Origin of life quotes by J.B.S. Haldane

Errors corrected: "we should need 10¹¹ simultaneous trials" should have been 10¹⁷ and "The earth's surface is 5 x 10¹⁵ cm²" should have been 10¹⁸. Also minor textual errors corrected.

Thanks to Denyse O'Leary for her quote on the origin of life by the late Darwinist mathematician- geneticist, John Burdon Sanderson (J.B.S.) Haldane,

[Graphic: J.B.S. Haldane, Britannica Concise]

in the late leading origin of life theorist Sidney W. Fox's book, "The Origins of Prebiological Systems and of Their Molecular Matrices" (1965). I was going to post the quote with its full reference to the comments on Denyse's blog, but I noticed that there were other great quotes by Haldane in the same chapter by him, as follows.

This first quote below from 1963 (20+ years before the ID movement began) by Haldane, one of the giants of Neo-Darwinism, that the inference to "an organism ... produced ... by an agent, natural or supernatural, at least as intelligent as ourselves, and with a good deal more knowledge" (my emphasis) solely from the evidence of nature, alone shows that intelligent design is a legitimate scientific hypothesis:

"If the minimal organism involves not only the code for its one or more proteins, but also twenty types of soluble RNA, one for each amino acid, and the equivalent of ribosomal RNA, our descendants may be able to make one, but we must give up the idea that such an organism could have been produced in the past, except by a similar pre-existing organism or by an agent, natural or supernatural, at least as intelligent as ourselves, and with a good deal more knowledge." (Haldane, J.B.S., "Data Needed for a Blueprint of the First Organism," in Fox, S.W., ed., "The Origins of Prebiological Systems and of Their Molecular Matrices," Proceedings of a Conference Conducted at Wakulla Springs, Florida, October 27-30, 1963, Academic Press: New York NY, 1965, p.12).

Again Haldane confirmed in the next quote below that intelligent design is a legitimate scientific explanation with his, "How much smaller may the first natural organism have been? If this minimum involves 500 bits, one could conclude either that terrestrial life had had an extraterrestrial origin (with Nagy and Braun or a supernatural one" (my emphasis):

"The first enzyme very possibly contained the sequence Asp-Ser-Gly, which is part of the active centers of phosphoglucomutase, trypsin, and chymotrypsin. Ribonuclease contains 124 amino acid residues. If all were equally common, this would mean 540 bits. The number is actually a little less than that. This number could be somewhat reduced if some amino acids were rare both in the medium and in the enzyme. I suggest that the primitive enzyme was a much shorter peptide of low activity and specificity, incorporating only 100 bits or so. But even this would mean one out of 1.3 x 10³⁰ possibilities. This is an unacceptable, large number. If a new organism were tried out every minute for 10⁸ years, we should need 10¹⁷ simultaneous trials to get the right result by chance. The earth's surface is 5 x 10¹⁸ cm². There just isn't, in my opinion, room. Sixty bits, or about 15 amino acids, would be more acceptable probabilistically, but less so biochemically. I suggest that the first synthetic organisms may have been something like a tobacco mosaic virus, but including the enzyme or enzymes needed for its own replication. More verifiably, I suggest that the first synthetic organisms may be so constituted. For natural, but not for laboratory life, a semipermeable membrane is needed. This could be constituted from an inactivated enzyme and lipids. I think, however, that the first synthetic organism may be much larger than the first which occurred. It may contain several different enzymes, with a specification of 5000 bits or so-about the information on a page of Chamber's 7-figure logarithm tables. This should be quite within human possibilities. The question will then arise: How much smaller may the first natural organism have been? If this minimum involves 500 bits, one could conclude either that terrestrial life had had an extraterrestrial origin (with Nagy and Braun) or a supernatural one (with many religions, but by no means all)." (Haldane, Ibid., p.14).

It is noteworthy that Haldane's "minimum" of "500 bits" is the same value (but presumably independently arrived at) as William Dembski's "universal probability bound" of 10^-150, beyond which something would have to be the product of intelligent design (see his "Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information" and also `tagline' quote below).

Now here is Denyse's quote. This is another show-stopper for a naturalistic origin of life, showing that "half-live systems" (even if there were such things) would be worse than useless because they would not be "capable of reproduction" and would prematurely catalyse reaction which would then "have made conditions less favorable for the first living organisms":

"I may be converted in the course of the meeting, but when writing this paper, I am by no means attracted by the theory of a period of many million years of biochemical evolution preceding the origin of life. It seems to me that any half-live systems-for example, catalysts releasing the energy of metastable molecules such as pyrophosphate or sugar-would merely have made conditions less favorable for the first living organisms, by which I mean the first system capable of reproduction. A protein capable of catalyzing such reactions would not multiply in consequence, any more than an enzyme does." (Haldane, Ibid., p.15).

That is, "the first living organisms" i.e. "the first system capable of reproduction" would have to arise from non-living chemicals complete in one single-step jump, as Richard Dawkins himself admits in the quote below when he says that "life began when both DNA and its protein-based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence" (my emphasis)!

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).

---

"The French mathematician Emile Borel proposed 10^-50 as a universal probability bound below which chance could definitely be precluded-that is, any specified event as improbable as this could not be attributed to chance. [Borel, E., "Probabilities and Life," Baudin, M., transl., Dover: New York, 1962, p. 28] Borel based his universal probability bound on cosmological considerations, looking to the opportunities for repeating and observing events throughout cosmic history. Borel's 10^-50 probability bound translates to 166 bits of information. In The Design Inference I justify a more stringent universal probability bound of 10^-150 based on the number of elementary particles in the observable universe, the duration of the observable universe until its heat death and the Planck time. [Dembski, W.A., "The Design Inference," Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1998, pp.209-210] A probability bound of 10^-150 translates to 500 bits of information. Accordingly, specified information of complexity greater than 500 bits cannot reasonably be attributed to chance. This 500-bit ceiling on the amount of specified complexity attributable to chance constitutes a universal complexity bound for CSI. If we now define CSI as any specified information whose complexity exceeds 500 bits of information, it follows immediately that chance cannot generate CSI. Henceforth we take the `C' in `CSI' to denote at least 500 bits of information. Biologists by and large do not dispute that chance cannot generate CSI. Most biologists reject pure chance as an adequate explanation of CSI. Besides flying in the face of every canon of statistical reasoning, pure chance is scientifically unsatisfying as an explanation of CSI. To explain CSI in terms of pure chance is no more instructive than pleading ignorance or proclaiming CSI a mystery. It is one thing to explain the occurrence of heads on a single coin toss by appealing to chance. It is quite another, as Bernd-Olaf uppers points out, to take the view that `the specific sequence of the nucleotides in the DNA molecule of the first organism came about by a purely random process in the early history of the earth.' [Kuppers, B-O., "Information and the Origin of Life," MIT Press: Cambridge MA, 1990, p.59] CSI cries out for explanation, and pure chance won't do it. Richard Dawkins makes this point eloquently:

We can accept a certain amount of luck in our explanations, but not too much.... In our theory of how we came to exist, we are allowed to postulate a certain ration of luck. This ration has, as its upper limit, the number of eligible planets in the universe.... We [therefore] have at our disposal, if we want to use it, odds of 1 in 100 billion billion as an upper limit (or 1 in however many available planets we think there are) to spend in our theory of the origin of life. This is the maximum amount of luck we are allowed to postulate in our theory. Suppose we want to suggest, for instance, that life began when both DNA and its protein-based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves the luxury of such an extravagant theory, provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed 100 billion billion to one. [Dawkins, R., "The Blind Watchmaker," Norton: (New York, 1987, pp. 139,145-46]

Dawkins is right. We can allow our scientific theorizing only so much luck. After that we degenerate into handwaving and mystery. A probability bound of 10^-150, or a corresponding complexity bound of 500 bits of information, sets a conservative limit on the amount of luck we can allow ourselves (certainly more conservative than the one Dawkins proposes here). Such a limitation on luck is crucial to the integrity of science. If we allow ourselves too many `wildcard' bits of information, we can explain anything. (With as little as five dollars and twenty wildcard bits of information anyone can walk up to a roulette table in Las Vegas and leave a millionaire.)" (Dembski, W.A., "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1999, pp.166-167. Emphasis original)

Gay animals 'come out' in Oslo exhibition

Gay animals 'come out' in Oslo exhibition, ABC, October 28, 2006. ...

Graphic: King penguins display at the "Against Nature?" exhibition, ABC.

Breaking what is taboo for some, the Oslo Natural History Museum is currently showing an exhibition on homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Organisers say it is the first of its kind in the world. "As homosexual people are often confronted with the argument that their way of living is against the principles of nature, we thought that ... as a scientific institution, we could at least show that this is not true," exhibition organiser Geir Soeli tells AFP. Well, one of the key "principles of nature" is that "homosexual people" (and animals) exist only because of non-"homosexual people" (and animals)!

"You can think whatever you want about homosexuals but you cannot use that argument because it is very natural, it's very common in animal kingdom," Mr Soeli adds. Just because something is "natural" does not make it right. That is the "naturalistic fallacy," i.e. "when what `ought to be' is derived from what `is' ... which reduces the question of values to that of facts." On that basis one could argue that paedophilia, rape and murder is "natural" and therefore morally permissible. The naturalistic fallacy is especially fallacious from a Christian perspective in that the Bible teaches that nature itself ("the earth") has become "corrupt in God's sight" as a consequence of human sin:

Genesis 6:11-13. ¹¹Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. ¹²God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. ¹³So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.

From beetles to swans and creatures considered to have a more macho image, such as lions and sperm whales, homosexual behaviour has been detected in 1,500 species. ' As eminent Harvard Psychology Professor Emeritus Jerome Kagan points out, "Anyone with a modest knowledge of animal behavior and only minimal inferential skill can find examples of animal behavior to support almost any ethical message desired" including "If you are certain that men should dominate harems of beautiful women, point to elephant seals .... Nature has enough diversity to fit almost any ethical taste":

"A rash of books published over the last twenty years has claimed-directly or indirectly-that human selfishness is to be expected, given our evolutionary history. After pointing to examples of selfish behavior in a variety of animal species, the writers imply (as if describing the animal behaviors were sufficient) that because self-interested behavior is seen throughout nature perhaps humans need not feel so ashamed of their narcissism and greed. ... The flaws in this argument are obvious. Anyone with a modest knowledge of animal behavior and only minimal inferential skill can find examples of animal behavior to support almost any ethical message desired. Those who wish to sanctify the institution of marriage can point to the pair bonding of gibbons; those who think infidelity is more natural can point to chimpanzees. If you believe that people are naturally sociable, point to baboons; if you think they are solitary, point to orangutans. If you believe sex should replace fighting, point to bonobo chimpanzees. If you want mothers to care for infants, point to rhesus monkeys; if you prefer the father to be the primary caretaker, point to titi monkeys. If you believe that surrogate care is closer to nature, point to lionesses. If you are certain that men should dominate harems of beautiful women, point to elephant seals; if you believe women should be in positions of dominance, point to elephants. Nature has enough diversity to fit almost any ethical taste." (Kagan, J., "Three Seductive Ideas," Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1998, p.188)

... The exhibition, entitled "Against Nature?", displays examples of this behaviour in pictures and models. In one image, two female adult bonobo chimpanzees are having sex, oblivious to a young male who is attempting to join in. These peaceful primates - with whom humans shares 99 per cent of their genetic make-up - use sex as a stress reliever, regardless of age and gender barriers. And maybe that is why "Bonobos ... are the most threatened of the Great Apes. From some 100,000 in 1980, they are now thought to number less than 10,000. They are only found in the forests of central Democratic Republic of Congo" (BBC); whereas of humans, "As of late 2006, the world population reached 6.7 billion" (Wikipedia. My emphasis)! In The Australian, after saying that "Bonobos are bisexuals, all of them" Soeli admits that "it is unclear why homosexuality survives since it seems a genetic dead-end"! So it just shows yet again how absurd is the worldview of those who hold up the Bonobo as an example for humans to emulate!

Be it a one-off, occasional or seasonal, homosexual and bisexual contact in the animal kingdom serves different purposes. Big horn sheep "need to have sex with their own fellows just to be accepted. And by being accepted they are making up very important social relations which later give them better access to females," says Mr Soeli. Among swans and flamingos there have been cases of two females living together using sexual contact with males purely to reproduce. "One of them might have a small affair with a male, have her eggs fertilised, and the two females bring up the young birds together just as a family," adds Mr Soeli. It has been reported that in certain bird species males double up, allowing them to control a larger territory than a heterosexual couple, which in turn serves to attract more females.

The point is the same simplistic argument that: 1) humans are animals; 2) some animals exhibit homosexual behaviour; 3) therefore it is morally permissible for humans to exhibit homosexual behaviour; could be (and have been) applied by some evolutionary psychologists to rape because "forced copulation" occurs in "Flies and ducks":

"Thornhill and Palmer employ three lines of evidence to support the direct-selection hypothesis. First, they maintain that rape occurs as an adaptive phenomenon in other species, and thus could have evolved by the same route in humans. In scorpion flies, Thornhill's own research organism, males have an abdominal clamp that apparently evolved to help them forcibly restrain females who resist their courtship. Several other species also seem to show forced copulation, although whether it increases the male's reproduction is not known. But surely it is absurd to assume that rape may be a reproductive strategy in humans because it is a reproductive strategy in flies or ducks. Flies and ducks do not create, and live in, a culture, as humans do; and human culture guarantees that there will be many meaningless parallels between the behavior of humans and of other species. Like dandelion seeds, we parachute, but we do so for recreational reasons, not for reproductive reasons. The simple-minded extrapolation from a handful of animal species is no proof that human rape is a direct adaptation." (Coyne, J.A., "The fairy tales of evolutionary psychology." Review of "A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion," by Randy Thornhill & Craig T. Palmer, MIT Press, 2000. The New Republic, March 4, 2000)

While the images displayed at the Natural History Museum wash over passing school children, the exhibition has sparked consternation in conservative Christians. A Lutheran priest said he hoped the organisers would "burn in hell," and a Pentecostal priest lashed out at the exhibition, saying taxpayers' money used for it would have been better spent helping the animals correct "their perversions and deviances". ...

If Christianity is true (which it is) then it is the Lutheran priest who was right, but not just for the organisers of this exhibition, because in what must be the ultimate "inconvenient truth," Jesus Himself (who was and is God in human form - Mat 1:23; Jn 1:1,14; 8:58-59; 10:32-33; 20:27-28; Acts 20:28; Php 2:5-6, Col 2:9; Rom 9:5; Tit 2:13; etc), taught that those who reject His atoning death for their sin will, as this priest put it, "burn in hell" (Mat 5:22,29-30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15, 33; 25:41-46; Lk 16:23, etc), although Jesus also taught that there were degrees of judgment (Mat. 11:20-24). And those who put on such an animal exhibition to teach "passing school children" that a "homosexual ... way of living" for humans is morally normative, will be required to give an account to God for their particular actions (Mat 16:27; Rom 2:6; 2 Cor 5:10; Rev 20:12, etc), as the Bible (both Old and New Testament) makes it quite clear that human homosexual practices are particularly detestable in God's sight (Lev 18:22; 20:13; Rom 1:26-27; 1 Cor 6:9).

Oslo gay animal show draws crowds, BBC, 19 October 2006 ... There has been some hostility to the exhibition. An American commentator said it was an example of "propaganda invading the scientific world". Petter Bockman, a zoologist who helped put the show together, admitted that "there is a political motive". ... The "political motive" being presumably to convert others (including children) to their Epicurean hedonistic (and anti-Christian) worldview?

It is interesting, by the way, that the persistence (indeed the very existence!) of homosexuality is a major problem for (if not a falsification of) Darwinism, because if Darwin's theory of natural selection were true, then if anything should have been "rigidly destroyed" by natural selection, it would have been homosexuality:

"If variations which are useful to their possessors in the struggle for life `do occur, can we doubt (remembering that many more individuals are born than can possibly survive), that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance of surviving and of procreating their kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed.' This is from The Origin of Species, pp. 80-81. Exactly the same words occur in all the editions. Since this passage expresses the essential idea of natural selection, no further evidence is needed to show that [this] proposition ... is a Darwinian one. But is it true? In particular, may we really feel sure that every attribute in the least degree injurious to its possessors would be rigidly destroyed by natural selection? On the contrary, the proposition is (saving Darwin's reverence) ridiculous. Any educated person can easily think of a hundred characteristics, commonly occurring in our species, which are not only ‘in the least degree’ injurious to their possessors, but seriously or even extremely injurious to them, which have not been ‘rigidly destroyed’, and concerning which there is not the smallest evidence that they are in the process of being destroyed. ... What becomes, then, of the terrifying giant named Natural Selection, which can never sleep, can never fail to detect an attribute which is, even in the least degree, injurious to its possessors in the struggle for life, and can never fail to punish such an attribute with rigid destruction? Why, just that, like so much else in Darwinism, it is an obvious fairytale .... " (Stove, D.C., "So You Think You Are a Darwinian?," The Royal Institute of Philosophy, Philosophy, Vol. 69, 1994, pp.267-277. Emphasis original)

It is therefore interesting (and instructive) to read the following example, at the end of an article about this exhibition, of the intellectual contortions that Darwinists have to perform to try to explain "Why this behaviour might be favoured by natural selection":

All creatures great and small, The Economist, October 26, 2006. ... Why this behaviour might be favoured by natural selection, though, is a difficult question to answer. In an attempt to do so, the exhibition picks on gay flamingos. Two males raising a chick after one of them had a one-night stand (of sorts) with a female are able to hold a larger territory than male-female partnerships. This suggests a chick with two dads could get more food and therefore have a better chance of survival. But explanations are harder when gay animals (such as some humans and, apparently, some killer whales) never try to mate with the opposite sex. Theoretically, there are several possible ways homosexuality could have evolved. One is that homosexuals assist in the upbringing of their relatives so much that they pass on more of their genes this way than by having children themselves. Another suggestion assumes the genes that confer homosexuality in males are different from those that confer it in females. For the theory to work, these genes would have to confer some extra reproductive advantage to their straight carriers. This way, genes that increase the chances of one sex surviving and reproducing might not be discarded through the generations even though they inhibit making babies when they occur in the opposite sex. But testing these theories is hard, so nobody knows if they are true. Taking lessons on sexuality from the birds and the bees itself requires first accepting something not taught ubiquitously outside Norway-that evolution occurs by natural selection.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).

---

Genesis 8:6-12. ⁶After forty days Noah opened the window he had made in the ark ⁷and sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth. ⁸Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground. ⁹But the dove could find no place to set its feet because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark. He reached out his hand and took the dove and brought it back to himself in the ark. ¹⁰He waited seven more days and again sent out the dove from the ark. ¹¹When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth. ¹²He waited seven more days and sent the dove out again, but this time it did not return to him.

Ponds, not oceans, the cradle of life

Another rediscovered gem from my pile of unclassified science journal photocopies!

There is a major problem with origin of life theories which assume that life began in the ocean (e.g. "deep-sea thermal vents and tidal pools," etc).

[Graphic: Reflections From a Warm Little Pond, NASA]

And that is, "a spherical membrane called a vesicle that could enclose self-replicating chemical chains ... When sodium chloride or ions of magnesium or calcium [i.e. salts] were added the membranes fell apart" and "Earth's early oceans were 1.5 to 2 times as salty as they are today":

"The cherished assumption that life emerged in the oceans has been thrown into doubt. New research shows that primitive cellular membranes assemble more easily in freshwater than in salt water. So although the oldest known fossil organisms were ocean dwellers, life may actually have developed in freshwater ponds. Most theories on the origin of cellular life presume that the first step was the formation of a spherical membrane called a vesicle that could enclose self-replicating chemical chains - the ancestors of modern DNA. The idea is that the ingredients for simple membranes were all present on the early Earth, and at some point formed vesicles spontaneously in water. It seemed most likely that this took place in the sea rather than freshwater, largely because of the sheer size of the oceans. With their unique chemistry, deep-sea thermal vents and tidal pools are generally believed to be the most likely sites. Now research by graduate student Charles Apel of the University of California, Santa Cruz, suggests that this is wrong. Apel and his colleagues were able to create stable vesicles using freshwater solutions of ingredients found on the early Earth, but not salty solutions, they will report in a future issue of Astrobiology. `When sodium chloride or ions of magnesium or calcium were added the membranes fell apart,' Apel says. This happened in water that was less salty than the oceans are today. ... Geologist L. Paul Knauth of Arizona State University points out that Earth's early oceans were 1.5 to 2 times as salty as they are today, making it even more unlikely that viable cells could have arisen there. Giant salt deposits called evaporites that formed on the continents have actually made the seas less salty over time. `No one in their right mind would use hot seawater for laboratory studies of early cellular evolution,' says biochemist David Deamer of the University of California, Santa Cruz, who is reporting the work with Apel. `Yet for years we have all accepted without question that life began in a marine environment. We were just the first to ask if we were really sure of that.' `This is a wake-up call,' says mineralogist Robert Hazen at the Carnegie Institution of Washington. `We've assumed that life formed in the ocean, but encapsulation in freshwater bodies on land is appearing more likely.' The finding would not have surprised Charles Darwin. Over a century ago he speculated in his personal letters that the origin of life was `in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc. present." (Kaplan, M., "Ponds, not oceans, the cradle of life," New Scientist, 9 May 2002)

But as the article says, "It seemed most likely that this took place in the sea rather than freshwater, largely because of the sheer size of the oceans," presumably meaning that in an entire ocean there is a greater likelihood that all the biochemical building blocks (amino acids, nucleic acids, fatty acids, etc) would be in it.

However then the problem is that the very size of the ocean means that there is proportionately less likelihood that the building blocks would all be together in the same place at the same time, as this somewhat humorous quote by complexity theorist Stuart Kauffman illustrates:

"Further, it was supposed, simple organic molecules in the atmosphere, along with other more complex ones, would be expected to dissolve slowly in the newly formed oceans, creating a prebiotic soup. From this soup, it was hoped, life would somehow form spontaneously. This hypothesis continues to have many adherents, though it suffers from considerable difficulties. Chief among them is the fact that the soup would be extremely dilute. The rate of chemical reactions depends on how rapidly the reacting molecular species encounter one another-and that depends on how high their concentrations are. If the concentration of each is low, the chance that they will collide is very much lower. In a dilute prebiotic soup, reactions would be very slow indeed. A wonderful cartoon I recently saw captures this. It was entitled `The Origin of Life.' Dateline 3.874 billion years ago. Two amino acids drift close together at the base of a bleak rocky cliff; three seconds later, the two amino acids drift apart. About 4.12 million years later, two amino acids drift close to each other at the base of a primeval cliff. ... Well Rome wasn't built in a day." (Kauffman, S.A., "At Home in the Universe: The Search for Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity," [1995], Penguin: London, 1996, reprint, pp.34-35. Ellipses original).

But then there is also a problem with a smaller freshwater pond (apart from the fact that in nature fresh water without dissolved salts in it is extremely rare to non-existent-especially if it was supposed to include all the other biochemical building blocks!) in that the likelihood that it would have all the building blocks in the one pond is astronomically unlikely.

Indeed if life originated in a freshwater pond (or anywhere) then it would have to be the functional equivalent of a laboratory that our advanced 21st century technology has yet to demonstrate it can build (since modern science has still yet to synthesise a living cell from non-living chemicals).

Origin of life theorist Robert Shapiro gives an illustration of what a fully naturalistic assembly of life in such a "Darwin Pond" would involve and concludes, "Different accounts leading to the origin of the replicator could be constructed, ... but all would share the same general defects": 1) "Many steps would be required which need different conditions, and therefore different geological locations"; 2) "The chemicals needed for one step may be ruinous to others;" 3) "The yields are poor"; 4) "with many undesired products constituting the bulk of the mixture"; 5) "It would be necessary to invoke some imagined processes to concentrate the important substances and eliminate the contaminants" and therefore 6) "The total sequence would challenge our credibility, regardless of the time allotted for the process" (my emphasis):

"Once, a long time ago when the earth was quite young, a group of high mountains rose above the ocean, forming a large island. It was volcanic, somewhat like a Hawaiian island of today, for continents as we know them had not yet formed. Because of the height and extent of these mountains, and because of the prevailing wind and weather patterns, a variety of climate zones existed on the island. Thunderstorms were frequent on the rainy side, where it was always cloudy. In the high altitudes, near the mountaintops, the rain froze, and the precipitation came down as snow or hail. The atmosphere was reducing, and these conditions favored the formation of hydrogen cyanide in the discharges. The rain and snow were rich in this chemical. Large glaciers descended from the highest peaks. At their base, in the summer season, lay a number of partly frozen alkaline lakes. Hydrogen cyanide collected in them, and reacted with itself extensively, until the time came when the lakes froze solid in the winter. When warmer weather resumed, the lakes thawed in part and the reaction started again. In one very important year, however, spring did not return. The climate in the highlands had taken a turn for the worse. More snow fell at the mountaintops and the glaciers advanced, pushing the frozen lakes down the mountain. The flow path of one glacier led it away from the wetter side of the island toward a central plateau, which was geothermally active. In this more temperate climate the glacier tip melted, and the hydrogen cyanide reaction mixture flowed into a boiling acidic spring. Such boiling springs exist today in areas like Yellowstone Park and Iceland. Bacteria, which belong to the same broad class as the methanogens, are able to grow there. In the early days that we are considering, of course, no life existed, but over the course of an hour the boiling acid converted a small amount (about 0.1 percent) of the solids that the glacier had brought into adenine. The acid would eventually also have destroyed the adenine, but before that could happen the spring waters flowed into a broader stream. In doing so, they passed over some alkaline soils which neutralized them. It seldom rained in this broad plateau area, and when it did, it fell in the form of sunshowers, rather than thunderstorms. The rays of the sun caused formaldehyde, rather than hydrogen cyanide, to be formed. The formaldehyde rain flowed in tiny streams into a geologically different, but also geothermally active, part of the central plateau, which contained boiling neutral pools, thick with suspended minerals. As each formaldehyde stream flowed into a boiling mineral pool it was converted into a complicated mixture by a process called the formose reaction. The sugar ribose formed a small part of this product. Moving waters carried the mixture down the length of the pool over the next several hours, allowing enough time for the change to be completed. At this point the product flowed out of the hot pool and was swept downstream by a rapid icy brook. This escape was fortunate, as the ribose would have decomposed if it had remained too long in the pool. The adenine and ribose streams merged in the central plateau, but they could not yet form adenosine. They needed a hot environment and the presence of sea salt for that purpose. Happily, a precipitous waterfall took them almost to sea level, on the hot, day side of the island. Time was of the essence, as the sugar was not stable and was being lost. At the base of the waterfall, the stream widened to form a broad delta. The waters flowed over a variety of different types of rock and mineral formations. At some point they entered a tidal pool which had been cut off from the sea at low tide. Minerals lining the pool had a special affinity for both adenine and ribose, and retained them, while most of the other substances were swept away as the tide filled and drained the pool. It was a very hot day. The sun evaporated the remaining water in the pool and heated the adenine and ribose in the presence of salt, converting them in part to the nucleoside adenosine. As this was happening, a violent storm occurred far out at sea, creating large waves. The tides returned to the tidal pool in a rush, sweeping out its contents and transporting them farther inland. They were deposited in a nearby pond, which we name Darwin Pond. This was to be the chosen site for the origin of life. No sooner had the adenosine reached Darwin Pond when successive waves, each flowing from a different direction, brought in: supplies of the other nucleosides needed to make RNA. Had these chemicals only been human, they would have embraced at the joy of their first meeting, and in anticipation of the glorious future that lay ahead of them. They would then have taken turns, each describing the marvelous and different series of events that had led to its own creation. We must not inject our own feelings into the story, though. Let nature continue the synthesis. Phosphate was needed for the conversion of nucleosides to nucleotides. Several geologists have contended that phosphate was not readily available on the early earth, and only increased in concentration in the waters gradually, as appropriate rocks weathered. Darwin Pond, however, was one of the few choice locations blessed with the right kind of mineral; it already had abundant phosphate. Thus, when the continuing heat wave evaporated the pond almost to dryness, the nucleosides were converted to nucleotides. This process was aided by an additional catalyst which was found in the minerals lining the pond. The nucleotides now needed to combine, to form the replicator. This process was helped greatly by the presence of certain chemicals called amines which were brought in by another temporary flood. The amines would have been unwelcome earlier in our account, as they would have interfered with several earlier steps. The climate now stabilized. Days were as hot as before, enough to dry up the pond. Each night, however, winds brought in enough moisture to form a thin liquid film at its bottom. These alternative periods that and moisture afforded the nucleotides a chance to come together in various ways and then to break apart again. One evening, by chance, the replicator was formed. It took charge immediately, assembling other nucleotides into copies of itself, more rapidly than they could come apart. Life had been created and evolution could begin .... Different accounts leading to the origin of the replicator could be constructed, using other experiments published in the literature. Some would be less spectacular than the above one, but all would share the same general defects. Many steps would be required which need different conditions, and therefore different geological locations. The chemicals needed for one step may be ruinous to others. The yields are poor, with many undesired products constituting the bulk of the mixture. It would be necessary to invoke some imagined processes to concentrate the important substances and eliminate the contaminants. The total sequence would challenge our credibility, regardless of the time allotted for the process." (Shapiro, R., "Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth," Summit Books: New York NY, 1986, pp.182-185).

Yet because he is a scientific materialist, Shapiro thinks the equivalent of this must have happened somehow. And scientific materialist say that we creationist/IDists are the `true believers'!

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).

---

Genesis 8:1-5. ¹But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded. ²Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky. ³The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, ⁴and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. ⁵The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.

Freeman Dyson on the origin of biological information (no change in 32 years!)

While my wife is away for ~5 weeks in Colorado for the birth of our second grandchild, I am taking the opportunity to sort out my ~2 metre stack of photocopies of science journals by spreading them all over the lounge room floor (I hope she doesn't read this!) and I am rediscovering some great quotes.

[Graphic: Freeman Dyson, Princeton University]

For example, this one in Science (1974) by renowned physicist Freeman Dyson famous for his observation:

"The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming." (Dyson, F., "Disturbing the Universe," Harper & Row: New York, 1979, p.250. My emphasis).

in which he admitted "the difficulties that arise in trying to understand in Darwinian terms the prebiological phases of evolution" and "Successful attack on these problems will require ... the boldness to imagine and create new concepts describing the organization of not-yet-living populations of molecules" (my emphasis):

"To celebrate Dirac's 70th birthday in 1972, a mammoth conference was organized at the International Center of Theoretical Physics in Trieste. ...One of the contributions that will probably be of greatest interest to the unspecialized reader is `The origin of biological information,' a 40-page essay by Manfred Eigen. This is a fragmentary but illuminating discussion of the difficulties that arise in trying to understand in Darwinian terms the prebiological phases of evolution. Eigen raises many questions and answers none. Because he is here talking in an informal and tentative manner, his statement is more convincing than the dogmatic article on the origin of life he published a few years ago in Naturwissenschaften. The problems of reconstructing possible pathways of prebiotic evolution in the absence of any kind of fossil evidence are indeed formidable. Successful attack on these problems will require, on the one hand, the boldness to imagine and create new concepts describing the organization of not-yet-living populations of molecules and, on the other hand, the humility to learn the hard way, by laborious experiment, which molecular pathways are consistent with the stubborn facts of chemistry. We are still at the very beginning of the quest for understanding of the origin of life. We do not yet have even a rough picture of the nature of the obstacles that prebiotic evolution has had to overcome. We do not have a well-defined set of criteria by which to judge whether any given theory of the origin of life is adequate. And yet, the origin of life is clearly destined to be one of the great themes in the science of the coming decades. It is a unifying theme, which will require the concerted effort of chemists, biologists, geologists, paleontologists, and perhaps even physicists, for its elucidation. Eigen has performed a valuable service in calling the attention of a new generation of physical scientists to the existence of this challenge. He has begun to ask some of the right questions. It is too soon to expect any answers." (Dyson, F., "Honoring Dirac." Review of "The Physicist's Conception of Nature," Proceedings of a Symposium, Trieste, Italy, Sept. 1972, Mehra, J., ed., Reidel: Boston MA, 1973. Science, Vol 185, 27 September 1974, pp.1160-1161).

It is significant that nothing has changed in the field of origin of life in the 32 years since Dyson wrote that, despite the exponential success of science in other fields. It is quite common to read origin of life theorists saying things like there is a need "to imagine and create new concepts" (my emphasis), e.g.

"New lines of thinking and experimentation must be tried" (my emphasis):

"More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance. New lines of thinking and experimentation must be tried." (Dose, K., "The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers," Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1988, p.348. My emphasis).

"... a fully satisfactory theory of the origin of life demands some radically new ideas" (my emphasis):

"When I set out to write this book I was convinced that science was close to wrapping up the mystery of life's origin. The dramatic evidence for microbes living deep underground promised to provide the 'missing link' between the prebiotic world of biochemical soups and the first primitive cells. And it is true that many scientists working in this field confidently believe that the major problems of biogenesis have largely been solved. Several recent books convey the confident message that life's origin is not really so mysterious after all. However, I think they are wrong. Having spent a year or two researching the field I am now of the opinion that there remains a huge gulf in our understanding. To be sure, we have a good idea of the where and the when of life's origin, but we are a very long way from comprehending the how. This gulf in understanding is not merely ignorance about certain technical details, it is a major conceptual lacuna. I am not suggesting that life's origin was a supernatural event, only that we are missing something very fundamental about the whole business. If it is the case, as so many experts and commentators suggest, that life is bound to arise given the right conditions, then something truly amazing is happening in the universe, something with profound philosophical ramifications. My personal belief, for what it is worth, is that a fully satisfactory theory of the origin of life demands some radically new ideas." (Davies, P.C.W., "The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin of Life," Penguin: Ringwood, Australia, 1998, pp.xvi-xvii. My emphasis)

There is only one genuinely new (although it is old) concept left to consider, but which, to a science dominated by materialism-naturalism, is literally unthinkable and that is Intelligent Design!

And as ID theorist Stephen Meyer points out, on historical science's own guiding principle of "the present is the key to the past ... We have repeated" (he could have said "absolutely uniform with no exceptions"!) "experience of rational and conscious agents ... generating or causing increases in complex specified information":

"For historical scientists `the present is the key to the past' means that present experience-based knowledge of cause and effect relationships typically guides the assessment of the plausibility of proposed causes of past events. Yet it is precisely for this reason that current advocates of the design hypothesis want to reconsider design as an explanation for the origin of biological form and information. This review, and much of the literature it has surveyed, suggests that four of the most prominent models for explaining the origin of biological form fail to provide adequate causal explanations for the discontinuous increases of CSI that are required to produce novel morphologies. We have repeated experience of rational and conscious agents-in particular ourselves-generating or causing increases in complex specified information, both in the form of sequence-specific lines of code and in the form of hierarchically arranged systems of parts. In the first place, intelligent human agents-in virtue of their rationality and consciousness-have demonstrated the power to produce information in the form of linear sequence-specific arrangements of characters. Indeed, experience affirms that information of this type routinely arises from the activity of intelligent agents. A computer user who traces the information on a screen back to its source invariably comes to a mind-that of a software engineer or programmer. The information in a book or in inscriptions ultimately derives from a writer or scribe-from a mental rather than a strictly material cause. Our experience-based knowledge of information flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified complexity (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source from a mind or personal agent. As Henry Quastler put it, the `creation of new information is habitually associated with conscious activity.' [Quastler, H., "The Emergence of Biological Organization," Yale University Press: New Haven CT, 1964, pp.16-17] Experience teaches this obvious truth. ... Conscious and rational agents have, as part of their powers of purposive intelligence, the capacity to design information-rich parts and to organize those parts into functional information-rich systems and hierarchies. Further, we know of no other causal entity or process that has this capacity." (Meyer, S.C., "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories," in Dembski, W.A., ed., "Darwin's Nemesis: Phillip Johnson and the Intelligent Design Movement," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 2000, pp.200-201. Emphasis original).

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).

---

Genesis 7:17-24. ¹⁷For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. ¹⁸The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. ¹⁹They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. ²⁰The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. ²¹Every living thing that moved on the earth perished-birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. ²²Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. ²³Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark. ²⁴The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.

Ancient fish [Gogonasus andrewsae] was advanced for its age

Ancient fish was advanced for its age, ABC, October 19, 2006, Anna Salleh ... Graphic: Gogonasus andrewsae, National Geographic.

Fish developed features characteristic of land animals much earlier than once thought, researchers say.Also at: Independent Online, Livescience, National Geographic, The Age, The Australian.

Dr John Long of Museum Victoria and his colleagues base their conclusions on an uncrushed 380 million-year-old fish fossil found in Western Australia. My home State! At ~380 mya, this is ~20 myr earlier than tetrapods Ichthyostega and Acanthostega, both ~360 mya, ~10 myr earlier than Eusthenopteron, and ~5 myr earlier than Tiktaalik (see time chart, Wikipedia):

The problem for `blind watchmaker' evolution is that "the invasion of land required modification in almost every system in the vertebrate body" and therefore it required extensive preparation in advance while the ancestral line of all land animals was living underwater, i.e. "the tetrapods evolved [sic] their legs underwater and only then, for reasons unknown, began to pull themselves onto land" (my emphasis):

"The movement from water to land is perhaps the most dramatic event in animal evolution, because it involves the invasion of a habitat that in many respects is more hazardous for life. ... the invasion of land required modification in almost every system in the vertebrate body ... Although fish fins at first appear very different from the jointed limbs of tetrapods, an examination of the bony elements of the paired tins of the lobe-finned fishes shows that they broadly resemble the equivalent limbs of amphibians. In Eusthenopteron, a Devonian lobe-fin, we can recognize an upper arm bone (humerus) and two forearm bones (radius and ulna) as well as other elements that we can homologize with the wrist bones of tetrapods ... Eusthenopteron could walk more accurately flop-along the bottom mud of pools with its fins, since backward and forward movement of the fins was limited to about 20-25 degrees. Acanthostega, one of the earliest known Devonian tetrapods, had well-formed tetrapod legs with clearly formed digits on both fore- and hindlimbs, but the limbs were too weakly constructed to enable the animal to hoist its body off the surface for proper walking on land. Ichthyostega, however, with its fully developed shoulder girdle, bulky limb bones, well-developed muscles, and other adaptations for terrestrial life, must have been able to pull itself onto land, although it probably did not walk very well. Thus, the tetrapods evolved their legs underwater and only then, for reasons unknown, began to pull themselves onto land." (Hickman, C.P., Jr., Roberts L.S. & Larson, A., "Animal Diversity," [1995], McGraw-Hill: Boston MA, Second Edition, 2000, p.311).

This has the appearance of a far-sighted plan by an Intelligent Designer, rather than the meanderings of a "blind, unconscious, automatic process which ... has no purpose in mind. ...has no mind and no mind's eye. ... does not plan for the future. ...has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all... the blind watchmaker":

"Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker." (Dawkins, R., "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design," W.W. Norton & Co: New York NY, 1986, p.5)

and Dawkins is clearly puzzled by the question, "Why did fish first develop the changes that permitted the move out of water onto the land?" including "Lungs ... And fins that you could walk on." And his "It wasn't that they were trying to initiate the next big chapter in evolution!" shows that even he sees that it looks like a far-sighted plan:

"The tetrapods probably evolved from an otherwise extinct group of lobefins called the osteolepiforms. Among osteolepiforms are Eusthenopteron and Panderichthys, both dating from the late Devonian, about the time when the first tetrapods were starting to emerge onto the land. Why did fish first develop the changes that permitted the move out of water onto the land? Lungs, for example? And fins that you could walk on rather than, or as well as, swim with? It wasn't that they were trying to initiate the next big chapter in evolution!" (Dawkins, R., "The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 2004, p.298).

Leading paleontologist Robert L. Carroll is also puzzled because these "Changes in the structure of the fins of fish and the limbs of tetrapods are ...among the most difficult evolutionary phenomena to explain" because "Darwinian selection theory can account for the modification of particular structures so that they are better suited for a given environment, but it is much more difficult to understand how the limbs of early tetrapods could have evolved from the fins of a fish ... since these changes involve radical shifts in function between completely different selective regimes":

"Changes in the structure of the fins of fish and the limbs of tetrapods are among the most striking aspects of vertebrate evolution. They directly reflect changes in habitat and ways of life both within and between each major group. They are also among the most difficult evolutionary phenomena to explain. Darwinian selection theory can account for the modification of particular structures so that they are better suited for a given environment, but it is much more difficult to understand how the limbs of early tetrapods could have evolved from the fins of a fish or how the wings of birds could have evolved from the forelimbs of dinosaurs, since these changes involve radical shifts in function between completely different selective regimes. Paradoxically, an equally serious problem is to explain the stability of limb structure within individual groups or lineages, which may retain an extremely stereotyped pattern for hundreds of millions of years." (Carroll, R.L., "Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution," Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK, 1997, pp.227-228).

"The specimen is the most perfect complete three-dimensional fish of its kind ever discovered in the whole world," says Long, who reports the team's findings online today in the journal Nature. "It looks like it died yesterday. You can still open and close the mouth." Dr Long says the preserved remains of a Gogonasus fish from the Devonian period were found last year in the remote Kimberley area at the Gogo fossil site, once an 'ancient barrier reef' teeming with fish.

Graphic: Windjana Gorge, where the Fitzroy River cuts the Napier Range, an ancient Devonian coral barrier reef that these fossils were found in (I lived `near' here at Derby from 1983-1986 and I know this area well).

He says previous analyses based on limited material suggested Gogonasus had relatively primitive features. But when his team used a CT scanner at the Australian National University to analyse this new fossil, it found the fish had a number of features common to land animals. "It's hiding a lot of deceptively advanced features that were not recognised before until we had such a perfect specimen," Dr Long said. Again, these "deceptively advanced features" were being prepared about ~20 million years in advance of them being needed!

For example, Dr Long says Gogonasus had hole in its skull similar to that found in the first land animals. He says this hole eventually became the Eustachian tube in higher vertebrates. Dr Long's team's analysis also revealed the fish's pectoral fin had the same pattern of bones as the forelimbs or arms of land animals, called tetrapods. "It's definitely a fish. It's got gills, it swims in water, it's got fins," Dr Long said. "But it's a fish that is showing the beginnings of the tetrapod's advanced body plan that would eventually carry on to all living land animals." Dr Long says Gogonasus also had a cheek bone structure similar to early amphibian and a single pair of nostrils, like humans. See above! Here are some more quotes which show that prior to the discovery in the 1980s that Acanthostega was fully aquatic, Darwinism expected that fins gradually evolved into feet as an adaptation for living on land:

"There's only one problem with this familiar version of how our distant ancestors emerged from the sea: it's probably wrong. ... newly assembled fossils-in particular, a 360 million-year-old salamander-like aquatic animal called Acanthostega- strongly suggest that toes and feet were developed before the first relatives of fish climbed onto land, not after:"

"It is one of those fixed images of evolution: adventurous fish managing to hoist themselves onto their stubby fins and crawling clumsily out of the swamps to forage for food. Once these primeval creatures were on terra firma, their offspring began to adapt to their new environment, natural selection (over tens of millions of years) favoring those that developed features well suited to life on land: paws, hooves, knees, joints, fingers and thumbs. Thus, as generations of schoolchildren have learned, did these marine creatures give rise to frogs, birds, dinosaurs and all the rest. There's only one problem with this familiar version of how our distant ancestors emerged from the sea: it's probably wrong. For one thing, the first creatures to waddle ashore were arthropods with well-developed legs and pincers. For another, newly assembled fossils-in particular, a 360 million-year-old salamander-like aquatic animal called Acanthostega- strongly suggest that toes and feet were developed before the first relatives of fish climbed onto land, not after. Moreover, in shape and function, Acanthostega's fully jointed toes bear no resemblance to the spiky, fanlike fins of a fish. Scientists believe they understand how a fish's gills evolved into an amphibian's lungs. But how did fins turn into feet like these?" (Nash, J.M, "Where Do Toes Come From?" Time, August 7, 1995, p.68)

"But Acanthostega['s] ... tetrapod anatomy evolved while our ancestors lived exclusively underwater and it evolved for life underwater. The first vertebrate that walked onto land didn't crawl on fish fins, it had evolved well-turned legs millions of years beforehand":

"Jenny Clack ... who works at the University of Cambridge's Museum of Zoology, discovered the bulk of Acanthostega's skeleton in 1987 and has been carefully reconstructing it ever since with fellow paleontologist Michael Coates. They are just finishing up their monographs on the creature, and some of the conclusions they've drawn from its body are surprising other paleontologists. For a long time it was assumed that our limbs and feet, which work so well for walking on land, evolved for that exact purpose. But Acanthostega has convinced Clack and Coates otherwise; tetrapod anatomy evolved while our ancestors lived exclusively underwater and it evolved for life underwater. The first vertebrate that walked onto land didn't crawl on fish fins, it had evolved well-turned legs millions of years beforehand." (Zimmer, C., "Coming Onto the Land," Discover, Vol. 16, June 1995, pp.118-127, p.120).

"The big surprise, however, is that this creature would have spent most of its time in the water. `We didn't expect to find Acanthostega having such a fish-like gill apparatus,' says Coates, who described the material with Clack. `While it had lungs, it may not have been obliged to use them. The gill skeleton is an important part of our interpretation of Acanthostega as primarily, and primitively, aquatic':

"Given all these obstacles, how on earth did anything emerge from the water to roam dry land? Until quite recently, the evolution of land animals was seen as a matter of necessity. In an increasingly arid world, so the thinking went, fish were forced to haul themselves out of pools that were drying up and go in search of new ponds. In the process of coping with drought, these resourceful creatures evolved the limbs, lungs and senses that made a permanent move to land possible. ... But in 1987, [Per] Ahlberg and Jenny Clack of the University of Cambridge discovered some remarkably complete fossils on the barren shores of Greenland. Acanthostega is around the same age as Ichthyostega and is also a very primitive tetrapod, forcing the palaeontologists to rethink. Years of painstaking laboratory analysis have revealed that Acanthostega looked similar to the panderichthyids, except that it had limbs with digits instead of lobe-fins. The big surprise, however, is that this creature would have spent most of its time in the water. `We didn't expect to find Acanthostega having such a fish-like gill apparatus,' says Coates, who described the material with Clack. `While it had lungs, it may not have been obliged to use them. The gill skeleton is an important part of our interpretation of Acanthostega as primarily, and primitively, aquatic,' he adds." (McLeod, M., "One small step for fish, one giant leap for us," New Scientist, Vol 167, 19 August 2000, p.28).

.... Earlier this year scientists reported the discovery of Tiktaalik roseae, a 375 million-year-old species of fish that filled the evolutionary gap in the transition between water and land animals. While Tiktaalik had a skull that was identical to an amphibian, Dr Long says Gogonasus looks much more like a fish. "This particular fish is a bit like a wolf in sheep's clothing," he said. In fact, Dr Long says Gogonasus is more closely related to land animals than a fish called Eusthenopteron, which until recently was considered the common ancestor of all land animals. "It's replaced Eusthenopteron as the best fish to use when studying the ancestry of the first tetrapods," Dr Long said. Dr Long says there are still many unsolved questions about the evolution of land animals, such as how fin rays evolved into digits. The real question is why "fin rays evolved into digits"!

Graphic: The fin-foot (actually fins-arm/leg) transition, Brian Choo.

Indeed, why would a `blind watchmaker' start preparing one line of fish having "fins with well-formed limbs, like a human arm" (my emphasis):

Fossil fish a missing link, The Australian, October 19, 2006 ... Preserved in three-dimensional form, the fossil is the first complete and perfect skeleton of the types of fish that gave rise to the first land animals. The Gogonasus fossil shows the ancient marine fish had large holes in its skull for breathing, and also had muscular front fins with well-formed limbs, like a human arm. Dr John Long, who led the expedition, said the transition from a fish living in water to an air-breathing land animal with arms and legs was one of the most dramatic transitions in the history of evolution. ...

complete with, "the beginnings of a wrist joint and a complete front fin, consisting of the same arm bones found in humans and four-legged animals-the humerus, radius and ulna":

Discovery Points to Our Fishy Heritage, Livescience, Jeanna Bryner, 18 October 2006 ... The fossil also showed the beginnings of a wrist joint and a complete front fin, consisting of the same arm bones found in humans and four-legged animals-the humerus, radius and ulna. ...

This is obviously far-sighted design (and not a "blind, unconscious, automatic process which ... has no purpose in mind. ...has no mind and no mind's eye. ... does not plan for the future. ...has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all... the blind watchmaker") to those whose minds are not closed to that possibility!

As I said in a post of 07-Apr-06, commenting on Tiktaalik roseae,this fish-amphibian (including fins-arm/foot) transition "is evidence for my "Construction Project Design Argument," which I have argued for in discussion groups (e.g. Calvin Reflector 03-Dec-00, 30-Dec-00 1/2 & 2/2 and intend to present in my future book, "The Design Argument".

See also my comments (which I had forgotten about) in 1998 on the Calvin Reflector when the first Gogonasus fossil was found:

Re: fossil fish with fingers, Stephen Jones. 24 Jan 98 .... What a "coincidence". The only line of fish that developed the beginnings of arms and legs, also just happened to have an "advanced nasal system with a nostril opening in the roof of the mouth", ready for when its descendants did finally get pelvis and shoulder joint connections to their spinal column millions of years later, they would be able to walk on land! Sounds like a far-sighted (not a blind) Watchmaker to me! ... Actually, the fin-hand/foot transition is IMHO one of the best examples of intelligent design, and an insuperable problem for the blind watchmaker, because it had to happen twice [i.e. in both arms and legs] in the putative common ancestor, and in no other animal before or since ... The fin-hand/foot transition is really just another example of the component-by-component assembly over millions of years of a series of unrelated structures which are of no immediate use to the organisms possessing those structure, but which will form essential part of a larger coordinated system in the distant future. The same "conceptual bankruptcy" that applies to Darwinist explanations of the development of the human complex, applies also to the development of the land animal complex ..."

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
Genesis 7:13-16. ¹³ On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark. ¹⁴ They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings. ¹⁵ Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark. ¹⁶ The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the LORD shut him in.

First Chapter `The God Delusion' #1

First Chapter `The God Delusion', Richard Dawkins, The New York Times, October 22, 2006 ....

Graphic: "The God Delusion," Amazon.com

A quasi-mystical response to nature and the universe is common among scientists and rationalists. It has no connection with supernatural belief. In his boyhood at least, my chaplain was presumably not aware (nor was I) of the closing lines of The Origin of Species - the famous 'entangled bank' passage, 'with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth'. ... Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. Dawkins conveniently quotes from the 1859 First Edition of Darwin's Origin of Species, thus evading where Darwin from his 1860 Second Edition, and all subsequent editions, ascribed the origin of life itself to "having been originally breathed by the Creator":

"It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life, and from use and disuse: a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." (Darwin, C.R., "The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection," 1872, Sixth edition, Senate: London, 1994, pp.428-429).

Darwin's 19th century readers would naturally assume that by "the Creator" Darwin meant the Christian God and that most definitely has a "connection with supernatural belief." Even Darwin's friends, like the botanist Joseph D. Hooker, apparently thought that is what Darwin meant, because Darwin had to set him straight in private correspondence that he in fact did not mean "the Pentateuchal [i.e. the first five books of the Bible] term of creation" but rather "`appeared' by some wholly unknown process":

"It will be some time before we see `slime, protoplasm, &c.,' generating a new animal. But I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and used the Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant `appeared' by some wholly unknown process. It is mere rubbish, thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter." (Darwin, C.R., Letter to J.D. Hooker, March 29, 1863, in Darwin, F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," [1898], Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II., 1959, reprint, pp.202-203) .

But if Darwin had, as early as 1863, really "long regretted" that he had "used the Pentateuchal term of creation" when he "really meant `appeared' by some wholly unknown process," he could have corrected that by substituting "`appeared' by some wholly unknown process" for "having been originally breathed by the Creator into" in the Origin's 1869 Fifth Edition or 1872 Sixth Edition, but he did not do so.

Therefore this is more evidence that, Darwin, far from being "surely one of the most admirable men that ever lived" could when seeking to have his theory accepted, be a deliberate deceiver and liar!

Carl Sagan, in Pale Blue Dot, wrote: How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant'? Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.' The quote of Sagan's which Dawkins refers to is revealing, in that it depicts "science" in competition with "religion":

"In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, `This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed'? Instead they say, `No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.' A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge." (Sagan, C.E., "Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space," Random House: New York NY, 1994, pp.52-53. Emphasis original)

and predicts that "Sooner or later, such a" science-based "religion will emerge"!

But as for "hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought," I don't have a brief for "religion" in general, but quite clearly Old-Earth creationist Christians (like me) who: 1) accept the scientific evidence for the increased age and size of the Universe, e.g. that it might have "125 billion galaxies":

"AUSTIN, Texas (Reuters) - Looking back in time at a tiny section of sky, the Hubble Space Telescope found there may be 125 billion galaxies in the universe, about 45 billion more than the last best estimate, astronomers reported Thursday. The new number was based on observations by the orbiting telescope's Deep Field camera last October, when it looked at a speck-sized area of the southern sky, taking what amounts to a visual core sample of the heavens. ... The Hubble telescope took a similar view of the northern sky in 1995, and then estimated that there might be 80 billion galaxies in existence. Harry Ferguson of the Space Telescope Science Institute, which studies Hubble findings, said the ... Deep Field-South project looked 12 billion light years away in distance, back in time to a period perhaps one billion years after the theoretical big bang that astronomers believe created the universe. Hubble's glimpse of the southern sky took in an area that would appear to be `about the size of a grain of sand held at arm's length,' Ferguson told reporters .... But in that small segment of the sky, the telescope spied 620 galaxies. Scientists extrapolated from that sample to theorize that there might be 125 billion galaxies over the whole sky." (Zabarenko, D., "Experts Estimate 125 Billion Galaxies In Universe," Yahoo!/Reuters, January 7, 1999)

and 2) accept the Biblical evidence that God created the Universe, e.g.:

Nehemiah 9:6. You alone are the LORD. You made the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. You give life to everything, and the multitudes of heaven worship you.

and is far greater than the Universe, e.g:

2 Chronicles 2:6. But who is able to build a temple for him, since the heavens, even the highest heavens, cannot contain him? Who then am I to build a temple for him, except as a place to burn sacrifices before him?

it therefore has increased our (my) appreciation of the greatness of God!

A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.

The problem with Dawkins' and Sagan's god ("the Universe as revealed by modern science") is that it is still too small! The Christian God always has been revered as greater (indeed infinitely so) than His creation, e.g. the entire Universe is but a handbreadth (as it were) to the God of the Bible:

Isaiah 40:12. Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens? Who has held the dust of the earth in a basket, or weighed the mountains on the scales and the hills in a balance?

God totally controls the entire "starry host" and indeed "one by one, and calls them each by name":

Isaiah 40:26. Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing.

That is, the Biblical God knows every star (as well as every planet, asteroid, meteor, etc - since the Hebrew words mean "all these [things]" in "the heavens") in all those "125 billion galaxies in the universe"!

Moreover, compared to the God of the Bible, the Universe is likened to a "garment" that will inevitably "wear out" and be "discarded," while God will "remain the same" because His "years will never end":

Psalm 102:25-27. ²⁵In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. ²⁶They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded. ²⁷But you remain the same, and your years will never end.

So Dawkins is (as is usual for Darwinists) displaying his own ignorance of the Christian God (describing Him as "a little god") and therefore Dawkins is knocking down a strawman caricature that he has himself set up. As Dawkins' fellow Darwinist, philosopher Michael Ruse put it (not referring to Dawkins' book), "Dawkins... has never been overburdened with an undue knowledge of philosophy or Christianity"!:

"Despite Dawkins's savage rhetoric, he has never been overburdened with an undue knowledge of philosophy or Christianity. Perhaps things are not quite as cut and dried as he thinks." (Ruse, M.E., "Darwinism and the Problem of Evil," in Dembski, W.A., ed., "Darwin's Nemesis: Phillip Johnson and the Intelligent Design Movement," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 2000, p.145)

Therefore Christian theologian Albert Mohler calls Dawkins' book, "The Dawkins Delusion!" (my emphasis):

"The God Delusion is sure to garner significant attention in the media and in popular culture. Dawkins, along with the other fashionable skeptics and atheists of the day, makes for good television and creates an instant media sensation. In one sense, we should be thankful for the forthrightness with which he presents his arguments. This is not a man who minces words, and he never hides behind his own argument. Furthermore, at several points in the book he correctly identifies weaknesses in many of the arguments put forth by theists. As is so often the case, we learn from our intellectual enemies as well as from our allies. The tone of the book is strident, the content of the book is bracing, and the attitude of the book is condescending. Nevertheless, Dawkins insists that his strident attack upon the faith is limited to words. `I am not going to bomb anybody, behead them, stone them, burn them at the stake, crucify them, or fly planes into their skyscrapers, just because of a theological disagreement,' he insists. He even allows that `we can retain a sentimental loyalty to the cultural and literary traditions' of organized religion, `and even participate in religious rituals such as marriages and funerals,' he asserts. Nevertheless, all this must be done without buying into the supernatural beliefs that historically went along with those traditions.' Further: `We can give up belief in God while not losing touch with a treasured heritage.'All this raises more questions that Dawkins answers. If belief in God is so intellectually abhorrent, why would anyone want to retain the traditions associated with these beliefs? Why does Dawkins acknowledge that all this amounts to `a treasured heritage?' It must be because, in the end, even Richard Dawkins is not as much of an atheist as he believes himself to be. If Dawkins is so certain that theism is dead, why would he devote so much of his time and energy to opposing it? A man who is genuinely certain that Christianity is passing away would feel no need to write a 400-page book in order to urge its passing." (Mohler, A., "The Dawkins Delusion," Crosswalk.com, September 26, 2006) .

Perhaps the best refutation of Dawkins' book is the book itself, i.e. as Mohler observes above, "If Dawkins is so certain that theism is dead, why would he devote so much of his time and energy to opposing it? A man who is genuinely certain that Christianity is passing away would feel no need to write a 400-page book in order to urge its passing"!

To be continued in part #2 (other priorities permitting-my wife is enroute to Colorado for the birth of our second grandchild, and I rashly promised her I would paint all the ceilings in our house in the ~5 weeks she will be away)!

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
Genesis 7:6-12. ⁶Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came on the earth. ⁷And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood. ⁸Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, ⁹male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah. ¹⁰And after the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth. ¹¹In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month-on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. ¹²And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.