NOT A CHANCE
By Dominic Rizzo
Where I work, I
notice that the Lotto is a very important thing in most of the workers’ lives.
They are always betting and hoping. Would anyone bet on the following
odds? What are the odds of you winning
the lottery every week for 80 years straight without missing once? The chances are 1 chance in 10 22,120, (a one
followed by 29,120 zeros behind it). What are the chances of one thousand men
putting the Rubic's cube together on the first try all at the same time? What about the classic analogy of six monkeys
typing at a typewriter and producing a Sonnet of Shakespeare. Well, the odds
for these are better that the odds for the evolutionists’ one
"simple" cell being created by blind chance. All scientists know that
the cell of an ameba is more complex than the
Some might say,
"Haven't they produced life in a test tube?” Yes, that's what the textbooks say, but what
the textbooks leave out is extremely important.
In order to examine the claim that the origin of life experiments have
proved life could evolve from nonlife, we have to look at the original
experiments of Stanley Miller and Sidney Fox, published in Science magazine in
1953. Miller placed methane, ammonia,
and water in a glass chamber. He then
zapped it with a spark device to simulate the lightning that they supposed
would strike the early earth atmosphere. In a few days amino acids (the
building blocks of life) were formed. Some newspapers reported that Miller had
practically made life in a test tube.
Now lets analyze the Miller/ Fox experiment and
see what the textbooks omitted.
Here are what the
newspapers and text books will not tell you.
1. How did this team know what gases were in the
early earth's atmosphere in the beginning of time?
2. How much of the experiment was left to
chance, and how much was done using intelligent design?
3. Were the amino acids the right type for life?
In the beginning was…
In the Miller/Fox
experiment, he left out oxygen. Why? Was
there scientific evidence of no existence of oxygen in the beginning? No. He
left it out because he knew that oxygen would destroy the molecules that he was
trying to produce. It's hard for us to realize how "corrosive" oxygen is, since
most modern living things depend on it. Oxygen is so valuable to life precisely
because it's so chemically reactive.
Living things today have systems to protect themselves against the
harmful effects of oxygen, while using its chemical power to their advantage (Creation Fact of Life, Gary Parker
pg.21-22). We know from continuous
experimentation that amino acids will not form correctly with oxygen present.
Scientists now agree that the earth always had oxygen, causing a problem with
the evolution scenario. If oxygen was
present in the “evolving primeval oceans”, then no life could be formed as it
would oxidize. However, if there was no oxygen, then there would be no
ozone. The ozone canopy is made of
oxygen and it protects life from harmful radiation. With oxygen, life cannot
happen and without oxygen, life cannot remain.
“Chances are…”
The Miller/Fox experiment
was done completely within their control.
From choosing the chemical compounds to be used, having a trap for the
elements to prevent them from being hit again by electricity, and eliminating
oxygen, Miller and Fox left nothing to chance.
Just as a computer programmer leaves nothing to chance even in the
simplest of programs in order for it to work, Miller and Fox worked out every
detail. Therefore, they used intelligent
planning, not the evolutionary Lotto system.
Don’t let your right hand know what you’re left hand is
doing.
Amino acids come in
two forms: left-handed and right-handed. An amino acid can be chemically
left-handed or right-handed in its orientation. These two forms are identical
in their atoms, but opposite in their 3-dimensional arrangement. They are a
mirror image of each other (The
Illustrated Origins Answer Book pg.22).
In order to get life, all the amino acids that make up a protein have to
be only left-handed. If you get one right-handed amino acid you
would not get life. Every experiment has produced 50% right-handed and 50%
left-handed amino acids. When you eat meat, it has both left and right-hand
amino acids. When the animal was alive
all its proteins were organized, and had only left-hand amino acids. As soon as it dies, it’s
proteins go into disorder and the amino acids becomes a mixture of right and
left amino acids. When we eat the meat, our body has to eliminate the
right-hand amino acids as they are totally useless for life.
The Miller/Fox
experiment produced 2% amino acids and the rest was tar and other non-organic
compounds. The amino acids that were
produced were both right and left-hand amino acids. Scientists have never been
able to produce amino acid that did not come in a mixture of right and
left-handed molecules. To create a living functioning protein, the protein has
to be made of only left-handed amino acids.
If one right-handed amino acid showed up in the protein chain, it cannot
produce life, as it would prevent the coiling and folding necessary for proper
protein function. What Miller/Fox actually produced was as brew of potent
poisons that would absolutely destroy any hope for the chemical evolution of
life. Every experiment has always produce a mixture of
50% right and 50% left. Miller/Fox actually
produced death not life. When a person
dies his amino acids turn back to a mixture of left and right amino acids, much
like the lifeless dust from which God made Adam. Further more, Miller
had to cheat to produce his dead amino acids. A problem seldom noted by
textbooks is that the chemical reactions that produced the amino acids in
Miller's experiment are reversible. That is, the same energy sources that cause
the formation of the building blocks of life will also destroy those same
building blocks unless they are removed from the environment where they were
created. In fact, the building blocks of life are destroyed even more
efficiently that they are created. These
problems have convinced most origins researchers that the idea of primordial
soup is unlikely. So Miller put a trap
in his chamber which would separate whatever was made and put it into a safe
place to protect it from the next electrical spark. Since they are trying to prove that life came
out of the primordial soup by chance, where was the trap to protect the
material that was created in the early earth? However, the trap doesn't solve
anything, because if you isolate the compounds that were created from the
energy source, you prevent them from obtaining energy that will take it to the
next step of change ("evolution") so it dies. You either kill it with
energy or kill it without energy. Another
thing that the textbooks sensor out is that creating one amino acid is not
enough. You would have to create
billions and billions of amino acids, because the waters would dilute and break
down the compounds that were made. In
addition, whatever you have to create would have to be able to reproduce itself. Furthermore,
since Miller's experiments in 1953, it has been estimated that it would take up
to two years for amino acids to fall from the atmosphere into the ocean. This
is a problem because even small amounts of ultraviolet radiation would destroy
the building blocks before they reached the oceans.
In summary…
We started by saying that the odds of a cell to be created by blind chance are one to the 40,000th power. We can understand this figure by the following example: How many times do I have to flip a coin to get one head? Probability says, twice. Now to get two heads in a row it will take four tries. If I want to get the coin to come up eight times in a row, I will have to flip it 256 times, remember, if I get one tail on any flips I have to start all over again. To get the coin to come up heads a hundred times in a row without ever once coming up tails it will
take1030 this is a 1
with 30 zeros behind it, or one chance out of
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
As stated above, amino acid comes in two ways a right-handed and
left-hand molecule. Just like the flipping of the coin, to get one hundred
amino acids in a row they have to be all left-handed (only heads). The average
protein is made of a chain of 300 amino acids, left-handed. This means that blind chance would have to
keep trying one to the 191st power. Evolutionist claim
that the universe is 20 billion years old, it would take a quadrillion years if
you were flipping the coin at 1000 times a second, to produce all heads in 300
consecutive flips. There is not enough time in the universe for even one simple
protein to develop. Some proteins have a thousand left-hand amino acids in a
row. Probability scientists say that anything that's beyond one chance in 1050 is not one
chance in1050 but zero chance in 1050. It seems that God made the theory of evolution impossible,
and all who believe in it have to take it by faith.
We have only covered
amino acids and proteins, but life is made up of much more than that. Enzymes
are specialized proteins. DNA are specialized sugars, which are made of only right-handed
molecules. Just having amino acids is not enough. Over two hundred amino acids
occur in nature, but only 20 different amino acids that make up the basic
building blocks of a protein for life. The order is very important, like a code
of a computer program. If just one amino
acid is out of sequence, it will change the entire structure of the protein.
Hair protein is different from muscle protein, etc. Even some atheists recognize the problems!
The late Carl Sagan
(no longer an atheist) and other prominent scientists have estimated the chance
of man evolving at roughly 1 chance in 10 2,000,000,000 (Carl Sagan, F.H. Crick, L.M. Muchin’s Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence pg.45-46). This
number is one with 2 billion zeros behind it. It would take 2000 books to write
the number out.
We all take chances
everyday, but would you take the chance that evolution is true with the odds of
the above? Many do, because they believe that with time all things are
possible. On
Wilder-Smith points
out that because the chemical reactions upon which our bodies run are
reversible, for Huxley's argument to be valid, his monkeys would need to use
typewriters which also type reversibly. With each keystroke, such a typewriter
places the ink on the paper, and when the key is released the ink jumps back
onto the hammer. This is, in fact, a more accurate demonstration of what
happens in biological reactions. The building blocks of DNA and protein are
driven by the Second Law of
Thermodynamics and chemical equilibrium to break down in the watery
environment in which they supposedly arose. Huxley's argument is invalidated by
the fact that the building bocks in biological reactions do not stay combined.
If the keys of Huxley's typewriter represent true primordial soup, every other
keystroke would be potentially lethal. Plus, the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that the Universe had a
beginning, and is winding down, which means an infinite amount of time was not
available. I will end with a quote from
the famous evolutionist Sir Fred Hoyle. "The chance that higher life forms
might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado
sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials
therein.” Evolutionist claim that things
came about by chance without a goal, a plan, behind it. If you cannot throw together an airplane, how
could all of the complexities of our brain be just evolved? And since our body systems are dependant upon
each other (i.e. the heart must have oxygen to pump throughout the body, etc.),
all of the systems would have to “happen” at once as they cannot exist without
each other. In short, evolutionists are trusting a brain that became by accident, not design. It
is obvious to me that evolutionists need more faith to believe their theories
than it takes to believe in a designed creation by God! They cannot even explain where matter came from
in the first place! Even scientists, with their controlled experiments, and
advanced chemical knowledge, can not produce life. How much
less, by blind chance. Why does man trust in the impossible? When God has made it obvious, that He is there but not silent.