What would Jesus blog?

I recently received a private email from a fellow Christian who is on the private Christian email list I previously mentioned (I have since unsubscribed from it), who assumed that I "slam people" on my blog.

[Graphic: "In His Steps: What Would Jesus Do?," Wikipedia]

I responded to him:

"I do not `slam' people on my blog (I disagree with Christians who do personally attack their opponents on their blogs and I try to be unfailingly polite, e.g. `Richard Dawkins' rather than `Dawkins', etc)..."

It followed a thread about "blog rage" on that list (which I did not participate in) about how some ID blogs have "turned nasty". Another member (i.e. not the one who thought I "slam people" on my blog), wrote the following (I assume he won't mind me posting this anonymously) which I wholeheartedly agree with:

"What really bothers me, though, is when a blog or blogger purports to have some connection with Jesus and yet adopts the arrogant, nasty tone of that post and its comments. In the faith-science arena, that kind of approach is the domain of PZ Meyers and Dawkins. We can't respond in kind! It isn't about `winning' a `culture war.' The war was already won, on the cross. We are to tell the truth in humility and love as the `already' part of the kingdom unfolds while waiting patiently for the `not yet.' Now, I know that ID is not inherently supposed to be a religious movement, so one could say that this law of love shouldn't apply to ID advocates qua ID advocates. I don't buy that when the advocate in question is also known to be a Christian."

What triggered this blog post of mine is that an animation (which I refuse to look at) on a blog run by a Christian theologian and leader of the ID movement (I won't mention his name because it might sound like a personal attack on him when it isn't, and anyway if there is anyone who does not know who or what I mean, they will, by following the link in the next but one paragraph) which shows Judge Jones in what looks like a courtroom dock, with prominent evolutionists like Richard Dawkins and Eugenie Scott in what looks like a jury panel behind him.

Quite frankly this is sub-Christian (and indeed sub- normal non-Christian) and is just playing into the anti-Christians' hands because it reinforces their Inherit the Wind stereotype that "all critics of Darwinism ... are Bible-thumping fanatics challenging scientific fact in order to impose political oppression. ... fundamentalists who want to substitute the book of Genesis for science" (see `tagline' quote at the foot of this post). That "evangelical Christians" are "angry and close-minded `pit bulls of the culture wars'" (see below).

That this is so, is confirmed by Richard Dawkins having posted the animation on his own website with the comment, that he wants to keep it there permanently, in case this Christian ID leader "tries to remove it from his own website":

Response from Richard Dawkins: Anybody who resorts to tactics of desperation like this has to be a real loser. ... and it now looks as though he KNOWS it. My guess is that he will try to take it down when he realizes how foolish it makes him look. Josh, can we can keep a copy, after he tries to remove it from his own website?

It reminded me of this article, "What would Jesus blog?" (see also The Guardian, USA Today and Wired News) in which it was "stressed that God blogging has the potential to be a `train wreck' because done wrong it can reinforce stereotypes of evangelical Christians as angry and close-minded `pit bulls of the culture wars'" (my emphasis):

"What would Jesus blog? Christian bloggers gather at conference," MSNBC Oct. 15, 2005 LA MIRADA, Calif. - What would Jesus blog? That and other pressing questions drew dozens of Christians to a Southern California university this weekend for what was billed as the first-ever national conference for `God bloggers," a growing community of online writers who exchange information and analyze current events from a Christian perspective. The three-day conference at Biola University marked an important organizational benchmark for Christian bloggers, who have worked behind the scenes for several years to spread the Gospel and infuse politics with religion. It was the first time many of the 135 bloggers met face-to-face, and organizers took the opportunity to address sometimes controversial questions surrounding the future of the Christian blogosphere. ... During one well-attended workshop entitled `When Non-Christians Read Your Blog,' Biola University professor Timothy Muehlhoff instructed people on how to write about their faith without alienating nonbelievers. He stressed that God blogging has the potential to be a `train wreck' because done wrong it can reinforce stereotypes of evangelical Christians as angry and close-minded `pit bulls of the culture wars.' `We need to write in such a way that people can see themselves presented as ... complex people who aren't monsters," said Muehlhoff ... As Christians today we are embroiled in the argument culture and we have forgotten this one thing: 'Blessed are the peacemakers.' Wouldn't it be nice if we could say we brought a level of civility back to the conversation?' ..."

I cannot find where anyone has answered online the question, "What would Jesus blog?" Actually, I take it that the real question is not what but "How would Jesus blog?" That is, "How should Christians blog?", as a particular application of the universal ethico-moral question to be asked by each individual Christian in any particular situation, as per the subtitle "What would Jesus do?" of Charles Monroe Sheldon's 1896 book, "In His Steps: What Would Jesus Do?" (which I have never read).

So here is my answer, which applies to my posts and comments to this my blog (i.e. it has always applied - although I have no doubt that at times I have failed to live up to these principles, but now I am explicitly accountable to live by them):

• Love my enemies (Mat 5:43-44; Lk 6:27,35): That is, I am to love, not hate my opponents (I don't hate them actually). This love is to include praying for them, and not only not doing bad to them but actually doing good to them!
• Not say anything knowingly false against anyone (Ex 20:16; Mat 19:18-19).
• Not say anything intentionally insulting or nasty to anyone (Mat 5:22).
• Speak the truth always but in love (Eph 4:15).
• Respond with gentleness and respect (1 Pet 3:15; Gal. 5:22-23; Php 4:5; Col 3:12; Rom 13:7; 1 Pet 2:17).
• Not repay evil with evil. (Rom 12:17; 1 Thess 5:15; 1 Pet 3:9): In particular, I am not to "repay ... insult with insult, but with blessing.".
• Correct errors and apologise (if applicable) where I am wrong (Mat 5:23-24; Jas 5:16).

If there are any other principles relevant to blogging that I later think of, I will add them to this post. But the above are plenty!

I encourage other Christian bloggers, if they have not already done so, to adopt similar (or even these verbatim-they are not copyright) principles for their blog. If anyone knows of any other statement of principles for a Christian blog, I would appreciate being advised in a comment below or in an email (see near the foot of my home page for a link to my email address) of them.

If anyone claims that I am not living up to these standards, I would appreciate it being drawn to my attention via the comments below or an email message. If I consider the claim to be valid, I will publicly issue a correction or retraction. However, claims that I consider to be trivial, frivolous or insincere will be rejected without publication.

I conclude with something that Phillip E. Johnson said on one of his audio tapes in the 1990s, near the beginning of the ID movement, that I totally agree with, namely:

"How we win is more important than that we win"!

And remember, we Christians have read the end of the book (Rev 21:1-22:5) and we do win!:

"When things get bad and you can't stand to look
It's time to read to the end of the book
Don't put it down 'til you get to the end
When Jesus come and His Kingdom begins
... we win ..." (Michael W. Smith,
"End of the Book." My emphasis).

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).

---

"The second event to recall was the 1960 Stanley Kramer movie of `Inherit the Wind,' starring Spencer Tracy as the agnostic lawyer patterned after Clarence Darrow. It was one of the great propaganda masterpieces of all time. In the context of presenting a very distorted account of the notorious Scopes trial, the film portrayed the moral side of the Darwinian triumph over Christianity. `Inherit the Wind' is a simple morality play in which the Christian ministers are evil manipulators and their followers are bumpkins who sing mindlessly in praise of `that old time religion.' In the movie, it appears that the theological content of Christianity amounts to threatening people with damnation if they dare to think for themselves. The overthrow of this caricature provides a liberation myth ... The movie teaches that the truth shall make us free, and the truth, according to science and Hollywood, is that Biblical religion is an oppressor to be overthrown. The film embodied a stereotype that has dominated public debate over evolution ever since the Scopes trial. As far as the media are concerned, all critics of Darwinism fit into what I call the `Inherit the Wind stereotype.' No matter how well qualified the critics are, and no matter how well grounded their criticisms, the reporters assume that they are Bible-thumping fanatics challenging scientific fact in order to impose political oppression. The review in Nature of Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box [Free Press, 1996] fits squarely in that tradition. Behe made solid scientific arguments demonstrating the existence of irreducible complexity in biochemical systems, arguments that the reviewer did not dispute on scientific grounds. Instead, the review began and ended with irrelevant attacks on fundamentalists who want to substitute the book of Genesis for science. Like Marxism, Darwinism is a liberation myth that has become a new justification for ordering people not to think for themselves." (Johnson, P.E., "How to Sink a Battleship: A call to separate materialist philosophy from empirical science," Final address at the 1996 Mere Creation conference, Leadership U., 14 December 2002.)

Love Thy Neighbor Evolved Out of Vicious Competition?

Here is a good example in a recent Scientific American article, based on a Science paper, of how Darwinism is untestable and unfalsifiable because it can explain anything (and its opposite).

[Graphic: Ghost of competition past (left), Halloween 2005, UC Davis]

The article mentions a "conundrum [that] has puzzled evolutionary biologists since the time of Darwin", namely "Natural selection argues against cooperation" and "If all organisms, including humans, are pitted in a ceaseless struggle for survival and sex, those who help others would quickly find themselves swamped in a rising tide of selfishness" but "most humans reflexively help another person in need even if there are no family ties or a direct benefit to be gained" (my emphasis).

But instead of concluding that natural selection must be false or limited, Darwinists simply posit what in ecology is called, "the ghost of competition past", i.e. "A term coined by J.H. Connell to stress that interspecific competition, acting as an evolutionary force in the past, has often left its mark on the behaviour, distribution or morphology of species, even when there is no present-day competition between them." (my emphasis).

That is, it is just speculatively assumed that "Human cooperation may have evolved out of a penchant for frequent warfare" in the past (my emphasis):

"Natural selection argues against cooperation. If all organisms, including humans, are pitted in a ceaseless struggle for survival and sex, those who help others would quickly find themselves swamped in a rising tide of selfishness, especially if those they helped bore no relation to them. Yet, most humans reflexively help another person in need even if there are no family ties or a direct benefit to be gained. This conundrum has puzzled evolutionary biologists since the time of Darwin, but a new study shows how internecine warfare among early humans might have allowed for the spread of a dominant group of altruistic tribes. Economist Samuel Bowles of the Santa Fe Institute examines the evolutionary forces at work on early human populations. He posits two distinct groups: the altruistic and the selfish, divided into many different tribes, which Bowles refers to as demes. Altruists are disposed to take an action helping others, but such actions have a specific cost. For example, an altruist might jump into the river to save a drowning child at the cost of her own life but to the overall benefit of the tribe. Reducing these sets of conditions to a mathematical equation reveals that altruists can only prosper if their altruism enables their group to acquire more territory. One of the primary ways that humans--indeed all primates-- acquire territory is through `contests,' or war. By sharing the costs of war, as well as its benefits, a group of altruists typically outnumbers and therefore defeats a less cohesive band of individuals. Thus, whereas individual natural selection would argue for the rise of the selfish, larger group dynamics showcase the triumph of the altruists. This latter type of selection also relies on that group sharing a large proportion of similar genes, because, in that case, altruists' genetic material persists in some form if they sacrifice themselves for others in war. This is the solution offered by Darwin in The Descent of Man and Bowles in a paper published in the December 8 Science [Bowles, S., "Group Competition, Reproductive Leveling, and the Evolution of Human Altruism," Science, Vol. 314, 8 December 2006, pp.1569-1572]. ... None of this evidence, of course, proves that altruism evolved in this manner, but it does provide an intriguing argument and some nice mathematical equations for describing human behavior. ..." (Biello, D., "Love Thy Neighbor Evolved Out of Vicious Competition: Human cooperation may have evolved out of a penchant for frequent warfare," Scientific American, December 07, 2006).

Note what a wonderful theory natural selection is! If humans were characterised by "a ceaseless struggle for survival and sex" then that can be explained by natural selection favouring "a penchant for frequent warfare" in the present. But if humans are not characterised by "a ceaseless struggle for survival and sex" then that can be explained by natural selection favouring "a penchant for frequent warfare" in the past! So heads Darwinism wins and tails Darwinism wins!

But the problem with that is, as the article says, "None of this evidence, of course, proves that altruism evolved in this manner." But since Darwinism is consistent with anything and its opposite, how could it ever "prove" anything?

Getting back to the article's explanation of natural selection favouring "a penchant for frequent warfare" in the past, this was what the late Australian philosopher, David Stove, called "the `Cave Man' attempt to solve `Darwinism's Dilemma'" namely, "that although human life may not now exhibit the brutal struggle for subsistence that Darwin's theory postulates, it once did" (his emphasis):

"Again, if Darwin's theory of evolution were true, `there would be in every species a constant and ruthless competition to survive: a competition in which only a few in any generation can be winners. But it is perfectly obvious that human life is not like that, however it may be with other species.' Priests, hospitals, governments, old-age homes, charities, police: these are a few of the things whose existence contradicts Darwin's theory. Some of Darwinism's defenders respond by arguing that although human life may not now exhibit the brutal struggle for subsistence that Darwin's theory postulates, it once did. This is what Stove calls the `Cave Man' attempt to solve `Darwinism's Dilemma.' (The other attempts he calls the `Hard Man' and the `Soft Man' gambits.) But the problem is that Darwin's theory is not meant to be something that was true yesterday but not today. It claims to be, as Stove puts it, `a universal generalization about all terrestrial species at any time.' And this means that `if the theory says something which is not true now of our species (or another), then it is not true-finish.'" (Kimball, R., ed., "Against the Idols of the Age," [1999], Transaction Publishers: New Brunswick NJ, Second Printing, 2000, p.xxix. Emphasis original).

But the problem with that, as Stove pointed out above, is that "Darwin's theory is not meant to be something that was true yesterday but not today" because if it "is not true now of our species then it is not true-finish" (i.e. "period" or "full-stop")!

The possibility that human altruism was straightforwardly favourable because a species that is characterised more by cooperation than competition is more likely to be successful (which actually is the case, not just in humans but in most species-hence the need for Connell's "ghost of competition past"), and that Darwinian competition and natural selection played a comparatively minor role in the origin of humans (at least), is not even considered!

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biol).

---

Genesis 29:31-30:24. ³¹When the LORD saw that Leah was not loved, he opened her womb, but Rachel was barren. ³²Leah became pregnant and gave birth to a son. She named him Reuben, for she said, "It is because the LORD has seen my misery. Surely my husband will love me now." ³³She conceived again, and when she gave birth to a son she said, "Because the LORD heard that I am not loved, he gave me this one too." So she named him Simeon. ³⁴Again she conceived, and when she gave birth to a son she said, "Now at last my husband will become attached to me, because I have borne him three sons." So he was named Levi. ³⁵She conceived again, and when she gave birth to a son she said, "This time I will praise the LORD." So she named him Judah. Then she stopped having children. ¹When Rachel saw that she was not bearing Jacob any children, she became jealous of her sister. So she said to Jacob, "Give me children, or I'll die!" ²Jacob became angry with her and said, "Am I in the place of God, who has kept you from having children?" ³Then she said, "Here is Bilhah, my maidservant. Sleep with her so that she can bear children for me and that through her I too can build a family." ⁴So she gave him her servant Bilhah as a wife. Jacob slept with her, ⁵and she became pregnant and bore him a son. ⁶Then Rachel said, "God has vindicated me; he has listened to my plea and given me a son." Because of this she named him Dan. ⁷Rachel's servant Bilhah conceived again and bore Jacob a second son. ⁸Then Rachel said, "I have had a great struggle with my sister, and I have won." So she named him Naphtali. ⁹When Leah saw that she had stopped having children, she took her maidservant Zilpah and gave her to Jacob as a wife. ¹⁰Leah's servant Zilpah bore Jacob a son. ¹¹Then Leah said, "What good fortune!" So she named him Gad. ¹²Leah's servant Zilpah bore Jacob a second son. ¹³Then Leah said, "How happy I am! The women will call me happy." So she named him Asher. ¹⁴During wheat harvest, Reuben went out into the fields and found some mandrake plants, which he brought to his mother Leah. Rachel said to Leah, "Please give me some of your son's mandrakes." ¹⁵But she said to her, "Wasn't it enough that you took away my husband? Will you take my son's mandrakes too?" "Very well," Rachel said, "he can sleep with you tonight in return for your son's mandrakes." ¹⁶So when Jacob came in from the fields that evening, Leah went out to meet him. "You must sleep with me," she said. "I have hired you with my son's mandrakes." So he slept with her that night. ¹⁷God listened to Leah, and she became pregnant and bore Jacob a fifth son. ¹⁸Then Leah said, "God has rewarded me for giving my maidservant to my husband." So she named him Issachar. ¹⁹Leah conceived again and bore Jacob a sixth son. ²⁰Then Leah said, "God has presented me with a precious gift. This time my husband will treat me with honor, because I have borne him six sons." So she named him Zebulun. ²¹Some time later she gave birth to a daughter and named her Dinah. ²²Then God remembered Rachel; he listened to her and opened her womb. ²³She became pregnant and gave birth to a son and said, "God has taken away my disgrace." ²⁴She named him Joseph, and said, "May the LORD add to me another son."

` the most serious obstacle ... to ... spontaneous generation ... the reactions ... to synthesize ... are ... much more effective in decomposing'

As promised, here are quotes from a 1960 Nature article by a physical chemist named D.E. Hull. I have eliminated chemical calculations for clarity.

[Graphic: Bada, J.L. &Lazcano, A., "Prebiotic Soup-Revisiting the Miller Experiment," Science, May 2003]

Hull pointed out that any glycine (the simplest of life's amino acids) formed in the early Earth atmosphere, as per the then prevailing Oparin-Haldane primordial soup origin of life theory (and still popular-it is what that "icon of evolution" the Miller-Urey experiment was supposedly simulating) would be decomposed by the very ultraviolet light that created it in the first place from atmospheric gases, such that "97 per cent of the glycine would be decomposed before it could reach the surface" (my emphasis):

"IN the current enthusiasm to put forward theories that provide a milieu rich in organic compounds for the spontaneous generation of life, little attention has been given to the quantitative aspect of the problem. One might estimate the rates of reactions producing such compounds. ... it is possible that, in an energy-rich medium, steady-rate concentrations can be maintained far from equilibrium. In such case the expected concentrations depend on the available mechanisms for synthesis and decomposition. Ultraviolet light is the most important source of energy to consider, being hundreds to thousands of times more abundant than electrical discharges or ionizing radiation. The atmosphere postulated is transparent to ultra-violet .... A glycine molecule formed in such an atmosphere is immediately vulnerable to radiation ... Thus, any glycine formed would be rapidly decomposed. Its absorption coefficient ...and the intensity of ultra-violet ... give it a half-life of about 30 days. This is much shorter than the half-time of transport from the stratosphere to the surface, now estimated from fall-out data as three years. Thus, 97 per cent of the glycine would be decomposed before it could reach the surface." (Hull, D.E., "Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Spontaneous Generation," Nature, Vol. 186, May 28, 1960, pp.693-694, pp.693-694).

Hull continues following the 3% of the originally synthesised glycine into the ocean, where still "decomposition by ultra-violet radiation" would continue to dilute its concentration, such that "These short lives for decomposition in the atmosphere or ocean clearly preclude the possibility of accumulating useful concentrations of organic compounds over eons of time" (my emphasis):

"Miller and Urey hope to save the synthesized products by removing them from the reaction zone in the atmosphere to the ocean. But even after the glycine reaches the ocean, the victory is not won. ... the important effect, however, is not thermal, but decomposition by ultra-violet radiation. The ultra-violet reaching the surface would penetrate to a considerable depth. .. about 100 metres deep, glycine would have a half-life to ultra-violet destruction of about twenty years. Even assuming it to be mixed to the bottom of the ocean, with an average depth of 4 km., the half-life is only 1,000 years. These short lives for decomposition in the atmosphere or ocean clearly preclude the possibility of accumulating useful concentrations of organic compounds over eons of time." (Hull, Ibid., p.694).

Hull points out that "The limiting concentrations" are "from the steady state between production and decomposition"and "from a mixture of methane, ammonia and water vapour ... even the highest admissible value seems hopelessly low as starting material for the spontaneous generation of life:

"The limiting concentrations to be hoped for can be estimated from the steady state between production and decomposition. The rate of formation of glycine by ultra-violet irradiation... from a mixture of methane, ammonia and water vapour may be estimated ... even the highest admissible value seems hopelessly low as starting material for the spontaneous generation of life. Consideration of other sources of energy, although they are very much weaker than the ultra-violet radiation, leads to similar conclusions. Thus, ionizing radiation may form complex products from simple reactants, but the more complex and highly organized compounds are more vulnerable to the same agent than their simple precursors." (Hull, Ibid., p.694).

Note above that the reason Hull picked on glycine was because it would be even worse for the more complex amino acids, i.e. "the more complex and highly organized compounds are more vulnerable to the same agent [that produced them] than their simple precursors."

Hull then concluded that this "presents the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is not fatal, to the theory of spontaneous generation" because: 1) not only would the original synthesis produce "vanishingly small concentrations of even the simplest organic compounds"; but also: 2) "the reactions that are invoked to synthesize such compounds are seen to be much more effective in decomposing them" (my emphasis):

"The conclusion from these arguments presents the most serious obstacle, if indeed it is not fatal, to the theory of spontaneous generation. First, thermodynamic calculations predict vanishingly small concentrations of even the simplest organic compounds. Secondly, the reactions that are invoked to synthesize such compounds are seen to be much more effective in decomposing them. Further, it must be remembered that both lines of argument become quantitatively of an overwhelmingly greater magnitude when organic compounds other than the very simplest are considered. .... The values for the simplest proteins must be unimaginably small. Also, in agreement with the thermodynamic prediction, the kinetic steady-state concentration falls rapidly with increasing complexity of organic compounds, because (1) the quantum yield for their formation decreases ; (2) at the same time their stability against thermal decomposition decreases ; and (3) their opacity to ultra-violet radiation and decomposition by this means increases. The physical chemist, guided by the proved principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics, cannot offer any encouragement to the biochemist, who needs an ocean full of organic compounds to form even lifeless coacervates. These estimates are not in conflict with the experimental results of Miller and others who have synthesized organic compounds with electrical discharges or ultra-violet light in the laboratory. They have merely used the well-known principle of increasing the yield of a reaction by selectively removing the product from the reacting mixture. But the fact that a chemist can carry out an organic synthesis in the laboratory does not prove that the same synthesis will occur in the atmosphere or open sea without the chemist." (Hull, Ibid., p.694).

So the Oparin-Haldane oceanic primordial soup theory, which the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment was simulating, was effectively falsified a year later in 1954, despite it remaining as the basic paradigm for the origin of life in many, if not most, biology textbooks down to this very day!

That the oceanic soup theory was falsified was conceded by J.D. Bernal, in the very next article, in which he admitted, "the original concept of the primitive soup must be rejected only in so far as it applies to oceans or large volumes of water, and interest must be transferred to reactions in more limited zones" (my emphasis):

"Even if we accept that small organic molecules; a fortiori larger organic molecules, are likely to exist in an atmosphere and open ocean only in very small equilibrium concentrations, it does not necessarily follow that the way of photosynthesis for the origin of even more complex compounds, or of life itself, is effectively barred. The fact that Miller and others have produced such compounds by radiation is, as Dr. Hull quite rightly points out, because these products are selectively removed from their zone of formation. It would seem to follow that if complex organic molecules were ever produced on a lifeless Earth, something similar must have occurred there. There must have been a process which. removed a certain proportion of these molecules from their zone of reaction. Further, the same or another process must have concentrated them to the extent where they could enter into still more complex reactions. Such reactions did not necessarily require further energy sources to promote them. In other words, the original concept of the primitive soup must be rejected only in so far as it applies to oceans or large volumes of water, and interest must be transferred to reactions in more limited zones." (Bernal, J. D., "Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Spontaneous Generation," Nature, Vol. 186, May 28, 1960, pp.694-695, p.694).

But the problem remains even more for "reactions in more limited zones" (like lakes and pools) in that, even if: 1) there was another process [which] ... concentrated them to the extent where they could enter into still more complex reactions" (and none have been plausibly identified in the nearly half century since); 2) the production of "vanishingly small concentrations of even the simplest organic compounds" in the first place would mean even less in total would fall into "more limited zones"; 3) the lakes and pools would be more shallow and so ultraviolet radiation would be more intense and break the compoundsdown more rapidly; and 4) so the decomposing reactions would be even more intense where the compounds ate closer together "in more limited zones."

As Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen pointed out (in the book which is widely regarded as marking the start of the modern ID movement) "degradative forces need to be taken into account in realistic estimates of concentrations, and they have frequently been ignored"(my emphasis):

"The realization that an organic soup would have been too dilute for direct formation of polymers may seem devastating to chemical evolution views. However, as Bernal has written, `The original concept of the primitive soup must be rejected only in so far as it applies to oceans or large volumes of water, and interest must be transferred to reactions in more limited zones.' By this he meant lakes, pools, lagoons, and the like. ... By concentrating the monomers, the probability of their molecular interaction would have been increased, thus increasing reaction rates … There is no known geological evidence for organic pools, concentrated by these or other mechanisms, ever existing on this planet. ... Still, if by some means concentrated pools did develop, not only would the desired materials concentrate, but also the undesirable impurities. For example, an evaporating pond concentrating nonvolatiles such as amino acids would also concentrate sea salts such as NaCl. ... Salt has greater affinity for water than do these organic compounds. Therefore, in order for the salt to be dissolved the organic compounds must precipitate out of solution. It is another type of `impurity,' however, that would have been the greatest obstacle to the successful concentration of organic compounds in limited zones. This would be the host of oceanic organic compounds such as amines, amino acids, aldehydes, ketones, sugars, carboxylic acids, etc. that would have destructively interacted in the ocean. The usual consequences of concentrating these would be … merely an acceleration of the many destructive reactions ... that would also occur at slower rates in the more dilute ocean, as already discussed. ... The problem demands a means of selecting organic compounds and isolating them from other chemicals with which they could destructively interact. Yet there is nothing (but the need) to suggest that such a sorting mechanism ever existed on this planet. In other words, for these more limited zones (e.g., lakes, pools, lagoons), as for the ocean itself, it is difficult to imagine significant concentrations of essential organic compounds ever accumulating. As we have seen, degradative forces need to be taken into account in realistic estimates of concentrations, and they have frequently been ignored." (Thaxton C.B., Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories," [1984], Lewis & Stanley: Dallas TX, 1992, Second Printing, pp.61-62,64-66. Emphasis original).

As for Thaxton, et al.'s "The problem demands a means of selecting organic compounds and isolating them from other chemicals with which they could destructively interact," note what Hull says in his last quote above that this is "not in conflict with the experimental results of Miller and others who have synthesized organic compounds with electrical discharges or ultra-violet light in the laboratory" because they only work "by selectively removing the product from the reacting mixture" (i.e. by intelligent design), but that "does not prove that the same synthesis will occur in the atmosphere or open sea without the chemist" (my emphasis).

In other words, what all these origin of life experiments are demonstrating is that intelligent design is needed to synthesise life! As creationist chemist and pre-ID theorist A.E. Wilder-Smith observed, "For all the efforts of the scientific naturalists to prove their point ... only serve, in fact, to verify the correctness of the supernaturalist position" because "Under the influence of intelligence they are hoping to produce living matter from its nonliving base" but "This is precisely the supernaturalist point of view" (my emphasis)!:

"The scientific materialists are bending all their efforts to demonstrate that, if a reaction leading up to life can take place now, in laboratory reaction vessels, without supernatural aid, then proof positive has been effectively delivered that no supernatural agency was needed to produce life at the beginning, at archebiopoesis. Thus any synthetic, laboratory production of life in the laboratory, under what are presumed to be conditions resembling those on the earth when life arose for the first time, is heralded in many circles as driving the last nail in God's and the supernaturalist's coffins. Who needs God and the supernaturalist position if life on the earth can be effectively accounted for without either? Before accepting this commonly assumed position let us consider the following: Is it not remarkable that this view is not generally recognized for what it is-an absolute contradiction? For all the efforts of the scientific naturalists to prove their point by the above mentioned method only serve, in fact, to verify the correctness of the supernaturalist position. For, is it not true that the scientific materialists are, in their experiment, applying intelligence and thought to the ordering of matter? Under the influence of intelligence they are hoping to produce living matter from its nonliving base. This is precisely the supernaturalist point of view." (Wilder-Smith, A.E., "The Creation of Life: A Cybernetic Approach to Evolution," T.W.F.T. Publishers: Costa Mesa CA, 1988, pp.xix-xx).

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).

---

Genesis 28:10-15. ¹⁰Jacob left Beersheba and set out for Haran. ¹¹When he reached a certain place, he stopped for the night because the sun had set. Taking one of the stones there, he put it under his head and lay down to sleep. ¹²He had a dream in which he saw a stairway resting on the earth, with its top reaching to heaven, and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it. ¹³There above it stood the LORD, and he said: "I am the LORD, the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac. I will give you and your descendants the land on which you are lying. ¹⁴Your descendants will be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out to the west and to the east, to the north and to the south. All peoples on earth will be blessed through you and your offspring. ¹⁵I am with you and will watch over you wherever you go, and I will bring you back to this land. I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you."

`spontaneous dissolution ... the most stubborn problem that confronts us-the weakest link ... in our argument' (Wald)

Here is another Quote of the Day from the late George Wald's 1954 Scientific American origin of life article,

[Graphic: Sisyphus on an ancient Greek vase, Wikipedia. See below.]

which is devastating against all scientific materialist origin of life theories which by definition rely solely on unintelligent natural processes, because they are all effectively "sponaneous generation" as Wald made clear near the beginning of his article-see `tagline' quote at foot of this post).

To his credit, Wald candidly stated the problem for his fellow scientific materialists, "We must still reckon, however, with another destructive force which is disposed of less easily. This can be called spontaneous dissolution-the counterpart of spontaneous generation. ... The trouble is that the processes which synthesize an organic substance are reversible: any chemical reaction which an enzyme may catalyze will go backward as well as forward. ... spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis. .... I believe this to be the most stubborn problem that confronts us-the weakest link at present in our argument" (my emphasis):

Forces of Dissolution In the early history of our planet, when there were no organisms or any free oxygen, organic compounds should have been stable over very long periods. This is the crucial difference between the period before life existed and our own. If one were to specify a single reason why the spontaneous generation of living organisms was possible once and is so no longer, this is the reason. We must still reckon, however, with another destructive force which is disposed of less easily. This can be called spontaneous dissolution-the counterpart of spontaneous generation. We have noted that any process catalyzed by an enzyme can occur in time without the enzyme. The trouble is that the processes which synthesize an organic substance are reversible: any chemical reaction which an enzyme may catalyze will go backward as well as forward. We have spoken as though one has only to wait to achieve syntheses of all kinds; it is truer to say that what one achieves by waiting is equilibria of all kinds-equilibria in which the synthesis and dissolution of substances come into balance. In the vast majority of the processes in which we are interested the point of equilibrium lies far over toward the side of dissolution. That is to say, spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis. For example, the spontaneous union, step by step, of amino acid units to form a protein has a certain small probability, and hence might occur over a long stretch of time. But the dissolution of the protein or of an intermediate product into its component amino acids is much more probable, and hence will go ever so much more rapidly. The situation we must face is that of patient Penelope waiting for Odysseus, yet much worse: each night she undid the weaving of the preceding day, but here a night could readily undo the work of a year or a century. How do present-day organisms manage to synthesize organic compounds against the forces of dissolution? They do so by a continuous expenditure of energy. Indeed, living organisms commonly do better than oppose the forces of dissolution; they grow in spite of them. They do so, however, only at enormous expense to their surroundings. They need a constant supply of material and energy merely to maintain themselves, and much more of both to grow and reproduce. A living organism is an intricate machine for performing exactly this function. When, for want of fuel or through some internal failure in its mechanism, an organism stops actively synthesizing itself in opposition to the processes which continuously decompose it, it dies and rapidly disintegrates. What we ask here is to synthesize organic molecules without such a machine. I believe this to be the most stubborn problem that confronts us-the weakest link at present in our argument. I do not think it by any means disastrous, but it calls for phenomena and forces some of which are as yet only partly understood and some probably still to be discovered." (Wald, G., "The Origin of Life," Scientific American, Vol. 191, No. 2, August 1954, pp.44-53, p.49. Emphasis original).

Of course scientific materialists will no doubt, like a drowning man clutching at a straw, seize on Wald's, "I do not think it by any means disastrous." But of course Wald, being a scientific materialist, would have to believe that, or he would not be a scientific materialist (i.e. it is yet another case of, "Well, he would [say that], wouldn't he?")! It is in fact a good example of how, at the last resort, scientific materialism can always be saved from falsification by "promissory materialism"," i.e. positing future discoveries of as yet unknown (or even unknowable) materialistic "phenomena and forces"!

Note that what is needed to prevent spontaneous dissolution proceeding "much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis"is "an intricate machine" which "actively synthesiz[es] ... organic molecules" "in opposition to the processes which continuously decompose" them, and "What we [scientific materialists] ask here is to synthesize organic molecules without such a machine" (my emphasis)!

They are just deluding themselves, as Wald almost admits with his analogy of it being "much worse" than "patient Penelope waiting for Odysseus ...each night she undid the weaving of the preceding day, but here a night could readily undo the work of a year or a century" (my emphasis). Waiting for non-living chemicals, which are continually spontaneously decomposing into simpler components to spontaneously assemble themselves into an "intricate machine" that could then prevent "spontaneous dissolution" by "actively synthesizing ... organic molecules" is asking for a miracle, which indeed it would be indistinguishable from. Ironically, Wald effectively admits this is the same article where he says that a physicist would never accept a report that a highly improbable event, like a "table ... suddenly and spontaneously r[o]se into the air" had actually happened:

"Every physicist knows that there is a very small probability, which is easily computed, that the table upon which I am writing will suddenly and spontaneously rise into the air. The event requires no more than that the molecules of which the table is composed, ordinarily in random motion in all directions, should happen by chance to move in the same direction. Every physicist concedes this possibility; but try telling one that you have seen it happen. Recently I asked a friend, a Nobel laureate in physics, what he would say if I told him that. He laughed and said that he would regard it as more probable that I was mistaken than that the event had actually occurred." (Wald, Ibid, p.47)

So, rather than the analogy being like "that of patient Penelope waiting for Odysseus, yet much worse, a better one would be another story from the same Homer's Odyssey, that of Odysseus' reputed father "Sisyphus [who] was compelled to roll a huge rock up a steep hill, but before he reached the top of the hill, the rock always escaped him and he had to begin again" ("Sisyphus," Wikipedia. My emphasis)!

The irony is that scientific materialists are just as "compelled" by their god (i.e. their lack of God) to endlessly propose materialist explanations for the origin of life that are just as hopelessly impossible as Sisyphus endlessly rolling a rock up the top of a hill only to see it always escape and roll back down again!

Indeed, as Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias, in a chapter titled "Sisyphus on a Roll" in one of his books against atheism, although he was not specifically dealing with the origin of life, highlights that the problem for the materialistic (i.e. atheistic) origin of life is far worse than Sisyphus' endless rolling of one rock up a hill. The scientific materialists' problem is in fact the need to roll many different rocks up the hill simultaneously, i.e. "If he rolled up a different stone each time [sic], a beautiful building could be built":

"One of the most popular stories from Greek mythology is the myth of Sisyphus. Sisyphus was condemned by the gods for having betrayed the celestial ranks by revealing divine secrets to mortals. They sentenced him to roll a massive stone to the top of a hill, watch it roll down again, and repeat the exercise endlessly. His hell was in having to execute a pointless act from which nothing ever came, except a vain repetition compounding the emptiness. Not by one step, nor by a thousand, nor by ten thousand, was he able to expiate the sin against the gods that brought on this cursed fate. He, could do nothing to rescue himself from futility. ... Poor Sisyphus couldn't even reverse it for a temporary relief. All kinds of intriguing suggestions have been made, ranging from changing his internal outlook ('If only Sisyphus could have changed on the inside so that he enjoyed rolling stones') to altering his external viewpoint ('If he rolled up a different stone each time, a beautiful building could be built'). Most of humanity understands Sisyphus's plight and has felt his struggle." (Zacharias, R.K., "A Shattered Visage: The Real Face of Atheism," [1990], Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Third Printing, 1994, pp.74-75).

Note that "each time" above is not good enough, since "each time" a rock was rolled up the hill, it would immediately roll down again. What a materialistic origin of life requires is the entire "building" (i.e. a fully functioning "intricate machine" that would stop the individual stones from rolling down the hill) to arrive as individual components and then assemble themselves (arrival and assembly are not the same thing) simultaneously!

I have another quote, from Nature (1960), not by Wald but which makes the same point, which I will post in my next Quote of the Day.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).

---

"It is no easy matter to deal with so deeply ingrained and common-sense a belief as that in spontaneous generation. One can ask for nothing better in such a pass than a noisy and stubborn opponent, and this Pasteur had in the naturalist Felix Pouchet, whose arguments before the French Academy of Sciences drove Pasteur to more and more rigorous experiments. When he had finished, nothing remained of the belief in spontaneous generation. We tell this story to beginning students of biology as though it represents a triumph of reason over mysticism. In fact it is very nearly the opposite. The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a `philosophical necessity.' It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing." (Wald, G., "The Origin of Life," Scientific American, Vol. 191, No. 2, August 1954, pp.44-53, pp.45-46)

Judge Jones a Plagiarist?

On a small private mailing list discussion group I am on, the issue came up whether Judge Jones was,

[Graphic: Judge John Jones III, Wikipedia. Note Wikipedia says this haloed image is the "U.S. District Court Official Government Portrait of Judge John Jones III" but the first hit from a Google search of "Wikipedia U.S. District Court Official Government Portrait of Judge" (without the quotes) turned up a portrait of a Judge Samuel Alito without a halo!]

in the Dover trial, a plagiarist for having "copied verbatim or virtually verbatim 90.9% of his 6,004-word section on whether intelligent design is science from the ACLU's proposed 'Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law'" ("Study Shows Federal Judge Copied ACLU Text in Dover Intelligent Design Ruling," Evolution News & Views, December 13, 2006).

My response (with some changes) was:

The Discovery Institute is not claiming that Judge Jones is a plagiarist. The Institute's John West points out that that it was "the AgapePress ... article [which] inacurrately states that we are faulting Judge Jones for `plagiarism,' which we aren't; he copied extensively from the ACLU, but in judicial circles that would not be called plagiarism":

"WorldNetDaily is covering the Judge Jones' copying story, as is the Associated Press, The York Dispatch, and the AgapePress (note: the last article inacurrately states that we are faulting Judge Jones for `plagiarism,' which we aren't; he copied extensively from the ACLU, but in judicial circles that would not be called plagiarism). .... The discussion going on at Sandwalk is particularly fascinating. There pro-Darwin biochemist Larry Moran expresses his disillusionment about being misled about the `brilliant' Judge Jones. The responses posted by fellow Darwinists who won't tolerate any criticism of the Judge or his decision are especially illuminating. ..." ("Media Round-Up on Judge Jones," Evolution News & Views, December 12, 2006).

Whatever the practice in law, I am sure that most non-lawyers (and probably some, if not most, lawyers) will regard copy-and-pasting ~90% of the evidence and arguments of one side of a case (including its errors) is nothing to admire. As the above quote says, at least one evolutionist, biochemist Larry Moran, was not impressed after having received the impression that Judge Jones was "brilliant" because of his apparent personal grasp of scientific issues. I am sure a lot (perhaps most) scientists will agree with Moran.

The reason I say that is in my biology degree we were consistently told that the reason we were not allowed to quote extensively from our sources, but had to put their thoughts in our own words, was because that is the only way we could demonstrate that we really understood our source's evidence and arguments. I presume that is the norm in science education everywhere?

That Judge Jones also copy-and-pasted his source's errors, demonstrates that he did not really understand their evidence and arguments.

If Judge Jones had confined himself to his own field of expertise, the law, there would be no problem and he would not have needed to do so much copy-and-pasting. But he didn't. Judge Jones' ruling ranged across the fields of science, philosophy of science and religion and claimed, or implied, that he personally had resolved once and for all, issues that the experts in those fields had not yet been able to resolve!

Just one example, "The judge could have issued a much narrower opinion ... At times, Jones sounded more like a biology professor than a judge" (my emphasis):

"Evolution debate moving to new battlegrounds," MSNBC, Alan Boyle, Dec. 20, 2005 ... The judge could have issued a much narrower opinion, finding merely that the Dover Area School Board in Pennsylvania acted with a religious purpose when it required biology teachers to refer to intelligent design. While that was indeed part of the ruling, much more of the 139-page opinion was devoted to the proposition that intelligent design was repackaged creationism rather than science. At times, Jones sounded more like a biology professor than a judge - for example, when he countered the view that some biological mechanisms were irreducibly complex by referring to "exaptation," the idea that a mechanism that was developed for one purpose could be adapted to another. ....

See also other pro-ID blogs: "Revisiting Dover: How Brilliant Was Judge Jones' Decision?," Doubting Darwin, December 12, 2006; "Cut-and-Paste Jones Served as ACLU Mouthpiece," ID Update, December 12, 2006; "Judge Jones Finds Erroneous Facts," Teleological Blog, December 12, 2006; "Judge Jones: Towering Intellectual or Narcissistic Putz?," Uncommon Descent, December 12, 2006, "Judge Jones and the Shattering of Darwinist Illusions," Evolution News & Views, December 13, 2006 & "Why the Report on Judicial Copying is Significant," ID The Future, December 13, 2006.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).

---

Genesis 26:12-14. ¹²Isaac planted crops in that land and the same year reaped a hundredfold, because the LORD blessed him. ¹³The man became rich, and his wealth continued to grow until he became very wealthy. ¹⁴He had so many flocks and herds and servants that the Philistines envied him.

`An enzyme ... is only a catalyst ... It cannot make anything happen that would not have happened, though more slowly in its absence' (Wald)

In further reducing my stack of unclassified photocopies, I rediscovered my photocopy of a famous 1954 Scientific American article on the origin of life by the late Harvard biologist and Nobel laureate George Wald (1906-1997)

[Graphic: Ribbon diagram of enzyme Orotidine monophosphate decarboxylase, aka OMP Decarboxylase, aka ODCase, Wikipedia]

In re-reading the article, I noticed this, where Wald mentioned something that was "more important than all the special processes ... for organic syntheses" and that was "the special class of proteins called enzymes ... which greatly accelerate chemical reactions" in biochemistry. However, since "enzymes themselves are proteins ... One is asking ... for an apparatus which is the unique property of cells in order to form the first cell." But Wald just assumes, without doing any calculations, that "Every process that is catalyzed by an enzyme ... would occur without the enzyme" with "The only difference is one of rate. .... What takes only a few moments in the presence of an enzyme or other catalyst may take days, months or years in its absence; but given time, the end result is the same":

"A final consideration, however, seems to me more important than all the special processes to which one might appeal for organic syntheses in inanimate nature. It has already been said that to have organic molecules one ordinarily needs organisms. The synthesis of organic substances, like almost everything else that happens in organisms, is governed by the special class of proteins called enzymes-the organic catalysts which greatly accelerate chemical reactions in the body. Since an enzyme is not used up but is returned at the end of the process, a small amount of enzyme can promote an enormous transformation of material. Enzymes play such a dominant role in the chemistry of life that it is exceedingly difficult to imagine the synthesis of living material without their help. This poses a dilemma, for enzymes themselves are proteins, and hence among the most complex organic components of the cell. One is asking, in effect, for an apparatus which is the unique property of cells in order to form the first cell. This is not, however, an insuperable difficulty. An enzyme, after all, is only a catalyst; it can do no more than change the rate of a chemical reaction. It cannot make anything happen that would not have happened, though more slowly' in its absence. Every process that is catalyzed by an enzyme, and every product of such. a process, would occur without the enzyme. The only difference is one of rate. Once again the essence of the argument is time. What takes only a few' moments in the presence of an enzyme or other catalyst may take days, months or years in its absence; but given time, the end result is the same." (Wald, G., "The Origin of Life," Scientific American, Vol. 191, No. 2, August 1954, pp.44-53, p.48. Emphasis original).

Paul Davies also states the chicken or egg dilemma of proteins (by which he means enzymes) which "have the job of catalyzing (greatly accelerating) key biochemical processes" without which "catalysis life would grind to a halt", yet "proteins are also made by nucleic acid"and "it is hard to see how a molecule like RNA or DNA ... could come into existence spontaneously if it was incapable, in the absence of proteins, of doing anything (in particular, of reproducing)" yet "it is equally unlikely that nucleic acid and proteins came into existence by accident at the same time and fortuitously discovered an efficient symbiotic relationship":

"Proteins have the job of catalyzing (greatly accelerating) key biochemical processes. Without this catalysis life would grind to a halt. Proteins perform their tasks under the instructions of nucleic acid, which contains the genetic information. But proteins are also made by nucleic acid. This suggests that nucleic acid came first. However, it is hard to see how a molecule like RNA or DNA, containing many thousands of carefully arranged atoms, could come into existence spontaneously if it was incapable, in the absence of proteins, of doing anything (in particular, of reproducing). But it is equally unlikely that nucleic acid and proteins came into existence by accident at the same time and fortuitously discovered an efficient symbiotic relationship. The high degree of improbability of the formation of life by accidental molecular shuffling has been compared by Fred Hoyle to a whirlwind passing through an aircraft factory and blowing scattered components into a functioning Boeing 747. It is easy to estimate the odds against random permutations of molecules assembling DNA. It is about 10^40,000 to one against! That is the same as tossing a coin and achieving heads roughly 130,000 times in a row." (Davies, P.C.W., "Are We Alone?: Philosophical Implications of the Discovery of Extraterrestrial Life," Penguin: London, 1995, pp.18-19).

And, getting back to Wald's claim that the same reactions would still occur without enzymes, except they would take longer, i.e. instead of "only a few moments in the presence of an enzyme" they would take "days, months or years in its absence," a senior professor of biochemistry named Dr. Richard Wolfenden did the calculations for "a biological transformation deemed `absolutely essential' in creating the building blocks of DNA and RNA" and it "would take 78 million years in water" and another enzyme whose "half-time - the time it takes for half the substance to be consumed - is 1 trillion years" which is "way beyond the known universe in terms of slowness"!:

"All biological reactions within human cells depend on enzymes. Their power as catalysts enables biological reactions to occur usually in milliseconds. But how slowly would these reactions proceed spontaneously, in the absence of enzymes - minutes, hours, days? And why even pose the question? One scientist who studies these issues is Dr. Richard Wolfenden, Alumni distinguished professor of biochemistry and biophysics and chemistry at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. In 1998, he reported a biological transformation deemed `absolutely essential' in creating the building blocks of DNA and RNA would take 78 million years in water. [Williamson, D., "Researchers find structure of enzyme that catalyzes 78-million-year reaction," UNC-CH News Services, Feb. 22, 2000] `Now we've found one that's 10,000 times slower than that,' Wolfenden said. `Its half-time - the time it takes for half the substance to be consumed - is 1 trillion years, 100 times longer than the lifetime of the universe. Enzymes can make this reaction happen in 10 milliseconds.' Wolfenden, along with co-authors Chetan Lad and Nicholas H. Williams of Sheffield University in England, published a report of their new findings April 29 in the online `early edition' of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. .... The report highlights the catalytic power of phosphatase enzymes to tremendously enhance the transformation rate in water of a specific group of biochemicals: phosphate monoesters. Protein phosphatase enzymes acting on these monoesters help regulate the molecular cross-talk within human cells, the cell signaling pathways and biochemical switches involved in health and disease. `We have esters floating around in our cells with all kinds of functions,' Wolfenden said. `Every aspect of cell signaling follows the action of the type of phosphatase enzyme that breaks down phosphate monoesters. Other phosphatases highlighted in the study for their catalytic power help mobilize carbohydrates from animal starch and play a role in transmission of hormonal signals.' As to the uncatalyzed phosphate monoester reaction of 1 trillion years, `This number puts us way beyond the known universe in terms of slowness,' he said. `(The enzyme reaction) is 21 orders of magnitude faster than the uncatalyzed case. And the largest we knew about previously was 18. We've approached scales than nobody can grasp.' Why would we want to know the rate of a biological reaction in the absence of an enzyme? That information would allow biologists to appreciate what natural selection has accomplished over the millennia in the evolution of enzymes as prolific catalysts, Wolfenden said. It also would enable scientists to compare enzymes with artificial catalysts produced in the laboratory. `Without catalysts, there would be no life at all, from microbes to humans,' he said. `It makes you wonder how natural selection operated in such a way as to produce a protein that got off the ground as a primitive catalyst for such an extraordinarily slow reaction." (Lang, L.H., "Without enzyme catalyst, slowest known biological reaction takes 1 trillion years, EurekAlert!, 5 May, 2003).

While these are admittedly the slowest uncatalysed reactions, not the fastest, and while the "1 trillion years" reaction might not be essential to the origin of life, the "78 million years" OMP Decarboxylase reaction may be.

Note also the hold that the Darwinian naturalistic paradigm has on Dr Wolfenden. He has just effectively proved that "Without catalysts, there would be no life at all, from microbes to humans" (i.e. the first living organism would have had to have at least the minimal suite of highly complex enzymes needed to catalyze the biochemical reactions needed to survive and self-replicate, which includes producing copies of all those enzymes!), yet he assumes that somehow "natural selection operated in such a way as to produce a protein that got off the ground as a primitive catalyst for such an extraordinarily slow reaction"!

But there is no "natural selection" until there is life. As Theodosius Dobzhansky, co-founder of Neo-Darwinism pointed out, "In order to have natural selection, you have to have self-reproduction or self-replication and at least two distinct self-replicating units or entities" and therefore "Prebiological natural selection is a contradiction of terms":

"Dr. Schramm's introduction gives me an opening for making a few remarks on my own. Natural selection is sometimes described as a mechanism capable of realizing the highest degree of improbability, as Dr. Schramm has quite correctly pointed out. I would like, however, to express the belief that the words `natural selection' must be used carefully. Dr. Schramm has so used them. In reading some other literature on the origin of life, I am afraid that not all authors have used the term carefully. Natural selection is differential reproduction, organism perpetuation. In order to have natural selection, you have to have self-reproduction or self-replication and at least two distinct self-replicating units or entities. Now, I realize that when you speak of origin of life, you wish to discuss the probable embryonic stages, so to speak, of natural selection. What these embryonic stages will be is for you to decide. I would like to plead with you, simply, please realize you cannot use the words `natural selection' loosely. Prebiological natural selection is a contradiction of terms." (Dobzhansky, T.G., Discussion of "Synthesis of Nucleosides and Polynucleotides with Metaphoric Esters," by George Schramm, in Fox, S.W., ed., "The Origins of Prebiological Systems and of Their Molecular Matrices," Proceedings of a Conference Conducted at Wakulla Springs, Florida, Oct. 27-30, 1963, Academic Press: New York NY, 1965, pp.309-310).

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).

---

Genesis 26:2-5. ²The LORD appeared to Isaac and said, "Do not go down to Egypt; live in the land where I tell you to live. ³Stay in this land for a while, and I will be with you and will bless you. For to you and your descendants I will give all these lands and will confirm the oath I swore to your father Abraham. ⁴I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring [seed] all nations on earth will be blessed, ⁵because Abraham obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws."

`it is difficult to see how a system satisfying the minimum criteria for a living thing can arise [with] a mechanism ... for its own replication...'

Here is today's Quote(s) of the Day (the words "Quote of the Day" take up too much space on the subject line so I have omitted them and will omit them in future).

[Graphic: Minimal Cell Project, Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel]

They are on the origin of life by a John Keosian, Professor of Biology, Rutgers University, Newark. The first two are from the First Edition of Prof. Keosian's book, "The Origin of Life" (1964) in which he admitted that, "Even conceptually it is difficult to see how a system satisfying the minimum criteria for a living thing can arise by chance and, simultaneously, include a mechanism containing the suitable information for its own replication" (my emphasis):

"The demonstration of the transition of discrete systems into living things has to include the answers to some very intricate problems. Coacervates and microspheres, in spite of various refinements which have already been introduced in each case, are still a long way from the living state. They are both static structures. Left alone, such systems come to an equilibrium in which the status quo is maintained with no exchange of energy or materials with the environment. Neither Oparin for his coacervates nor Fox for his microspheres maintains that the simulated cell structures represent the living state. Both look to further refinements toward the eventual attainment of living things by experimental techniques. The hurdles in this transition are formidable. Blum has stressed this point in his writings. [Blum, H.F., "On the origin and evolution of living machines," American Scientist, Vol. 49, 1961, pp.474-501; Blum, H.F., "Time's Arrow and Evolution," Harper & Row: New York, Second Edition, 1962] Even conceptually it is difficult to see how a system satisfying the minimum criteria for a living thing can arise by chance and, simultaneously, include a mechanism containing the suitable information for its own replication." (Keosian, J., "The Origin of Life," [1964], Reinhold: New York NY, Second Printing, 1965, pp.69-70. Emphasis original)

and that "While replication proceeds, some other mechanism, coordinated in time and space with it, is needed to make available the requisite energy. ... we must imagine that a DNA structure was built up by chance, containing a specific sequence of nucleotides and possessing ... the machinery for self-replication" but "This amounts to postulating the `all at once' origin of a cell with `cytoplasm' and `nucleus'" (my emphasis):

"Replication and mutation present even greater difficulties. The over-all process of replication is endergonic. [Blum, H.F., `On the origin and evolution of living machines,' American Scientist_, Vol. 49, 1961, pp.474-501] While replication proceeds, some other mechanism, coordinated in time and space with it, is needed to make available the requisite energy. If all these conditions are to be met at the time of the first origin of life, we must imagine that a DNA structure was built up by chance, containing a specific sequence of nucleotides and possessing a capacity to determine the composition of a supporting environment and the machinery for self-replication. This amounts to postulating the `all at once' origin of a cell with `cytoplasm' and `nucleus.'" (Keosian, Ibid., pp.69-70. Emphasis original).

But interestingly in the second edition only ~4 years later, Keosian just dropped all reference to this, including no reference to Blum at all! Yet if origin of life research had solved this problem in the intervening ~4 years, it would surely be in his second edition.

However, Keosian did write something new that "the claim that out of a structureless `soup' there arose as the first living thing a `primitive anaerobic microorganism.' ... is inconceivable since the simplest anaerobe has at least dozens of catalyzed reactions harmoniously correlated to each other, and ... the chance assembly of all of them into a functioning unit is inconceivable" (my emphasis):

"The assumption most difficult to accept, however, is the claim that out of a structureless `soup' there arose as the first living thing a `primitive anaerobic microorganism.' This is inconceivable since the simplest anaerobe has at least dozens of catalyzed reactions harmoniously correlated to each other, and the whole is controlled by a fine coordination. Even if we were to accept the assumption that each of these reactions preexisted in the `soup,' the chance assembly of all of them into a functioning unit is inconceivable." (Keosian, J., "The Origin of Life," Reinhold: New York NY, Second Edition, 1968, p.78. Emphasis original).

Finally, ~10 years later in 1978, Keosian wrote a paper for the Second Conference of the International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life (ISSOL) in which he frankly stated that, "The claims of chemical evolution are unreal. We are asked to believe that biochemical compounds, biochemical reactions and mechanisms, energy metabolism and storage, specific polymerizations, codes, transcription and translation apparatus, and more, appeared in prebiotic waters" (my emphasis):

"The claims of chemical evolution are unreal. We are asked to believe that biochemical compounds, biochemical reactions and mechanisms, energy metabolism and storage, specific polymerizations, codes, transcription and translation apparatus, and more, appeared in prebiotic waters with the functions they would have in a living thing before there were living things. Chemical evolution has become an end in itself. In many cases it represents contrived or ingenious laboratory syntheses which have no counterpart in abiotic organic chemical synthesis in an acceptable range of probiotic [sic] conditions....There has been a good deal of uncritical acceptance of experiments, results, and conclusions which we are all too ready to acknowledge because they support preconceived convictions...All present approaches to a solution of the problem of the origin of life are either irrelevant or lead into a blind alley. Therein lies the crisis....The various approaches to a solution of the origin of life are examined and found wanting." [Keosian, J., "Origin of Life," in Noda, H., ed., "Origin of Life: Proceedings of the Second ISSOL Meeting, the Fifth ICOL Meeting," Center for Academic Publications: Japan, 1978, pp.569-574]" (Gish, D.T., "Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics," Institute for Creation Research: El Cajon CA, 1993, p.262).

Note: Although this quote is from a YEC secondary source (and poorly referenced in it as just, "John Keosian, Origin of Life, 1978, pp. 569-574"), I have finally worked out from other Internet references that Keosian's paper is in the book by Noda and have today ordered what appears to be the only copy of it for sale.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).

---

Genesis 25:13-17. ¹³These are the names of the sons of Ishmael, listed in the order of their birth: Nebaioth the firstborn of Ishmael, Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, ¹⁴Mishma, Dumah, Massa, ¹⁵Hadad, Tema, Jetur, Naphish and Kedemah. ¹⁶These were the sons of Ishmael, and these are the names of the twelve tribal rulers according to their settlements and camps. ¹⁷Altogether, Ishmael lived a hundred and thirty-seven years. He breathed his last and died, and he was gathered to his people.

Quote of the day: "... man is ... the end product of a completely unique ... pathway ... " (C.O. Lovejoy)

Call me a bookaholic, but I bought this ~460 page book just to get the original of this great quote by Kent State University anthropologist C. Owen Lovejoy:

[Graphic: Billingham, J., ed., "Life in the Universe," MIT Press: Cambridge MA, 1981]

"In short, man is not only a unique animal, but the end product of a completely unique evolutionary pathway, the elements of which are traceable at least to the beginnings of the Cenozoic. We find, then, that the evolution of cognition is the product of a variety of influences and preadaptive capacities, the absence of any one of which would have completely negated the process, and most of which are unique attributes of primates and/or hominids. Specific dietary shifts, bipedal locomotion, manual dexterity, control of differentiated muscles of facial expression, vocalization, intense social and parenting behavior (of specific kinds), keen stereoscopic vision, and even specialized forms of sexual behavior, all qualify as irreplaceable elements. It is evident that the evolution of cognition is neither the result of an evolutionary trend nor an event of even the lowest calculable probability, but rather the consequence of a series of highly specific evolutionary events whose ultimate cause is traceable to selection for unrelated characters such as locomotion and diet. ... Thus I conclude that man is a highly specific, unique, and unduplicated species. ... From what we know of the human evolutionary pathway and of the critical elements that have directed it, the odds against its reexpression are indeed remote, if not astronomical. No other mammal even remotely shares the unique attribute complex that defines either man or his evolutionary pathway." (Lovejoy, C.O., "Evolution of Man and Its Implications for General Principles of the Evolution of Intelligent Life," in Billingham, J., ed., "Life in the Universe: Proceedings of the Conference on Life in the Universe, held at NASA Ames Research Center, Mountain View, California, June 19-20, 1979," [1981], MIT Press: Cambridge MA, Second Printing, 1982, pp.326-327).

The implications of this fact that "... man is ... a unique animal ... the end product of a completely unique evolutionary [sic] pathway ... the absence of any one [element] of which would have completely negated the process..." include:

1. No theory of naturalistic evolution can predict (i.e. retrodict) and therefore cannot explain the appearance of man, as admitted by evolutionists as diverse as Paul Davies and Richard Dawkins:

   "PD: ... The question that we have to ask is if the earth was hit by an asteroid tomorrow and everything but simple microbes were destroyed and we came back in another 3 or 4 billion years, would we expect to find homo sapiens here again. Well, of course not.
   RD: Of course we wouldn't!
   PD: No, of course not. But the question is would we expect to find any intelligent life and I think most biologists would say no. ...
   RD: Yes ... If you wiped our life and started again-no, you would not get Homo sapiens. I tell you what you would get, you would probably get a great diversity of living form . You'd probably get plants, animals, you'd probably get parasites, you'd probably get predators, you'd probably get large predators, small predators. You might well get flight, you might well get sight. There are all sorts of things that you can guess that you might get. You would certainly not get a re-run of what we've got."
   (McKew, M., "The Origin of the Universe," Interview with Richard Dawkins & Paul Davies, Lateline, Australian Broadcasting Commission, 19 June 1996, in Australian Rationalist, No. 41, Spring 1996, pp.72-73);

2. We are alone in the Universe, either actually in the sense that there is no other human-level intelligence elsewhere, or effectively in the sense that it would be so rare that we could never become aware of it and vice-versa (so SETI is a waste of time and money);


3. Even such `mistakes' as the loss of the ability to synthesise vitamin C due to a mutation in the gene which codes for the L-gulono-γ-lactone oxidase (GLO) enzyme in man's ancestral primate was one of those "irreplaceable elements ... such as diet" without which man would not have arisen (and even if he had, he would not have developed agriculture and therefore civilisation); and


4. If an Intelligent Designer did bring about man, then he would have had to have the degree of control (and therefore the power and knowledge) over the process that only an omnipotent, omniscient God (like the God of the Bible) would have!

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).

---

Genesis 25:7-10. ⁷Altogether, Abraham lived a hundred and seventy-five years. ⁸Then Abraham breathed his last and died at a good old age, an old man and full of years; and he was gathered to his people. ⁹His sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah near Mamre, in the field of Ephron son of Zohar the Hittite, ¹⁰the field Abraham had bought from the Hittites. There Abraham was buried with his wife Sarah.

Neanderthal genome: My testable, falsifiable, risky, common ancestry prediction

As stated on my Why I (a Creationist) Accept Common Ancestry (Not Evolution) page,

[Graphic: click to enlarge: Nuclear DNA: Divergence time from common ancestor of Neanderthals and Homo sapiens, Berkeley University]

I originally held that God separately created basic kinds de novo without actual common ancestry, and argued that the universality of the genetic code and of basic biochemistry was the result of common design, not common descent.

I later realised that this was a fallacy of false dilemma because there are not two, but three possibilities: 1. design without descent (e.g. separate creations); 2. descent without design (e.g. atheistic evolution); and 3. design with descent (e.g. theistic evolution, mediate creation-my position now).

However, well before that, in 1995, I reluctantly had to admit defeat of my then separate creationist position, because of evidence like the vitamin C pseudogene in all higher primates (including monkeys, apes and man) but rarely in other mammals:

"The classic example of a unitary pseudogene is the gene that presumably coded the enzyme L-gulono-γ-lactone oxidase (GLO) in primates. In all mammals besides primates (except guinea pigs), GLO aids in the biosynthesis of Ascorbic acid (vitamin C), but it exists as a disabled gene in humans and other primates." (Pseudogene, Wikipedia).

I had to accept this was the result of common ancestry (i.e. design with descent) on the same principle later stated by Old Earth Creationist Dick Fischer (who also accepts common ancestry) that "It is one thing to suggest that God may have modeled our DNA along the same lines as lower animals .... It is quite another to assert that God also incorporated all the excess nonfunctioning baggage too":

"An examination of the human DNA molecule, the genetic blueprint of man, shows that many of the same sorts of genes and gene sequences are found in lower animals. Some creationists would say this is not surprising. Since man has many of the same physiological functions as lower animals, our DNA naturally would carry comparable information. Thus the argument has been made that any resemblances in DNA mean only that God used similar gene sequences to order similar functions. Although there may be a commonality of design, as the argument goes, that does not prove common descent. ... The case for common design but no common descent becomes suspect when the entire human DNA sequence is analyzed, and copying errors are found in the same places in the DNA of non-humans. In addition to genes that function normally, we have nonfunctioning genes as well, called `pseudogenes.' Our DNA sequence is a complicated set of instructions that appears to have a long history of replications, and therefore contains an abundance of pseudogenes. Humans have pseudogenes incorporated along the entire DNA sequence that can also be found in other animals, i.e., the chimpanzee and gorilla. It is one thing to suggest that God may have modeled our DNA along the same lines as lower animals, such that similarities are due to like genes ordering a protein sequence serving a like function. It is quite another to assert that God also incorporated all the excess nonfunctioning baggage too." (Fischer, D., "The Origins Solution: An Answer in the Creation-Evolution Debate," Fairway Press: Lima OH, 1996, pp.64-65).

Another quote I later found that expressed this same idea was the following by the late paleontologist Colin Patterson, that "in the law courts ... cases of plagiarism or breach of copyright will be settled in the plaintiff's favour if it can be shown that the text (or whatever) is supposed to have been copied contains errors present in the original":

"Darwin could not possibly have predicted that the hereditary material (of which he knew nothing) would turn out to be littered with ... meaningless repeated sequences like the shared Alu sequences in apes and humans ... An interesting argument is that in the law courts (where proof `beyond reasonable doubt' is required), cases of plagiarism or breach of copyright will be settled in the plaintiff's favour if it can be shown that the text (or whatever) is supposed to have been copied contains errors present in the original. Similarly, in tracing the texts of ancient authors, the best evidence that two versions are copies one from another or from the same original is when both contain the same errors. A charming example is an intrusive colon within a phrase in two fourteenth-century texts of Euripides: one colon turned out to be a scrap of straw embedded in the paper, proving that the other text was a later copy. Shared pseudogenes, or shared Alu sequences, may have the same significance - like shared misprints they can have come about only by shared descent." (Patterson, C., "Evolution," [1978], Cornell University Press: Ithaca NY, Second edition, 1999, p.117).

The same assumption is made in reconstructing as near as possible the original Greek text of the New Testament (which our modern translations are based on), that "Those [manuscripts] which share some peculiar feature of spelling or wording, or some common error, are probably related to one another and have a common archetype":

"The special character of the New Testament has given rise to special types of errors over and above those which are common in all manuscript copying. ... The study of these witnesses to the original text and the restoration by their means of the original text as nearly as it can be determined belong to the science of Textual Criticism. This is not, of course, a science which has to do specially with the New Testament or the Bible as a whole; it makes its contribution to all kinds of literature. In English literature it is a very necessary science in the study of the works of Shakespeare and the determining of his original text by the comparative study of the early editions. There are four principal stages in the work of the textual critic. First, he makes a study of such individual manuscripts as are available to him, correcting obvious slips and taking cognizance of what appear to be scribal alterations, whether accidental or deliberate. Next, he arranges these manuscripts in groups. Those which share some peculiar feature of spelling or wording, or some common error, are probably related to one another and have a common archetype. There are different ways of grouping manuscripts, according as their evident relation to one another is more or less close. Those whose mutual relation can be fairly precisely established are said to constitute a family. But a number of separate families, while they are diverse from one another in many respects, may have a sufficient number of significant features in common to suggest that they all represent one rather early textual type. In the third place. when the arranging of manuscripts in groups leads to the establishment of an archetype for each of the groups which have been distinguished, these archetypes themselves are subjected to comparative study in the hope that it may be possible to reconstruct a provisional archetype from which the archetypes themselves are descended; if this is achieved, then we have arrived as closely as we can to the autographic text." (Bruce, F.F., "The Books and the Parchments: Some Chapters on the Transmission of the Bible," [1950], Pickering & Inglis: London, Third Edition, 1963, pp.178-179)

In a debate on a forum I used to be on, with a separate creationist who agreed with Cornelius (George) Hunter's view that "the creator formed the species out of nothing" (my emphasis):

"Here I will briefly summarize four very different approaches. Ex nihilo and de novo creation mean the creator formed the species out of nothing, or out of nonliving matter, respectively. The species were not formed as derivatives from preexisting species. This is the most interventionist of all approaches, and there has been substantial religious feeling against it for this reason. Many feel that God would not be so involved with the details of creation. The fact that the world is not always harmonious has served to increase the opposition. Despite its metaphysical opposition, I believe this approach continues to provide the best empirically-based and parsimonious explanation for the origin of species .. Indeed, though the evaluation of scientific evidence is ultimately subjective, I believe it supports ex nihilo creation better than the other approaches." (Hunter, C.G., "Darwin's Proof: The Triumph of Religion Over Science," Brazos Press: Grand Rapids MI, 2003, pp.124-125. Emphasis original)

I made then a testable, falsifiable prediction that same Endogenous Retroviral Sequences (ERVS) found in apes and man, e.g.:

"The human endogenous retrovirus type II (HERVII) family of HERV genomes has been found by Southern blot analysis to be characteristic of humans, apes, and Old World monkeys. New World monkeys and prosimians lack HERVII proviral genomes. Cellular DNAs of humans, common chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans, but not lesser ape lar gibbons, appear to contain the HERVII-related HLM-2 proviral genome integrated at the same site (HLM-2 maps to human chromosome 1). This suggests that the ancestral HERVII retrovirus(es) entered the genomes of Old World anthropoids by infection after the divergence of New World monkeys (platyrrhines) but before the evolutionary radiation of large hominoids." (Mariani-Costantini, R., Horn, T.M. & Callahan, R., "Ancestry of a human endogenous retrovirus family," Journal of Virolology, Vol. 63, No. 11, November, 1989, pp.4982-4985)

will also be found in Neanderthal nuclear DNA (i.e. not mitochondrial DNA) when that part of its genome is sequenced (see "Neanderthal yields nuclear DNA," BBC, 16 May 2006, and more recently, (Fox, M., "Neanderthal DNA shows we're quite separate," ABC/Reuters, 16 November 2006), which as far as I am aware it has not yet been.

But (from memory) the separate creationist (and indeed no other separate creationist on the forum) was willing to make a similar testable, falsifiable prediction that the same ERVS would not be found in Neanderthal nuclear DNA that are found in apes and Homo sapiens nuclear DNA.

From memory I did not include the vitamin C pseudogene because the debate was not about that. But, again assuming that that part of the Neanderthal nuclear DNA has not yet been sequenced and published, I will here now add it to my earlier prediction.

I hereby publicly make a testable, falsifiable, risky (see `tagline' quote), prediction that the same: 1) endogenous retroviral sequences (ERVS) found in apes and Homo sapiens; and 2) vitamin C pseudogene found in primates (including monkeys, apes and Homo sapiens); will both also be found in Neanderthal nuclear DNA, when those sections of its genome are sequenced (if they have been, I am not aware of it and I would appreciate a link to the relevant journal article, etc).

I invite any separate creationist who denies that apes, Neanderthals and Homo sapiens share a common ancestor, and is willing to identify him/herself, to make in the comments of this post (anonymous comments will be rejected), the alternative testable, falsifiable, risky, prediction that the same: 1) endogenous retroviral sequences (ERVS) found in apes and Homo sapiens; and 2) vitamin C pseudogene found in primates (including monkeys, apes and Homo sapiens) will not also be found in Neanderthal nuclear DNA, when those sections of its genome are sequenced.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).

---

"Popper saw that a theory that appears to explain everything actually explains nothing. If wages fell this was because the capitalists were exploiting the workers, as Marx predicted they would, and If wages rose this was because the capitalists were trying to save a rotten system with bribery, which was also what Marxism predicted. A psychoanalyst could explain why a man would commit murder- or, with equal facility, why the same man would sacrifice his own life to save another. According to Popper, however, a theory with genuine explanatory power makes risky predictions, which exclude most possible outcomes. Success in prediction is impressive only to the extent that failure was a real possibility." (Johnson, P.E., "Darwin on Trial," [1991], InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, Second Edition, 1993, p.148).