ENTROPY AND LIFE

Entropy is a very interesting concept, explained by science with some complicated mathematics.  But in its simplest terms entropy can be summarized as “nature tends from order to disorder”  This can be observed all around us as we see things deteriorate, iron rusts, leaves decay, even our bodies gradually decline eventually leading to death.  But the reverse isn’t true – disordered things do not organize themselves without some external force.  The typical teenagers bedroom does not reorganize itself without some external force.  So how did the universe organize itself without some direction?

Scientists – comfortable in their knowledge of all things – have explained the big Bang and the origin of the universe.  It seems at the beginning there was this primordial speck that contained all of the energy in the universe.  They are a little vague on exactly how this speck came to be or exactly where it was located since space did not yet exist, but that’s what they believe.  At that instant of the Big Bang all energy was released but in what form?  Apparently the energy was released in the form of protons, neutrons, and electrons. So the Big Bang was entropy in action since it went from order in the form of this primordial speck to disorder. 

But almost immediately the Law of Entropy was reversed because these energetic particles began to coalesce into atoms and then into molecules gaining mass in the process.  But with mass comes gravity so perhaps it was gravity – assuming of course that gravity is not a particle and that was the external force that reversed entropy.  Given that the Big Bang created the universe and everything it in and that no energy or particle was created after that, then gravity could logically be the external force.  But then what about everything else that came later?  What about life?  What about Dark Matter and Dark Energy?  These are theorized but unknown.

The origin of life has always been a problem for science and as science extends our knowledge of life and the universe the problem has gotten more complicated.  The idea that life began spontaneously through some cosmic particle impacting some random molecule in the sea has been abandoned.  Instead scientists have postulated “Pan Spermia” which postulates that life originated outside of our solar system and was introduced via a comet or meteor or some similar interstellar particle.  Of course this doesn’t really address the origin of life, it merely sidesteps the issue.  So the question remains – how did life begin?  The evolutionists believe that life began in the sea and all life evolved from that first self-replicating molecule, but what about the Law of Entropy?  Order can only come from disorder due to some external force but what external force created DNA?

The mathematicians have determined that DNA is so complicated that it is virtually impossible for this molecular structure to have been created randomly.  Yet life rests on DNA – even that first little paramecium and Pre-Cambrian pond scum which became human requires DNA.  Nevertheless the world of science presses on and essentially now we have seven theories describing how life began.

Theory 1 – The Electric Spark

This Theory rests on the Urey-Miller Experiment which demonstrated that an electric spark in an atmosphere rich in water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen could have produced the “building blocks” of life.  Unfortunately the early atmosphere was hydrogen poor, so the fall back position was – maybe hydrogen from volcanoes.

Theory 2 – Community Clay

This idea comes from Alexander Cairns-Smith who suggests that organic molecules might organize themselves via the mineral crystals in clay.  These mineral crystals would have helped to organize these organic molecules into organized patterns that eventually led to organize themselves.

Theory 3 – Deep Sea Vents

This theory suggests that life may have begun through hydrothermal vents spewing key hydrogen rich molecules that were concentrated into nooks where mineral catalysts provided for critical reactions leading to the building blocks of life.

Theory 4 – Icy Start

This theory assumes that the oceans 3 billion years ago where frozen to great depths protecting the fragile organic compounds in the water from damaging ultraviolet light and cosmic particles.  This cold might have helped these organic molecules survive long enough for key reactions to happen.

Theory 5 – RNA World

Life requires Proteins and Proteins require DNA but mathematically it is virtually impossible for DNA to have formed randomly.  The answer might be – according to some scientists – RNA which can help create both proteins and DNA.  Of course how RNA came into being is unknown and some scientists say a spontaneous creation of RNA is unlikely to have happened.

Theory 6 – Simple Beginning

This theory suggest that instead of developing from complex molecules like RNA, life might have begun with smaller molecules interacting with each other in cycles or reactions leading to more complex molecules   These might have been contained in simple capsules similar to cell membranes evolving over time into more complex molecules that became the building blocks of life.

Theory 7 Pan Spermia

This theory simply side steps the question and suggests that life was introduced on the Earth via a meteor or comet impacts.  So even if this theory were true it doesn’t address how life originated elsewhere.

Yes these are very short summaries of very complicated theories but reading the complete theories doesn’t really add any meaningful data because they all assume order from disorder and are laced with qualifiers.  None of these theories really address the problem of DNA and how it could have been created through random processes.  The law of Entropy requires some external force for order to emerge from disorder and none of these theories actually explain even how these organic molecules came into existence. The assumption underlying all of these theories is that molecules have randomly combined to create these organic molecules.  These organic molecules have become more and more complex through random process until they became self-replicating.  These self-replicating molecules grew more complicated until they did the mathematically impossible and formed DNA and the pattern for life.  All that is missing is the admission that magic was involved. So the question regarding the origin of life remains open while the Atheists and Scientists reject anything resembling intelligent design.

 

 

 

Dark Energy Darker Science

While empirical science continues to exist, it has largely been replaced by pseudo-science based on statistics. As we have dumbed down our schools and shifted our universities into centers of political correctness and indoctrination, science is under attack from the intellectually lazy who resort to writing papers that make outrageous claims with no factual basis. These have largely been restricted to the medical field where are regularly treated to claims that mayonnaise causes cancer, that poverty causes crime, and apples will kill you, all based on statistical analyses of a sample of four. As low as the medical field has sunk, it seems that other scientific areas are succumbing to the need to make ridiculous claims just to keep the public aware and the money from Washington flowing.

Carl Sagan seems to have launched this trend of stating theories as facts, with his passionate defense of evolution, the origin of life, and interstellar life. To hear Sagan you would think that evolution is an absolute fact, especially since he was successful in convincing the majority of the media. The reality is that Darwin’s book “Origin of Species” never actually addressed the origin of species and all of the examples used to substantiate the claim of evolution are in fact examples of adaptation and not speciation. Then the claim that there is life on other planets is based entirely on the statistical probability that given enough planets around enough stars, that some must be oxygen/carbon based and thus life must have evolved. Of course the a priori position here is unstated and that is that life evolved on this planet and thus must have evolved on other planets as well. Now indeed, it may have but there is no proof of that fact and many people today believe that life on this planet is unique and divinely created. Certainly there is no proof of this position either but in that case neither position should be viewed as factual. But all of these are really topics for another day, because this creeping destruction of science seems to be impacting physics and quantum physics as well.

Cosmology and Quantum Physics exist in a realm where proving anything is almost impossible so those who study these areas rely very heavily on some very esoteric mathematics to describe and substantiate their theories. At first glance this seems to be not only logical but should lead to hard answers, but does it? Do these equations actually describe reality or do they describe a reality that only exists in the equations? First you must agree that science has indeed been able to determine the weight of every object in the universe and the total amount of energy existing in that universe. Of course the assumption here is that the speed of light is a limitation and that we can see to the edges of the universe, which of course we can’t. So if the universe is expanding and accelerating objects at the edge would be invisible to an observer on Earth. Therefore, these equations must rest on assumptions that cannot be verified except through the balancing of these equations. So what’s the problem?

The problem lies in the fact that the equations require some fudging in order to balance. This means that constants (of whatever value is necessary) are required but even with these constants the scientists are left with some big problems – assuming their initial assumptions were correct. The equations indicate that only 5% of the observable universe is visible. There is not enough energy nor is there enough matter to account for what the equations need to balance. This leads to that great flaw in modern science which is to name the unknown and thus give the impression that it exists and that we know about it when in fact it only exists in the minds of these scientists and their equations. These two great unknowns have been given the names of Dark Energy (70%) and Dark Matter (25%), of course these could be called anything but the term dark was chosen because they cannot be observed. The irony here is that Dark Energy could just as easily be called the “Mind of God” and Dark Matter “the Souls of Man”. I am not saying this is the case, I am merely pointing out that the latter nomenclature is just as valid as the former because neither can be verified and the equations would work either way.

But current physics and cosmology all begin AFTER the Big Bang. The belief (it is belief and not factual) is that at some point and with no other causative factor the universe sprang from a primordial speck that contained all of the energy and matter in the universe today. Precisely where this speck was is unknown because space did not exist prior to the Big Bang. Of course there is the POSSIBILITY that God exists and that the causative factor was in fact God. But this would mean there is intelligent design to the universe and life, which is totally rejected by science even though increasingly science is faith based rather than factual.

HALLELUJAH -- I Believe in Darwin

I have generally used this space to write about various things ranging from science to politics but previously I have not addressed things at a personal level but I feel I must respond personally because my comments on Intelligent Design have prompted the usual attacks from the Dawkins and Darwin true believers. The latest attack cites this WEB site, which purports to describe transitions but it looks like this is more of a description of adaptation rather than transition.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

After reading this I truly wonder about the ability of the Dawkins / Darwin crowd to think critically. They seem to be on a crusade to prove that God does not exist, that Evolution, as stated by Darwin, is 100% accurate, and that anyone who even mentions Intelligent Design is some sort of a yahoo. The recent film by Ben Stein (EXpelled) cites example after example of the intimidating attacks launched against anyone who has the temerity to question Darwin. I never thought my humble little blog, which I admit is more an exercise in ego than anything else, would come under such emotional attack. I feel like I have violated some sort of unwritten law by challenging Darwin and equating what passes for Evolution as adaptation. So I would like make some personal comments in an effort to explain my position and defend myself as an intelligent person who simply is looking critically at Darwin.

First I believe in God. I truly think we are divine creations and not the arbitrary product of some random event that began with pond scum and ended with Homo Sapiens. I believe that God created us in his image but then God is pure energy as are we so God does not exist in some heaven floating above the clouds and has a long white beard. This means that our human form is not the exact image of God and how we came to be may indeed be a result of a line of Homininds. Secondly, I believe in Evolution and I think Darwin got much of it right and when you consider the state of science at the time, his achievement was remarkable. However, I also believe that Evolution as described is incomplete and contains some inconsistencies. The reality is that Darwin's book "The Origin of Species" doesn't really explain the origin of species. The examples cited for Evolution (which are accurate) demonstrate adaptation to changing enviroments and the link referenced above is an example of that. Fish are fish, dogs are dogs, and one species does not change into another -- at least that has not been demonstrated and I don't think the link shows that.

Then there is the issue of the origin of life. This has been a sticking point for science and while they have actually been able to create a replicating non-organic molecule the point that seems to escape the Darwinists is that this is really an example of Intelligent design. In fact the Darwinists are showing increasing signs of religion and religious intolerance in their attacks on anyone who even questions their God Darwin. The demands for the creation of life seem to be mathematically impossible (I am grounded in math and know how to manipulate numbers) so why not look to alternatives -- like Intelligent design. Apparently the Darwinsists are actually atheists so the cannot even consider any challenge to Darwin or the possiblity of an alternative because that alternaitve might lead to God. So instead the Darwinists have postulated Pan Spermia -- life from outer space. Who know's this might be possible but then if this is possible isn't that a form of Intelligent Design and even so why isn't God possible?

From there we go to the problem of speciation and this has never been explained and efforts to breed across species has failed. Since Darwin never actually addressed how species came to be, this had been a problem for the Darwinists and they have generally turned to mutations or cosmic particles creating mutations but these have largely been unsatisfactory so Stephan Gould came up with his "punctuated Equilibria" theory. Essentially Gould was trying to solve two problems the lack of transitional fossils and speciation. His theory may be right although it seems to have a number of holes in it. Essentially his theory states that for some reason one species will go through a series of rapid changes over a period of time measured in thousands of years and not millions and this accounts for a lack of transitional fossils. Gould himself stated that transitional fossils would probably never be found but now he is moving away from that statement, no doubt because to stand by it would threaten his career.

However, let's accept that Gould's theory has merit, so how many thousands of years are necessary for one species to morph into another? Ten, twenty, a hundred, a thousand -- oops that's a million, so it must be less. But we have evidence of animals and even humans that go back a million but still no evidence of those annoying transitional forms. Now Gould like virtually all of the Darwinists equate anyone who challenges Darwin as a "creationist", which really is an example of their towering ignorance as well as intolerance. The Creationists are different than those who ask for a hearing about Intelligent Design. All we are saying is that Evolution is incomplete, that the origin of life is unknown, how life on Earth began is unknown, and that alternatives like Intelligent design should be explored and if wrong demonstrated. Why this meets with such hostility is beyond me.

I have read article after article as the scientific community struggles to prove that Darwin and Evolution are totally correct and they are mostly right,but it is these aggravating details that they can't answer. They can't accept that God exists so rather than even examine that possibility they launch these attacks on anyone who even appears to be something other than a true believer.

This argument over Evolution is simply another manifestation of how science has become increasingly degraded as the requirement for empirical evidence is replaced by belief and statistical analyses. I think a little tolerance and a lot of critical thinking is in order.

Royce

Atheism, Dawkins, and Intelligent Design

The Atheist Community has launched an all out attack on Intelligent Design by equating it to “Creationism” which it is not and categorizing “Religion” as superstition, which – at least to some – it is not. It is also worth noting that when attacking religion and religious people the examples seem to always be Old Testament examples and not Jesus and the New Testament, but this is really beside the point. The point seems to be that the Atheists take the position that those who believe in God must demonstrate through the scientific method that God exists while they feel they have no responsibility to prove through that same method that He does not. However, that argument is really moot because the issue really pivots on the accuracy of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.

Any challenge to Evolution is seen as an attack on the theory per se and an effort by religious zealots to introduce religion into the study of science, but this really isn’t the case. The reality is that evolution as stated by Darwin has some issues and nagging questions, questions that science has not been able to explain. Of course the Darwinians take the position that just because science doesn’t have an answer that doesn’t mean they won’t have one in the future and therefore, Evolution is factual as stated by Darwin and no questioning of it is permitted. Those who have the temerity to challenge the Darwinians are subjected to intimidation, humiliation, and risk losing their careers. Those non-academics who question Darwin are simply dismissed as a bunch of religious zealots or ignoramuses. But it seems that the Darwinians are really not defending Evolution as much as they are denying God, these are actually atheists who see Evolution as a method to substantiate their belief so Intelligent Design must be denied at all costs, but it is the Origin of Life that is the rub.

The origin of life is a fundamental problem with the Theory of Evolution, because Darwin’s theory only addresses how life changes not how it began. Therefore the challenge for scientists is to demonstrate how life evolved from inorganic matter. This study has been named “Abiogenesis”

Experiments using inorganic components have been conducted for many years and these have been successful in creating organic molecules from inorganic materials but unfortunately these experiments have either started with components toxic to life or yielded results toxic to life. Much of the controversy rests on the primordial atmosphere of the Earth, which is unknown and must be assumed for the experiments. The mathematical probability of DNA being randomly generated is so great as to be impossible. Because of the failure for Abiogenesis to succeed in demonstrating the origin of life the Darwinists have postulated “Panspermia”, a theory which Dawkins supports or rejects as an explanation depending on his audience. Essentially Panspermia states that life originated elsewhere in the universe and landed on the Earth either via comets, meteorites, or even Aliens – Aliens whose technology is far superior to ours and so superior that they would have solved the question of life itself. Of course THAT solution would not be Intelligent Design because no advanced society could possibly arrive at such an unscientific explanation.

Bypassing the very serious question regarding the origin of life, Darwin himself stated that for his theory to be demonstrated three tests would have to be met. The first of these was that the fossil record would have to yield transitional fossils. To date the fossil record has been unyielding and while it shows various animals adapting to their environment it hasn’t shown any of these transitional forms. The second test is Natural Selection: The belief here is that nature will weed out those least able to survive in their environment and through time new species would evolve, through mutation or gradual improvements through genetic inheritance. This would be demonstrated in the fossil record. New and improved forms would exist in the newest strata with the original and more primitive forms being found in the older strata. This has not been the case and there are examples of the older forms coexisting with the newer and these all remain the same species and not new species.
The third requirement for Evolution is Random Mutation: This postulates that new species appear through a series of mutations that gradually change into new species. How this happens is never explained or demonstrated but mutations do occur but how they result is new species has not been demonstrated either in the lab or in the fossil record. To overcome this problem Stephan Gould postulated “punctuated equilibria”, as a means to explain how one species morphs into another taking place over thousands of years and not millions. This theory neatly eliminates the need for the fossil record to show any transitional fossils.

The fossil record also shows that life in the Pre-Cambrian to be very simple –akin to pond scum but with the Cambrian the oceans teem with life. These Cambrian creatures are complex organisms with eyes, mouths, and bodies –some of which are shelled. This is a fact and an inconvenient one that the theory of Evolution has not been able to explain other than to resort to punctuated equilibria, except that no new species have evolved in the recent period and if more than a few thousand years are involved then the fossil record should show the fossils, which it has not. It is important to understand that no one questions evolution in the form of adaptation, what is being question is the failure of the Darwinians to address speciation and the origin of life itself.

Dawkins and other atheists like him would have you believe that they speak for all of the scientific community but they do not – they may speak for the atheistic community which is undoubtedly composed of some scientists but not all scientists are atheists. They cling to Darwin with the same blind faith that others cling to God. They are convinced that science will ultimately answer how life began and that answer will not be Intelligent Design, even though their fall back position is Panspermia, which either avoids the issue altogether or is an example of Intelligent Design because the aliens from space are presumably intelligent and had some objective in mind when they seeded life on Earth. In any case, the complete failure of these academics to explore Intelligent Design is an example of their religious commitment to Darwin and closed mindedness to any explanation that might have metaphysical implications.

Intelligent Design and Modern Science

Since universities were first founded in the Renaissance they were supposed to be places of dialog and controversy, but almost from the outset the university faculties were not open to challenges or input from outsiders, they were closed societies. Nevertheless, science and learning progressed even as the minds of the scientific community quietly closed. Early in the 20th Century Physics was declared finished as a field of study because Newtonian Physics was all there was – until Einstein and Relativity, but then that in turn was replaced Quantum Physics. But the scientists didn’t seem to have learned their lesson from the debacle in physics instead they have with absolute certainty declared that all psychic phenomena, astrology, ESP, Reincarnation, and Intelligent Design are simply superstition and pseudo-sciences. They have made these statements even in the face of some rather impressive supporting observations, but these are topics that are simply out of bounds as topics for a serious discussion but the resistance to these is nothing compared to the commitment the scientific community has toward Evolution and the Big Bang.

Even though the Big Bang is widely accepted by many scientists, it carries some very unfortunate implications, which makes in unacceptable to many in the academic and scientific community. The problem stems from the fact that if all of the energy in the universe was contained in some primordial pinprick or speck of something. It could not exist in space or time because the Big Bang actually created space and time. It could not have had tangible mass because there was no space for it to occupy, so this singularity really has no scientific explanation although the scientists BELIEVE that one exists. Those who BELIEVE the creation of the universe was an act of God are scorned as yahoo’s but the fact that both beliefs are FAITH based is lost on the scientists and those who scorn anything that cannot be demonstrated except when they believe at some point in the future science will find the answer. Of course these are the same people who accept Psychology, Economics, Philosophy, and even some science without demonstrable proof or repeatability so they seem to have a double standard when it comes to Intelligent Design and God. People like Richard Dawkins and other atheists challenge religion to prove there is a God without accepting that they cannot prove there isn’t. They fail to see that their position is as much a faith based belief as the belief there is a supreme being.

The other topic that academia and many scientists reject as a topic of discussion is Evolution. Evolution is not in their view a THEORY but a FACT so no challenge is allowed and no contrary opinion or questions can be raised and to do so is to be ridiculed and exiled from the intellectual community. However, there are some significant flaws in Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, not the least of which is that his seminal work “The Origin of Species” does not address the origin of species but merely reflects how existing species adapt to their changing environmental conditions. However, it seems relatively obvious that adaptation is factual and demonstrable but precisely how a new species arise remains a mystery but even that might eventually have a scientific answer. The real problem lies with the origin of life itself and this is where Intelligent Design enters the picture and where the Darwinists get the vapors. They not only get the vapors their explanations sound like they are coming from a stand-up comic.

Richard Dawkins when challenged to explain the origin of life, stumbled and mumbled and admitted that he actually doesn’t know how life began but that he is absolutely sure it began through some scientifically explicable process, a process that was random and absolutely positively did not reflect Intelligent Design. In the Darwinian World life began as a single self-replicating molecule that led to a single cell which led to pond scum and we are direct lineal descendants of pond scum. When Dawkins was confronted with the fact that science has not been able to create a self-replicating molecule so this theory of his fails the first test of the scientific method which is that the hypothesis must be demonstrable and repeatable, he simple says that we don’t know everything but THAT is how it happened. The similarity to those who believe in Intelligent Design never even enters his head.

When Dawkins is then confronted with the mathematical fact that for the 250 proteins necessary to form the DNA strand for a simple cell to form randomly is 1 in a trillion trillion trillion or to anyone other than Darwinist – zero chance of happening, he resorts to the Theory of Pan Spermia. If this Theory were described by a stand-up comic he would have the audience laughing but the Darwinists and Dawkins really take this theory seriously. Pan Spermia is a theory that aliens from outer space came to the Earth and started life or alternatively some space debris crashed into the Earth and brought simple life with it. The fact that this does not explain the origin of life but merely turns it into a geographic problem is totally wasted on Darwinists who insist that this explains the origin of life on EARTH, ignoring the original question which was how did life originate.

As hysterically funny Pan Spermia is, there is even one that is crazier and that is that life originated on the surface of CRYSTALS. In this case man is descended from rocks, which I presume explains why some people are hard headed, others hard hearted, and some are just diamonds in the rough. Nevertheless, this is actually a serious theory being put forth by Darwinians in their efforts to avoid Intelligent Design. In this theory molecules on the surface of crystals began replicating themselves and evolved into bacteria and thus life began. Precisely how the molecules became self-replicating is attributed to – and I quote “some mysterious force” sort of like “May the Force be with you”. How this “mysterious force” is distinguished from God is not allowed as a topic of discussion because as any Darwinian knows – God does not exist and Intelligent Design is just a code word for Creationism.

The reality is that the more science explores life and the origin of life the more difficult it is to avoid Intelligent Design as an explanation. Quantum Physics as well as Molecular Biology are leading us ever closer to Intelligent Design as the only logical conclusion. Whatever the ultimate answer will be it is certainly clear even now that the Darwinians do not have the answer and that the Theory of Evolution does not have the answers.

Intelligent Design On Trial

The PBS NOVA program has recently broadcast a program called “Intelligent Design On Trial” which was a documentary and re-enactment of the Dover School Board trial regarding whether Intelligent Design was science or religion. Naturally the outcome of the trial was a foregone conclusion because scientists are only exceeded in their close mindedness by University Professors. Nevertheless, it was interesting to watch because once again we are treated to the belief of scientists that if you can name something you understand it. Gravity being one of those things which everyone can observe, science has named it, and to a large extent it can be described operationally, but precisely what it is and how it works is not totally understood. Suppose I stated that gravity is simply an example of “Unity” where unity is the tendency of things – all things – to unite and to be drawn together and that this Unifying force could be applied to everything including people? Even though this is saying virtually the same thing as the Theory of Gravity, the challenges would be to prove that this unifying force even exists because magnets repel as well as attract, whereas gravity always attracts. The fact that no one really knows how magnetism or gravity operates or at what speed is simply ignored because it has been named and studied by science but Unity has not. This is a very simplistic analogy but it essentially describes how science operates -- no concepts not sanctioned by the scientific community are allowed.

The crux of this trial, which resembled the Salem Witch Trials, really revolved around Michael Behe (an addmitted religious man and thus guilty at the outset) and his postulation of the irreducible structure. Behe based his postulation on a flagellum which he has studied for most of his career. Essentially he stated that if any part of this simple organism was missing the flagellum wouldn’t work and the organism would die – ergo – it could not evolve. The trial lawyers offered a similar organism that looked similar but did not flagellate. Because these were similar in appearance they were cited as proof that the entire theory of an irreducible structure was wrong – not flawed – but wrong. Behe had used the simple mouse trap as a case in point –showing that if any part was removed it would not work. The scientists immediately disproved this analogy by showing they could remove the base plate and attach the remaining parts to the floor and it would work just as well. Of course this proof came from a Harvard professor so it was not surprising that he missed the point that the floor was simply a larger base plate. A less prestigious scientist attempting to recover from this logical failure, removed TWO parts of the mouse trap and demonstrated that it could now be used as a tie clip so the concept of an irreducible structure was wrong. What was ignored of course was that this was no longer a mouse trap but something totally different with a totally different functionality and purpose. The second attack rested on Behe’s statement that there is no scientific explanation for how the immune system developed. The lawyers jumped on this and produced a mountain of books written by prominent scientists explaining how the immune system MIGHT have developed. The fact that they offered scientific POSSIBLITIES was enough to prove intelligent design was wrong.

This has been the problem with evolution all along – scientists use words like could, may, might, and possibly but because the caveats are surrounded by technical jargon and are pinned to the coveted title of Professor, then no further proof is necessary. Things change but essentially remain the same -- academia is as much of a belief sysem as religion. Darwin never explained how species came to be and his seminal work “The Origin of Species” doesn’t address this at all but like all studies on Evolution it simply describes adaptation and none of the tests he described have been met yet science accepts Evolution as a fact and the scientists refuse to even consider any flaw much less and alternative.

The argument then progresses to the study of chromosomes and how in the process of reproduction chromosomes become damaged and the resulting organism is modified. This can be demonstrated in various examples of adaptation and is generally unchallenged. However, given this accepted fact, the scientists then show how the chromosome pattern for apes is telomere – centomere – telomere but for humans – who have one less chromosome it is telomere--centomere – telomere – centomere – telomere. The result is that humans have 23 chromosomes while apes have 24. This poses a rather interesting point and that is chimpanzees and humans cannot reproduce and this is a problem with most of these mutations – they are not all positive, the mutant does not always survive, and those that do may not be able to reproduce. So precisely how apes evolved into humans is really left unanswered and there is no proof one way or another that they did and really this is no different than intelligent design which cannot be proved either.

Of course this is the problem with the entire Theory of Evolution. Species come and species go and according to Darwin the losers could not adapt to changing conditions – fair enough and it seems logical that species change through adaptation, thus we have horses, donkeys, and zebras – but they are all the same species and thus capable of interbreeding. Dogs are an even better example of this kind of adaptation but at the end of the day they are all dogs and how one species becomes another remains unanswered. Another unanswered question is the explosion of life between the Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian. In the Pre-Cambrian the life forms were soft bodied animals like worms and pond scum but at the beginning of the Cambrian – the very beginning – we find an explosion of complex life forms like Trilobites complete with mouths, eyes, hard bodies and digestive tracts but no plausible explanation as to where these came from, how they evolved without leaving any trace of a predecessor or any transition fossil showing the development of the eye, mouth, foot, or hard shell -- so whatever it was WE KNOW it was random and not planned -- don't we?

The discussion branches off to the Big Bang and scientists KNOW that the Big Bang is a FACT and that all of the energy in the universe was initially contained in one teeny tiny dot, which instantaneously expanded into the universe as we know it. Where this teeny little dot came from is left unanswered, how long it existed before expanding no one knows, and since the big bang actually created SPACE where was this dot in the first place? Every proton, electron, and neutron in the universe is identical. In the chaos that followed the big bang we are told that these universal building blocks collided into each other and formed all of the elements and these elements combined to form planets, which then produced seas through other natural processes. The seas were filled with these random molecules which were bombarded with cosmic rays which created carbon atoms, which combined to from reproducible atoms that led to pond scum, then to humans and then to scientists and all of this was done through some sort of random process – there was never a plan it was all just an accident. God must be rolling with laughter at the sheer chutzpa of our scientific community.