza ossigeno, sarebbe stato eliminato dai raggi cosmici”.7
10 Il fatto è che qualsiasi tentativo di determinare la composizione dell’atmosfera primitiva della terra non può che essere congetturale. Nessuno sa con esattezza da cosa fosse composta.
could form a "soup" organic?
11 is highly unlikely that the alleged amino acids formed in the atmosphere they were going to end up in the oceans, and form a "stock" plan. The same energy that is supposed to have split the simple compounds in the atmosphere would more rapidly decomposed any amino acid complex has been determined. Interestingly, in his experiment of 'atmosphere' subjected to electric shocks, Miller saved the four amino acids obtained because they took off from where the lightning occurred. If I had left them, they would discharge decomposed. Assuming
12 however, that in some way the amino acids were able to reach the ocean and to find protection from the destructive ultraviolet radiation in the atmosphere, which would have happened? Hitching said: "Under the surface there would be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions, water inhibits the formation of ever more complex molecules" .8
13 Therefore, once in water, amino acids would leave due to form larger molecules and proteins useful in evolving to the formation of life. But once out of the water, they would have found exposed to the destructive ultraviolet rays! In other words, writes Hitching, "The probability theory to overcome even this relatively simple first stage [the formation of amino acids] in the evolution of life are infinitely small" .9
14 Although commonly say that life arose spontaneously in the oceans, water is not is not an environment conducive to the necessary chemical reactions. The chemist Richard Dickerson explains: "It is therefore difficult to imagine how it could have achieved cure [the union of simple molecules in most forms of greater] in the aqueous primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [ the breakdown of larger molecules in simpler molecules] rather than the reverse reaction ".10 The biochemist George Wald has the same opinion, and says:" The spontaneous dissolution is much more likely, and then proceeds much faster than the spontaneous synthesis. This means that you could not accumulate any organic soup! According to Wald, this is "the hardest problem for us [evolutionists] .11
15 But there is another big problem that the theory of evolution has to overcome. Please note that there are over 100 amino acids, which, however, only 20 are needed to proteins of life. Moreover, they are present in two configurations: Molecules sono “destrogire”, mentre altre sono “levogire”. Se si formassero a caso, come in un ipotetico “brodo primordiale”, molto probabilmente metà degli amminoacidi sarebbero destrogiri e metà levogiri. Non c’è inoltre alcuna ragione nota per cui nei viventi l’una o l’altra delle due forme debba essere preferibile. Eppure, dei 20 amminoacidi utilizzati nella sintesi delle proteine della vita, tutti sono levogiri!
16 Com’è possibile che, per caso, nel brodo si raggruppassero solo amminoacidi del tipo specificamente richiesto? Il fisico J. D. Bernal afferma: “Si deve ammettere che [ciò] . . . continua ad essere uno degli aspetti structural life more difficult to explain. " He concludes: "Perhaps we will never explain" 12
Protein spontaneous and probability
17 What are the odds that amino acids just unite to form a protein molecule? You could make an example of a big pile consists of an equal number of red beans and white beans well mixed. The pile of beans are also present in more than 100 varieties. If infilaste a shovel into the pile, are you going? To make the beans so that they represent the basic components of a protein, you should take only the red ones: either a white bean. Also, with the paddle should taking only 20 varieties of red beans, each of which should be in a particular point of the blade. In the world of proteins, a single mistake in any of these issues would prevent the protein to get to work properly. Continue to stir our hypothetical pile of beans and to insert the blade, we could finally get the right combination? No. How is it possible that this happened in the hypothetical organic soup?
18 proteins essential to life have very complex molecules. What are the odds that even one simple protein molecule is formed accidentally in an organic soup? Evolutionists admit that the odds would be soltanto una su 10113 (1 seguito da 113 zeri). Ma qualsiasi evento le cui probabilità di verificarsi siano anche solo una su 1050 viene scartato dai matematici nella convinzione che non si verificherà mai. Per avere un’idea delle probabilità in questione, si pensi che 10113 è un numero superiore a quello di tutti gli atomi presumibilmente esistenti nell’universo!
19 Alcune proteine servono come materiali strutturali e altre come enzimi. Queste ultime accelerano le reazioni chimiche necessarie alla vita cellulare. Senza questo aiuto la cellula morrebbe. Le proteine enzimatiche necessarie al suo funzionamento non sono poche: ne servono 2.000. Che probabilità ci sono che venissero a trovarsi tutte insieme per caso? Una su 1040.000! "A probability so immeasurably small," says Hoyle, "that there could be addressed even if the entire universe was formed by an organic soup." He adds: "If a person is not affected, or social beliefs or by their scientific training, thinking that life originated [spontaneously in] on Earth, this simple calculation should be sufficient to completely erase this idea" .13
20 In fact, the chances are even lower than this figure indicates that "disproportionately small". The cell must be surrounded by a membrane. But this membrane is extremely complex, formed by protein molecules, sugars and fats. The evolutionist Leslie Orgel writes: "Today's cell membranes are equipped with channels and pumps that regulate the entry and exit of nutrients, waste products, metals and so on. These channels require specialized proteins highly specific molecules that could not be present at the very beginning of the evolution of life ".14
The unique genetic code
21 are even more difficult to synthesize nucleotides, the structural units of DNA, which contains the genetic code. Five histones are associated with DNA (histones is expected to have to do with control of genes). The chances of an accidental short of even the most basic of them would be one in 20,100 histones, another huge number, "which exceeds the total of all atoms in all the stars and galaxies visible in the highest astronomical telescopes" .15
22 But the theory of evolution even greater difficulties as regards the source of the entire genetic code, which is essential for the reproduction of the cell. The old chicken and egg riddle is repeated about proteins and DNA. Hitching said: "The formation of proteins depends on the DNA. But DNA can not be formed without a pre-existing protein ".16 Hence the paradox mentioned by Dickerson, "To the question: 'There appeared the first one or the other? [Ie, the enzyme proteins or nucleic acids] 'must be answered:' We have developed in parallel '".17 In other words, is saying that the' egg 'and' hen 'must have evolved simultaneously, without the' the other one has failed. Sounds like a reasonable conclusion? A science writer sums up the matter with these words: "The origin of the genetic code is a puzzle similar to the egg and the chicken, which is a problem still to be resolved" .18 23 The chemical
Dickerson also makes this interesting statement: "The evolution of the genetic mechanism is the phase for which there are no laboratory models, so you can speculate endlessly, not being hampered by any inconvenient fact" .19 It is scientifically correct to put aside so easily this avalanche of ' inconvenient facts'? Leslie Orgel defines the existence of the genetic code "the most disconcerting aspect of the problem of the origins of life" .20 For his part, Francis Crick concludes: "The mechanism necessary to give effect to the genetic code, which is almost universal, is too complex to be born in one fell swoop ".21
24 The theory of evolution seeks to eliminate la necessità di far avvenire l’impossibile “in un colpo solo” presupponendo un processo graduale che abbia consentito alla selezione naturale di agire lentamente. Ma senza il codice genetico che permettesse di dare inizio alla riproduzione non poteva esistere il materiale sul quale la selezione naturale avrebbe dovuto operare.
La sorprendente fotosintesi
25 C’è un altro ostacolo che la teoria dell’evoluzione deve sormontare. A un certo punto la cellula primitiva dovette escogitare qualcosa che avrebbe rivoluzionato la vita sulla terra: la fotosintesi. Questo processo, mediante il quale le piante assorbono anidride carbonica e cedono ossigeno, non è ancora del tutto compreso dagli scienziati. As the biologist F. W. Went, "is a process that so far nobody has been able to reproduce in test tubes" .22 Yet some people believe that just a tiny cell is able to produce it by accident.
26 Thanks to photosynthesis, an atmosphere devoid of free oxygen turned into an atmosphere in which an oxygen molecule in five. This made possible the life of animals that breathe oxygen, and the formation of an ozone layer that protects all life from the harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation. One can attribute this amazing set of circumstances to the case?
intelligence is needed?
27 Di fronte alle astronomiche probabilità contrarie alla formazione accidentale di una cellula vivente, alcuni evoluzionisti si vedono costretti a fare marcia indietro. Per esempio, Hoyle e Wickramasinghe, autori di Evoluzione dallo spazio, si arrendono, dicendo: “Questi problemi sono troppo complessi per poterli esprimere numericamente”. E aggiungono: “Non c’è alcun modo . . . di risolvere i nostri problemi disponendo semplicemente di un brodo organico maggiore e migliore, come noi stessi speravamo che fosse possibile solo un paio di anni fa. I numeri che abbiamo ottenuto sono tali da lasciare così poche speranze alla scala dell’universo come a quella terrestre”.23
28 Quindi, dopo have recognized that to give rise to life there must be some way desired intelligence, the authors say: "In fact such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not accepted by all as evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific ".24 An observer might conclude that the only plausible explanation of why the majority of evolutionists prefer to believe a random source of life rather than - in the words of Dawkins -" on a drawing or a purpose or an intended direction, "25 is a barrier to the 'psychological'. Even Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, after acknowledging the need for intelligence, say they believe that the origin of life is attributable to a Creatore.26 According to their reasoning, intelligence is necessary prerequisite, but the idea of \u200b\u200ba Creator is unacceptable. There seems to be a contradictory attitude?
is science?
29 To be accepted as scientific fact, the spontaneous origin of life should be proved with scientific method, described as follows: Observe what is happening, on the basis of these observations a theory about what might be true as the theory with further observations and experiments, and see if the predictions based on it come true.
30 Wanting to apply the scientific method, it is not possible to observe the spontaneous generation of life. There is no evidence that this is happening now and, of course, no human observer was present when, according to evolutionists, this would happen. No theory on the matter was verified by observation. Laboratory experiments have failed to replicate. Predictions based on this theory were not fulfilled. Given the impossibility of applying the scientific method, it is scientifically correct to raise such a theory to the status of that? 31
other hand, there is ample evidence to support the conclusion that the generation spontaneous life from inanimate matter is not possible. "Just think of the vastness of this undertaking," admits George Wald, a professor at Harvard, "to conclude that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible." But then it says to believe this evolution? "Yet here we are: and I am convinced that we are a result of a spontaneous generation" .27 There seems to be a scientific or objective conclusion?
32 The British biologist Joseph Henry Woodger called this reasoning "real dogmatism: pretending you want to believe that what is actually happened" .28 What was that scientists sono arrivati ad accettare nella loro mente questa palese contraddizione del metodo scientifico? Il noto evoluzionista Loren Eiseley ammise: “Dopo aver rimproverato il teologo per la sua fiducia nel mito e nel miracolo, la scienza si è trovata nell’imbarazzante situazione di dover creare una propria mitologia, ovvero la supposizione che ciò che, nonostante lunghi tentativi, non si poteva dimostrare avvenisse oggi fosse realmente avvenuto nel passato primordiale”.29
33 Stando così le cose, si può dire che la teoria della generazione spontanea della vita trovi posto più nel reame della fantascienza che in quello dei fatti scientifici. A quanto pare molti suoi sostenitori hanno messo da parte in questo caso il metodo scientific to believe what they want to believe. Despite the overwhelming odds against accidental origin of life, a tenacious dogmatism prevails over caution normally suggested by the scientific method.
Not all scientists accept it
34 However, not all scientists reject a priori the alternative. The physicist H. S. Lipson, realizing the enormous odds against spontaneous origin of life, says: "The only plausible explanation is creation. I know this is taboo for physicists, as it is in fact for me, but we must not reject a theory that if we do not like is supported by the evidence experimental. " It also notes that, after Darwin's The Origin of Species, "evolution became in a sense a scientific religion, most scientists have accepted it and many are ready to 'touch up' the results of their observations to fit in it ".30 Sad but true.
35 Chandra Wickramasinghe, a professor at University College, Cardiff, said: "From the beginning of my scientific studies, have been subjected to a vigorous brainwashing because convince me that science can not accept any kind of deliberate creation. There has been very hard to leave due to the concept. The situation, the mental condition where I am now, it's pretty uncomfortable. But there is no logical way out. . . . Consider the life of the result of a chemical accident on earth is like looking for a particular grain of sand on the beaches of all the planets in the universe, and find him. " In other words, it is possible that life is the result of a chemical accident. Wickramasinghe then concludes: "There is no other way we can understand the exact order of chemical substances vital if not appealing to the creations on a cosmic scale" .31 36 As
says astronomer Robert Jastrow, "scientists have evidence that life was not the result an act of creation ".32
37 But even assuming that a first living cell is somehow coming into existence spontaneously, there is evidence that has evolved, giving life to all living creatures and lived on the earth? The fossils provide the answer, and the next chapter will examine what it says in fact the fossil record.
feedback on yesterday's and today's evolutionary origin of life
"The hypothesis that life developed from inorganic matter is still an article of faith." - JWN Sullivan, matematicod
"The chances that life originated by chance is comparable to the probability of a complete dictionary is formed as a result of an explosion in a printing press. " - Edwin Conklin, biologoe
"Just think of the vastness of this undertaking to conclude that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible." - George Wald, biochimicof
"An honest man, armed with all the current knowledge, can only say that for now, in a sense, the origin of life appears to be almost a miracle." - Francis Crick, biologog
"If a person is qualified, or social beliefs or by their scientific training, to think that life originated [spontaneously in] on Earth, this simple calculation [of mathematical probabilities otherwise] should be sufficient to completely erase this idea. " - Fred Hoyle and NC Wickramasinghe, astronomers
The incredible cell
A living cell is extraordinarily complex. The biologist Francis Crick, while trying to describe in simple terms the complex functioning of the cell, you realize you can only go up to a certain point, which invites the reader to 'do not try to master all the details'.
Le istruzioni contenute nel DNA della cellula, “se messe per iscritto, occuperebbero 1.000 volumi di 600 pagine l’uno”, dice National Geographic. “Ogni cellula è un mondo che trabocca di minuscoli aggregati di atomi chiamati molecole, il cui numero può arrivare a 200.000 miliardi. . . . I nostri 46 cromosomi, che hanno forma di filamenti, se allineati misurerebbero più di un metro e 80 centimetri. Eppure il nucleo in cui sono racchiusi ha un diametro inferiore a 10 millesimi di millimetro”.b
La rivista Newsweek, per dare un’idea dell’attività cellulare, fa questo esempio: “Ciascuna di questi 100.000 miliardi di cellule funziona come una città cinta da mura. Ci sono centrali elettriche che producono l’energia di cui la cellula ha bisogno. Ci sono fabbriche di proteine, elementi indispensabili per lo scambio chimico. Complessi sistemi di trasporto guidano particolari sostanze chimiche da un punto all’altro della cellula e fuori. Sentinelle ai posti di blocco controllano le esportazioni e le importazioni, e scrutano il mondo esterno in cerca di segnali di pericolo. Disciplinate truppe biologiche si tengono pronte a intervenire contro gli invasori. Un governo genetico centrale mantiene l’ordine”.c
Quando per la prima volta fu proposta la moderna teoria dell’evoluzione, gli scienziati avevano solo un’idea molto vaga della fantastica complessità di una cellula vivente. Nella pagina accanto sono illustrate alcune parti di una cellula tipo, tutte contenute in un involucro di soli 0,025 millimetri di diametro.
0 comments:
Post a Comment