There is one thing everyone on this issue is agreed upon, there is no way the first cell could have looked anything like the simpliest cell in existence today. And some very witty and clever books have been written on this point by mainstream scientists. The problem however, is that no-one has yet come up with any idea what these intermediate cells might actually have looked like, because of the increasingly well known irreducible complexity problem. Personaly, I do not think there is a valid design of organism between the simplest cell and amino acids. If you disagree, fine, write a paper on your ideas and get published. I'd love to hear what kind of bizzare dysfunctional mutant you come up with.

One constant of evolutionary creation myths (sic) is the primordial soup. We've all heard the story many times before, rich organic goo, improbable but only had to happen once, bla bla bla. So it comes as a shock to learn there is no evidence for this primordial soup whatsoever. In all probablity the only place this soup exists is in the minds of evolutionists. Denton gives the example of the 'dawn rocks,' in Greenland considered to be about 3,9000 million years old, they should contain sediment traces of this rich organic goo - they do not, and neither do any other rocks of great antiquity.

And that phrase 'only had to happen once,' does not ring true for me. Early earth must have been a very inhospitable place, damaging rays from the sun coming through an incomplete atmosphere, volcanos, and all manner of threats to any living organisms. I find it quite possible the first cell could have been snuffed out before it had got anywhere at all. Even the existence of water can been seen as devastating to any resolution of abiogenesis, since water tends to break up complex chemical structures and works against their formation, as a New Scientists article I read recently pointed out. Funny, that water is considered such a problem for the origin of life, no? We have structures to get round the water problem, but where did they come from int he first place?

But.... there is 'lots of time.' Is there? Actually recent fossil finds point to life appearing almost as soon as it was possible. A few hundreds of millions of years at an absolute maximum, and probably a lot less. Not very long for such a zero chance event to happen.

Basically abiogenesis is another word for spontaneous generation, and that fallacy was debunked centuries ago. It is quite obvious that a few chemicals bumping around together are never going on their own to produce life, and I thinik evolutionists would be well advised to start looking at my ideas on biological fields.

The following is lifted from another web site, and is provided for the evolutionist who e-mailed me implyiny I was making up the claim abiogenesis is a zero chance event.

Alexander Mebane on the probabilities of abiogenesis:

Although this "disproof by mathematical impossibility" might well be called the most fundamental argument against Darwin's imagined " accidental creation" of all new organisms, it has historically been the easiest one for believers to laugh off, because the matter is so complex that, in general, it is quite impossible to produce estimates of the improbabilities involved that are more than "impression- istic". Much quoted has been Fred Hoyle's striking simile for the prob- ability of an accidental or spontaneous formation of the simplest known life-form: "comparable to the probability that a tornado sweeping through an airplane junkyard would happen to assemble a flyable Boeing 747" 39-but, of course, no coercive proof can be given that that comparison is a realistic one. The French physicist Lecomte du Nouy, in 1947, calculated an "astronomical" improbability for the accidental assemblage of even a small protein-but, since he made the wholly unrealistic assumption that its natural formation could occur only by a "fortuitous concourse" of all its atoms, his result was (rightly) ridiculed by chemists, and his point (wrongly) inferred to be unsound.

But, as it happens, a similar calculation has more recently been carried out which, unlike du Nouy's, "leans over backwards" to be as favorable as possible, though it leads to the same conclusion. Robert Shapiro is a chemist who actively participated in the post-1952 experimental investigations of "origin of life by natural chemical evolution", and in 1986 published a very significant book (Origins) summarizing that work and the conclusions to be drawn from it. Dismissing as unrealistic the idea that either DNA or RNA could ever have spontaneously "evolved", because of the complexity of those purine base + sugar + phosphoric acid structures. He asks what could have been the simplest possible "pre-living" chemical assemblage that might have been able to generate the essential quality of life, self-replication. Generously oversimplifying to the maximum degree credible (or beyond), he proposes (p. 296) that the first "proto-life" might conceivably have emerged from a set of as few as ten very small "primitive enzymes", each one a mini-protein of only 25 links, and all constructed from a set of only four amino acids, rather than the twenty that Nature now employs. Assuming for the purpose the real natural occurrence of a "primordial soup" that consisted exclusively of those four amino acids (which is of course, a simply ridiculous postulate), he proceeds to show that, under these absurdly favorable conditions, the probability of "spontaneously", or accidentally, forming the requisite set of molecules would be about 1 in 10^150. So, if something like 10^150 random trials were available, the thing might really have happened. But he had previously calculated (p. 126) that, if one assumes that the Earth was covered by a 10-km-deep layer of "soup", and that random trials went on at the rate of one billion per second in every cubic micrometer (billionth of a cubic millimeter) of that ocean for one billion years (the maximum time that really elapsed before life appeared), only 1.5 x 10^62 separate tries could be made. (I have checked this calculation, and found it correct.) This number is so invisibly tiny compared to 10^150 (far tinier than a bacterium compared to the whole Solar System!) that the spontaneous natural formation of the ten mini-enzymes is thus demonstrated to be strictly impossible. This amounts to a proof that, even when making the most favorable assumptions conceivable, one is simply forbidden to take seriously the proposition that "Life on Earth must have arisen spontaneously, in some natural and unintentional way...

In fact, the whole Oparin'Haldane picture of a naturally-formed " primordial organic soup", though it was taken very seriously for some thirty years after the first promising looking Urey.Miller experiment of 1952, must now be called an "exploded" belief. Not only do the early rocks show no trace of its presence (it would necessarily have generated enormous quantities of rather stable organic "tars"). but it is now admitted by all that the prerequisite " Jovian" atmosphere (methane,ammonia,hydrogen) would in reality have been blown away by the Sun very early in Earth's formation. Our real primordial atmosphere consisted, like those of Venus and Mars, almost entirely of carbon dioxide. There is no way to produce any sort of "organic soup" from such an atmosphere.

This kind of theme is a regular in the talk.origins newsgroup. Below is a particularly eloquent example.

Fred Struss:

I thought I would take a moment and add my mathmatical thoughts to a discussion of the evolutiomary begainings of a cell. I will use the science of mathmatics as the basis for my foundation that the theory of evolution does not hold up to the scrunity of sciences truest discipline. After all..add two apples with two apples and you have four apples. Who could argue such a conclusion? Evolution begains on the premis that molecules somehow haphazrdly encountered each other and lead up to complex chains and finally a cell. Now that much of DNA structure and it's functions are understood, we can apply probability theorems to this fundamental theory of science. To begain with..probability tells us that for 84 molecules to be in a proper sequence within a DNA spiral is 2.08 x -51 10 .

In mathmatics this represents a zero probability for all practical purposes. I like to point out this only reflects a random association of C,G,A,T molecules in forming a sequence and not an entire cell. If we go on to apply probability for an entire cell coming into existance from just chance encounters, we also not only have to factor in C,T,A,G molecules but also the combining of ribose, phosphate, hyfrogen, 20 amino acids and more along with other essential elements such as mitochondria, lysomes, ect that make up a self replicating simple cell. While at the same time these molecules are some how forming chains while not being destroyed by such harsh mixtures as helium, boron, sulphur....and so forth during the early stages of the first cell development.

Now, lets take this further mathmatically. Somehow during the beganing, a force had to present to force all sorts of molecules together till somehow they formed a survival sequence in an unsterail enviroment AND to have all the other essential molecules at hand ready to react at the very moment this sequence was formed..this includes phosphate, ribose, uracil, 20 amino acids..and on and on. What external force could had made such arrangements for molecules to react and form a replicating cell? And continue throwing molecules together until they were all in a proper surviable sequence ???? AND have all the avaliable molecule sequences at hand at the instant they were called for in forming a more advance sequence leading persumably to a cell? Science says it took million of years of haphazzard encounters for this to come about. Lets see if this holds water.

---

It is estimated that the smallest possible self replicating species would contain 124 separate protein chains. With each made of 400 aa-molecules. Probability of forming one protein chain of 400 links 114 (all L-type) from a mixture of 50/50 D- and L-forms is 1 in 10.

Probability for 124 seperate chains being created out of chance, each containing 400 links of L-type molecules from a mixture of D- 14,136 and L- forms is 1 in 10 .

Probability for 124 properly sequenced protein chains being formed 64,480 by chance alone is 1 in 10 .

Probability for 124 protein chains to have been formed from L-type 78,616 molecules alone from a 50/50 mixture of D and L types 1 in 10 To produce these 124-x400 L type chains would require DNA with 148,800 nucleotides. This doesent even reflect the 124 x 6 codons for go/stop punctuation.

Probability of forming one DNA strand of 89,280 148,800 nucleotides is 1 in 10.

Now....the probability for this one example of DNA amd 124 chains 167,896 to have formed by chance alone simultaneously is 1 in 10. WE HAVE NOT EVEN GOTTON TO A COMPLETE PROBABILITY FOR A WHOLE CELL YET. AND WE HAVENT EVEN TOUCHED UPON THE PROGRAMING FOR DNA TO CARRY ALL THIS OUT. And the nuclutides for a human is like 3,000,000,000.

Conclusion: Mathmatics do not support the theory of evolution as it is currently concieved. Mathmatically there is a zero probability for any kind of cell development by haphazzard chance alone.

This site hosted by Get your own Free Home Page

Info