Don't let Darwin make a monkey out of you

OTOH, how can you look at your own dear children and not see that the food throwing and screaming and climbing is so eerily reminiscent of the zoo!?!?!?!?!

: |

LOL!

(Then again, at least they respond to threats!)

0:^)

stand has parents as you well know. Surely you can back up your assertion.

Not knowing that for sure I'll stick with my suspicions.

Not knowing that for sure I'll stick with my suspicions.

What "evidence" is there that life "evolved" from inanimate matter?

What "evidence" is there that life "evolved" from inanimate matter?

The fact that we're here indicates that life began somwhere. Abiogenesis studies how life might have emerged billions of years ago and there are a number of theories how it might have happened. None as elaborate as Genesis, but at least they are testable.

LOL.

if i assumed that you follow evo because of the #s and I am wrong, then my apologies to you

but you are not clear as you are stil evading the question. why do you expect others to be impressed by the # of scientists believing in evolution when you yourself are (rightfully) not impressed by the majority of scientists who support man made climate change?

I'm not evading the question, you're drawing conclusions where there is nothing to support them. Goldenstategop made a blanket statement, "Orthodox Dawrwinism has been discredited." I pointed out, correctly, that thousands of scientists and millions of people do not agree with his blanket, unsupported claim. That is a fact, but I do not accept evolution because thousands of scientists believe it. I accept it because I believe the evidence supports it. How you managed to stumble to the conclusion that I believe it simply because thousands of other do is beyond me. Should I conclude that you believe in creationism merely because Goldenstategop says evolution has been discredited?

Abiogenesis studies how life might have emerged billions of years ago and there are a number of theories how it might have happened. None as elaborate as Genesis, but at least they are testable.

So where are these tests that prove that inanimate matter evolved into something living?

So where are these tests that prove that inanimate matter evolved into something living?

Miller-Urey performed their experiments in the early 50's. Fox did his experiements in the 60's. Other hypothesis are being developed and tested. Nobody that I'm aware of have achieved conclusive results but the work goes on. The fact that it hasn't been completed in seven days doesn't invalidate it.

The fact that it hasn't been completed in seven days doesn't invalidate it.

I can form the hypothesis that frogs can fly and test it until I'm blue in the face, but it will never prove frogs can fly. On the contrary, all I'll ever prove is that frogs can't fly. If some extremely simple proteins evolved from inanimate matter, the universe should be teeming with such, easily provable - yet decades of experimentation has not proven even the simplest of hypotheses regarding abiogenesis.

Falsehood #1, "It was an experiment by Stanley Miller in the 1950s that claimed to produce life out of a 'soup' of chemicals placed into a container full of gases and energised with a swift bolt of electricity."

The Miller/Urey experiment was published in Science magazine and was never claimed or intended to produce life. Miller proposed to test a hypothesis made by Harold Urey that the reducing atmospheres common on extraterrestrial planets would spontaneously produce "organic" molecules if subjected to an energy source. Miller used a gas mixture of hydrogen, methane, carbon monoxide, and water. After just a few days, he discovered that about 11 amino acids had readily formed. By the way, an electrical discharge only travels at one speed. Later studies used many different gas mixtures, and different energy sources such as ultraviolet light, heat and pressure. Miller, Stanley L., 1953 “A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions” Science vol. 117:528-529

Falsehoods #2-4. "The idea was that this combination reproduced the conditions all those millions of years ago on Earth when life first appeared and the experiment attempted to do the same thing in a laboratory. Remember it now? Still believe that it's the best explanation of how life came to be? Think again.

There is good evidence that the earliest life on earth was close to 3.8 billion years ago. The Miller experiment never intended to reproduce all the necessary, or common conditions on earth at any time. The Miller experiment never attempted to created life. The Miller experiment has been extended, and exceeded in many ways in the last 54 years.

Falsehoods 5-8 "This experiment has, for the last 20 or 30 years, been totally discredited by the scientific community, yet that little gem of information hasn't filtered through to us, or to our education system. Objections include the fact that they made wrong assumptions about the gases and the amount of electricity that would have been needed to make it work. In other words they managed to get most of the experiment wrong.

The Miller experiment was never "discredited." In the late 1960s and early '70s some geologists disagreed with the reducing atmosphere hypothesis of Urey. As it happens, the Urey hypothesis of a highly reduced atmosphere was correct all along, and the gas mixture originally used by Miller was correct all along. The "amount of electricity" objection exists only in the imagination of the creationist Steve Maltz and copied by Kimmy. However, the basic results from Miller's 1953 experiment have been repeated with many different energy sources making the creationist's objection merely a sign of ignorance. In fact, for what Miller had proposed, he got it all correct.

Doesn't fill us with much confidence, does it?

I don't have any confidence at all in a creationist with so little knowledge.

Falsehoods 9,10 "Yet some school textbooks still feature the experiment and, although others may feature it with a warning that it's not the best fit for the data, it is included because the scientists haven't found a better fit for the data and they had to provide some explanation that reflected their world view!

The Miller experiment should be in every school biology book, and the shame is that it is not in every textbook. The Miller experiment was a perfect "fit" as it merely showed what chemicals were produced under the tested conditions. And finally, it is not a question of "world view" unless Mr. Maltz proposes to burn all books which he views as inconsistent with his religious belief. In which case we can toss the Constitution and bring on the Inquisition.

The Miller experiment should be in every school biology book...

...Maybe they should also include the following:
(or a reasonable facsimile thereof)

The Miller-Urey experiment

J. H. John Peet BSc, MSc, PhD, CChem, FRSC

Charles Darwin recognised that a basic problem of his theory of evolution was to produce life itself. In a letter to Joseph Hooker in 1871, he wrote:

"… if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive [of] 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, at the present day such matter would be instantly absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were found."

1953 was a landmark year for scientists researching an evolutionary explanation for the appearance of life. Stanley Miller reported that he had conducted an experiment which replicated the primeval conditions on Earth and had produced the chemicals that were essential for life to begin. Extravagant claims were made by some, even that he had synthesised life itself! Over fifty years have passed and we can make a sober and scientific assessment of that experiment and others like it. Let’s consider firstly what he did and got.

Figure 1. Miller's Apparatus

He assembled a closed system (figure 1) into which he pumped a mixture of gases (methane, ammonia and hydrogen). There was a flask of boiling water in order to add water vapour to the mixture and the gases were circulated around the apparatus. The gaseous mixture was subjected to a high voltage electrical discharge and then passed through a condenser to cool it down before going through a “trap” cooled in ice to collect any liquid products. Unchanged material was cycled through the apparatus repeatedly to maximise the yield.

This was a good chemical experiment but was it relevant to the objective? Let’s look closely at the detail.

Irrelevant atmosphere

Firstly, consider the gaseous mixture. This was supposed to replicate the primeval atmosphere on the Earth. You will notice that there is an absence of oxygen and nitrogen which are the main elemental constituents of our present environment. The problem recognised by Miller and his colleagues was that oxygen would destroy any organic material in the experiment and certainly in the period of time they allocated to the early period on the planet. For example, when we die, we decay. A part of that process (in addition to bacterial action) is the oxidation of the organic materials in the body, generating carbon dioxide and water.

Consequently, evolutionary scientists have proposed that the early Earth had no elemental oxygen. It would, in fact, be a “reducing atmosphere”, the opposite of the modern oxidising one. (They go on to hypothesise that this would gradually change as primitive life produced oxygen through processes such as photosynthesis). However, the evidence for this reducing atmosphere is very tenuous. Increasingly we are finding from geological and palaeontological research that an oxygen-based atmosphere must have existed from the earliest times.

But, we can ask whether the atmosphere proposed by Miller was likely to be stable. Abelson reports that the ammonia in the atmosphere would have decomposed within 30,000 years: it is inherently unstable, decomposing into nitrogen and hydrogen. Also, much of it would dissolve out of the atmosphere due to its great solubility in water. Methane would only have lasted for about 1% of the time required for the appearance of life by this process, according to Shimzu. Brinkman has shown that even the water vapour would have been broken down due to the sun’s radiation. The trouble is that we think of these gases as stable – indeed they are relative to our lifetime, but not on the evolutionary timescales. And hydrogen? We know that hydrogen does not exist as an element on this planet: it escapes into space very rapidly due to its low density.

Various other alternative atmospheres have been proposed, but these either don’t generate the materials required or are faced with similar problems to those mentioned for Miller’s work.

Irrelevant conditions

So, the atmosphere used was irrelevant. In fact, the experimental conditions are also irrelevant. We have to ask how we could get the circulatory system necessary for the build up of the quantity of chemicals. Where would the cooling systems have been that are needed to isolate the products and protect them from further reaction? What was the source of energy? Miller used electrical discharges and compared them to lightning. But the intensities required would be far greater than those experienced today. Others have argued that the sun provides large amounts of continuous energy (which is used today in photosynthesis, for example). This, they claim, over extended periods of time could synthesise the required chemicals. But this overlooks something important.

Basically, this argument is saying,

Raw materials + Energy fi Life molecules.

But this omits an important factor. In any process that leads to complexity there must be an information source. For example, in photosynthesis a complex system involving chlorophyll captures energy from the sun and uses it to build molecules from raw materials. Can you imagine shaking a flask containing the basic materials for the production of life (amino acids, sugars, nucleotides, fatty acids, etc.) and continuing to do so until life appeared? That is essentially what we are requiring in an undirected synthesis of this type. “Shake it more vigorously and for longer” is not an encouraging command!

Low yield

So, what about the results of Miller’s experiment? He obtained a “soup” that contained around 9 amino acids, 2% of the simplest, glycine and alanine, and traces of 7 others. (A number of other organic compounds were produced in small quantities but they have no significance in the origin of life scenario and could even hinder further progress by reacting with the amino acids). Amino acids have the general formula:

NH2
|
R –CH – COOH

Where COOH is an acidic group, NH2 is the amino group and R represents a variety of organic groups that can be inserted. These amino acids (20 different ones occur in most living organisms) can be joined through their acidic and amino groups to give proteins. These in turn are fundamental to the structure of living organisms (muscles, skin, hair, etc.) and to their chemical activity (through enzymes). Chemically, this group of chemicals in living organisms are the simplest to produce. Attempts to produce other materials of this sort have been less successful.

You can imagine, therefore, the excitement with which Miller’s work was received. But, even as he acknowledges now, it proved to have limited relevance to the problem. The yields obtained under these conditions were very small. This is not surprising if we consider the physical chemistry of the reaction.

Let’s consider glycine, the simplest amino acid (R is a hydrogen atom). According to DE Hull, the synthesis of glycine can be represented by the equation:

2 CH4 + NH3 + 2 H2O ´ H2N.CH2.COOH + 5 H2

You can write the equilibrium constant expression for this:

K = p(gly).p(H₂)⁵
p(CH₄)².p(NH₃).p(H₂O)²

We can calculate the value of the constant from thermodynamic information and it is

K = 2 x 10^-40

This would give (at proposed primeval pressures) a concentration of 10-27 mol.dm-3 (one molecule in 10,000 litres)! Not a good yield. More complex amino acids would give lower yields still. The only way to shift the equilibrium in favour of an increased yield would be to remove the products as they are formed. As Miller found, this still gives a very low yield, but without it the products are destroyed in the recycling process.

This means that the probability of the amino acid molecules coming into contact and forming a protein is negligible: too few in too large a volume of water. Of course, it is not only an equilibrium problem but a kinetic one: the time taken to find another molecule would be too great to produce the materials needed.

Miller’s experiment did produce the amino acids, but only by continuously circulating the reaction mixture and isolating products as they were formed. The quantities were still tiny and not in the same proportions as found in nature.

One of the causes of the low yield has been identified by Peltzer who worked with Miller. As the amino acids were formed they reacted with reducing sugars in the Maillard reaction, forming a brown tar around Miller's apparatus. Ultimately, Miller was producing large compounds called mellanoids, with amino acids as an intermediate product.

Wrong forms of amino acid

But there is a more fundamental problem with this scenario which can easily be overlooked. Amino acids, like all chemicals, are three-dimensional structures. The arrangement of the central carbon atom is tetrahedral (figure 2). In the diagram you will see two versions of this. Unless you are used to studying these sorts of arrangements, you will think they are the same; it would seem that you could just rotate one to get the other. This is not, in fact, the case. We compare them to our hands: right-handed and left-handed. A left-handed glove will not fit on a right hand, for example.

Figure 2. Right and left-handed molecules

Does this matter? The answer is a very loud “Yes!”. In nature, we only have left-handed (levo) amino acids. (Glycine mentioned above is an exception; it does not have two forms – make a model and you will see why!). Miller’s experiment gives a mixture of both forms but nature requires the levo form only. Again, does it matter? Functional proteins cannot contain more than traces of right handed (dextro) amino acids. Right-handed forms (dextro) can have very different, even fatal, effects in some circumstances.

It is not a simple process to separate them and there is no natural system that can do so. In fact, L-amino acids have a tendency with age to undergo a chemical inversion to the D-form. This is called racemization. (This again gives a headache to the evolutionists: if amino acids could have been synthesised in a pure L-form, within a short time they would have racemized to give a 50:50 mixture of the two forms!). This racemization occurs in nature and can cause severe problems. For example, teeth and eye proteins racemize with age and so affect their health; Alzheimer’s disease also may be caused by racemization of a protein.

This structural distinction is a property that occurs widely in organic chemistry. For example, from non-protein substances we can observe the effect. Limonene occurs in these two forms: one gives the smell of lemons and the other of oranges! More seriously, the drug thalidomide was produced to aid pregnant mothers in order to combat “morning sickness”. It was very effective but sadly serious deformities occurred in many babies. The reason was that the commercial drug was sold in a mixture of the handed forms.

A similar problem arises with naturally occurring sugars: they are found in the dextro- form, not the levo one as in amino acids!

So, we see in this first stage experiment that we have irrelevant conditions, a wrong atmosphere, low yields of chemicals in wrong proportions and a serious structural problem. If other compounds necessary to life were present (indeed other compounds at all), we would also have the problem of competitive reactions effectively lowering the yields even further.

The problem of building a protein

We can see that the process of chemical evolution has failed at the first hurdle. But, in order to get a complete picture, let’s assume the problem can be solved (and no-one has done that yet!). We now need the amino acids to join together (polymerise) to form proteins.

Figure 3. Primary, secondary, tertiary and quaternary protein structure

Here again we have a string of problems. Let’s start with the basic chemical one. To link the small molecules together, we need to remove water molecules between adjacent amino acid molecules. In the case of two amino acid units, it looks like this:

HOOC - CHR1 – NH2 + HOOC – CHR2 - NH2

HOOC - CH R1 – NH- OC - CHR2 - NH2 + H2O

This is an equilibrium reaction, which does not occur spontaneously, and the yield of protein depends on removing the water. But, the scenario pictured by evolutionary scientists is one that occurs in a pool of water! Not a promising start!

Since it is an equilibrium system, we can apply equilibrium calculations to it. Consider a protein of just 100 amino acids (rather a small one in terms of naturally occurring materials),

K = [protein] = 10^-36
[a.a.]¹⁰⁰

If all the atmospheric nitrogen was used to produce the maximum amount of protein, the concentration of protein would be about 10-106 mol.dm-3. And that is for just one protein – we need hundreds of different ones!

Miller and his colleague Orgel, summed up the position themselves: “Another way of examining this problem is by asking whether there are places on the earth today where we could drop, say, 10 grams of a mixture of amino acids and obtain a significant yield of polypeptides … We cannot think of a single such place.” (Polypeptides are small proteins).

To form these proteins so quickly in the cell, we need accelerators, called enzymes, to enable the reactions to occur rapidly (before the cell dies through lack of a protein!). These enzymes enable reactions to occur in milliseconds. Without them, the reactions can take millions, even trillions, of years. The problem is that enzymes are proteins themselves, and they need enzymes to form themselves!

Consider a cell containing just 124 proteins. Professor Morowitz has calculated that the chance of all these forming without information input is 1 in 10100,000,000. One of the smallest known genomes is that of Mycoplasma genitalium which manufactures about 600 proteins, so what are the chances of that happening without intelligent input? Humans have about 100,000 proteins.

But the problems are only just beginning!

Another big hurdle lies in the structure of the protein molecule. We have seen that it has to be formed by the joining together of these twenty amino acids. For example, the sequence might begin something like this:

Lys – Ala – His – Gly – Lys –Lys – Val – Leu – Gly – Ala -

where the three letters are shorthand for specific amino acids. “Gly” stands for glycine, the simplest amino acid. This chain then twists into a helix. The sequence is called the primary structure and the helix is the secondary structure. Other than the fact that the helical structure can twist in one of two directions (“clockwise” or “anticlockwise”) and it only takes one of these forms in nature, there is no real problem in this second step.

The helix then folds over on itself to give a more complex structure (tertiary structure). This can be imagined most easily by thinking of a floppy spring. If it is released, it will fold over on itself. With the protein chain, there are estimated to be some 100 million different ways it can fold. BUT, only one of these is biologically active. How does it achieve the correct conformation?

The correct tertiary structure for each protein is, in turn, dependent on the primary structure: if the amino acid sequence is changed, the structure will fold incorrectly and lose some or all of its activity. An example of this is in haemoglobin. This is a large molecule with protein side chains. It occurs in our red blood cells and transports oxygen around the body. In one example of the effect of a change in the amino acid sequence, just one change can convert the cell from the very efficient structure we have to a very fragile cell which results in sickle cell anaemia. A person suffering from this deficiency will die young unless they get regular blood transfusions.

A super-computer (“Blue Gene”) is being constructed in order for it to work out what is the best conformation of the protein chain in such structures. When it is complete, it will take a year to do all the calculations. The cell does this in less than a second!

To form these proteins so quickly in the cell, we need accelerators, called enzymes, to enable the reactions to occur rapidly (before the cell dies through a lack of protein!). These enzymes enable reactions to occur in milliseconds. Without them, the reactions can take millions, even trillions of years (100 times the claimed age of the universe!). The problem is that enzymes are proteins themselves – and they need enzymes to form themselves!

Consider a cell containing just 124 proteins. Prof. Morowitz has calculated that the chance of all these forming without information input is 1 in 10100,000,000. The smallest genome is in the Mycoplasma genitalium which manufactures about 600 proteins, so what are the chances of that happening without intelligent input? Humans have 100,000 proteins!

Other chemicals needed for life

As we examine the other types of chemical in the cell (and they are all essential!), we find the problems tend to become greater than those we have outlined for the proteins. For example, complex carbohydrates are formed from sugar molecules. As with the amino acid to protein conversion, the formation of large carbohydrates from sugars is not spontaneous. The probability of their formation is such that there would be only 1 molecule in 1030 times the volume of the universe! And, sugar molecules are only right-handed in nature.

Most scientists acknowledge that these are big problems and that an evolutionary approach has not offered a reasonable scientific explanation for the origin of the molecules needed for a living cell. We have examined the work of Miller. Obviously other scientists have been involved and have suggested alternative approaches, but these have not overcome the difficulties.

RNA World?

Proteins can act as catalysts for chemical reactions but cannot replicate without DNA. However, a slightly simpler molecule, RNA can replicate itself and sometimes can also act as a catalyst. Therefore some scientists have suggested that RNA was the first molecule of life formed. If this could be formed, then it could possibly initiate some of the essential functions required in the cell until the modern structures could evolve. There has been no experimental indication of the formation of either RNA or DNA in a Miller-type synthesis.

Prof. Orgel, a leading scientist in this field of research calls it “the prebiotic chemist’s nightmare”. The RNA molecule may be simpler than DNA, but it is still complex and involves a chemical structure that does not form spontaneously. According to Dr Cairns-Smith, it requires 14 major hurdles with 10 steps in each, giving a probabilility of 1 in 10109 for their successful formation. The first “ribo-organism” would need all the cell’s metabolic functions in order to survive and the is not evidence that such a range of functions is possible for RNA.

Could clays help?

Cairns-Smith considered an alternative approach. He considered that naturally occurring clays might provide a basis for the synthesis of these chemicals. There are irregularities in the structures of clays and the process of crystallisation enables the replication of these structures. Crystals can also fracture producing smaller units of the same symmetry. We do know that clays can catalyse some chemical reactions, so, he proposed, perhaps these irregularities could be the basis on which specific organic reactions might develop, resulting in a primitive cell. He considered that these crystal structures in the clays might be considered as “crystal genes” to direct these organic processes. Though it is an ingenious theory, it is just that. It has not been demonstrated practically as a means to produce the molecules required for a living cell.

Various other chemicals have been used as alternatives to Miller’s mixture, but they all have the same problems: a lack of relevance to the known composition of the primeval earth, low yields of the products of interest, inadequate explanations of stereochemical specificity and the destruction of the key compounds by the prevailing conditions or by other chemical by-products.

Conclusion

One textbook, edited by Soper (“Biological Science 1 and 2”; 3rd edition; Cambridge University Press) summarises the situation well (p. 883):

"Despite the simplified account given above, the problem of the origin(s) of life remains. All that has been outlined is speculation and, despite tremendous advances in biochemistry, answers to the problem remain hypothetical. … Details of the transition from complex non-living materials to simple living organisms remain a mystery."

This conclusion is echoed by those who have spent many years researching in this field of biochemistry. Dr D E Hull wrote,

The conclusion from these arguments presents the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is not fatal, to the theory of spontaneous generation.

Prof Francis Crick, who was a great believer in the accidental origin of life on Earth, said, “The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions that had to be satisfied to get it going.” Prof. Crick goes on to argue that this might be overcome in long periods of time. However, there is no justification for believing that time can overcome basic chemical laws.

Dr H P Yockey (in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1981, 91, 26-29) wrote,

"You must conclude that no valid scientific explanation of life exists at present… Since science has not the vaguest idea how life originated on earth, … it would be honest to admit this to students, the agencies funding research and the public."

source:
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/51/65/

It is very strange to me that creationists are so sanctimonious about their "cosmic and moral truths" but are so sloppy with simple facts. J. H. John Peet proves no different than the average creationist in this regard telling his first lie in his very first sentence. "Charles Darwin recognised (British spelling) that a basic problem of his theory of evolution was to produce life itself."

Here is all that Darwin had to say about the origin of life in his Origin of Species.

“ I believe that animals are descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lessor number. Analogy would lead me one step farther, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants are descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide. Nevertheless all living things have much in common, in their chemical composition, their cellular structure, their laws of growth, and their liability to injurious influences. ... Therefore, on the principle of natural selection with the divergence of character, it does not seem incredible that, from some such low and intermediate form, both animals and plants may have been developed; and, if we admit this, we must likewise admit that all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth may be descended from some one primordial form. But this inference is chiefly grounded on analogy, and it is immaterial whether or not it be accepted. No doubt it is possible, as Mr. G. H. Lewes has urged, that at the first commencement of life many different forms were evolved; but if so, we may conclude that only a very few have left modified descendants.”

And, from the book’s last sentence;

"There is grander in this point of view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one ; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling 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 the 6th edition, http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/

So I note that Darwin was consistent in his opinion that there were few first life forms, and merely a possibly that there could have been only one. Also, note that Darwin is little interested in the issue using well under one page of text from a 450 page book.

It is always a concern to carefully check any time a creationist quotes any scientist, particularly because they dishonestly edit quotes to distort their original meaning. JHJ Peet again proved no exception when he quoted Charles R. Darwin from a letter to the botanist Joseph Hooker (1871). Let us read what Darwin actually wrote, "It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. 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, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed."

Darwin is clearly and correctly addressing the question that if the conditions at the origin of life existed still, why do we not observe the spontaneous origin of new life forms. Peet by deleting the first sentence, used a little snippet to falsely imply Darwin was worried that he did not know the origin of life or that this was a "problem" to the validity of evolutionary theory. In fact, Darwin later in the same letter observed, "It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter."

The origin of life is of no consequence to the theory of evolution.

Over one hundred and thirty years after Darwin wrote to Hooker we do actively study the origin of the universe and the origin of life. Peet has not limited himself to lying about Darwin, but has expounded on purported flaws in the Miller experiment.

I'll address the further creationist lies in a short while.

I'll address the further creationist lies in a short while.

Gee, no need to hold back....tell me what you really think....

I saw an additional minor point of fact that contradicts the last argument from creationist tract posted at the start of this discussion. Anthony Flew, the professor mentioned in the creationist tract posted above was known in English philosophy departments as a advocate of atheism. Frankly, I have no idea of how he made his arguments, but I doubt that they were very original. He is not a scientist of any sort.

A few years ago, Flew was persuaded by some creationists he knew that there was no progress on the scientific study of the origin of life on earth, and that therefore some sort of intelligence that must have intervened. However, after Flew made his opinion known he was confronted with all the progress that had in fact been made. He subsequently admitted that he had never bothered to read the scientific studies in origin of life. He then retracted his statements regarding his so called "conversion."

Personally, I don't care one way or the other whether an aging British philosophy professor thinks that there is a non-human intelligence in the universe superior to human abilities. I read lots of science fiction too. There are even plenty of star trek episodes with "god like" superior beings. This same theme goes back to the fiction in the 1800s.

What is lame-brained is to think that Flew's retracted "conversion" had any significance to anyone but himself. This argument by association was preceded with the silly claim that,

In July 2005 more than 400 scientists put their name to the following statement: They have voluntarily "out-ed" themselves, they have "come out of the closet", willing to declare openly what their consciences and scientific integrity have told them is true."

This is a reference to the creationist organization the "Discovery Institute." Their signature list is dominated by non-scientists such as dentists and engineers, and even the paltry number of scientists they can claim are not specialists in evolution, ecology, or developmental biology. In short, the DI list is as weak as their "theory of gawuddunit." In contrast, there are two other lists, the Project Steve list, and "The Clergy Letter Project." The latter is a strong statement supporting the basic principles of honest science education restricted to members of the Christian clergy. To date, the Clergy Letter Project has collected (22 July 2007) 10,734 signatures compared to the pathetic "scientific" supporters of creationism.

More fun is the "Project Steve" list of The Project Steve statement is clear and direct totally unlike the mealy mouthed whine used by the Discovery Institute to confuse the issues. The Steve list avers that;

"Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools."

Why is this significant? The Steve list is restricted to actual scientists with actual direct relevant experience. Oh, and they must be named "Steve" or its cognates. The Steve list is at 816 signers and has every living Nobel Prize winner named Steve.