Saturday, April 21, 2012

Err Oops, Evolutionists Are Getting Slammed Again With Their Lunacy

One little problem with that new/old warm little pond idea is that, well, there wouldn’t have been any land, at least any land with sufficient stability, way back in those “primordial” days (remember those colorful evolutionary posters in your second grade with all the lightning, earthquakes and volcanoes going off?) to begin with. And without any land, there’s going to be a little bit of a problem making those warm little ponds—oops I mean “inland geothermal systems”—Darwin and the evolutionists had planned on. The pond idea seemed like a good one because the contents of living cells aren’t anything like those deep sea hydrothermal vents. And as for their ET idea, evolutionists were finally getting tired of all those B-grade movies their stupid idea spawned.

The warm little pond idea—there I go again, I mean “inland geothermal systems”—solves the problem because evolutionists can claim such “systems” can have a chemical composition similar to that of living cells. But then they have yet another problem. You see living cells don’t live in environments that match their composition. Quite the opposite. As one evolutionist points out:

To suggest that the ionic composition of primordial cells should reflect the composition of the oceans is to suggest that cells are in equilibrium with their medium, which is close to saying that they are not alive. Cells require dynamic disequilibrium—that is what being alive is all about.

Yes indeed. Problem is, life’s dynamic disequilibrium is maintained by an army of unbelievable molecular machines which don’t appear on demand, whenever an evolutionist draws a new poster. So either you don’t have dynamic disequilibrium, in which case you’re not alive. Or you have dynamic disequilibrium, in which case you didn’t evolve.

Fortunately evolution is a fact. Otherwise, there could be problems.


  1. as to:

    'So either you don’t have dynamic disequilibrium, in which case you’re not alive. Or you have dynamic disequilibrium, in which case you didn’t evolve.'

    notes as to how far out of thermodynamic equilibrium life is:

    Professor Harold Morowitz shows the Origin of Life 'problem' escalates dramatically over the 1 in 10^40,000 figure when working from a thermodynamic perspective,:

    "The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 in 10^340,000,000. This number is 10 to the 340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering since there is only supposed to be approximately 10^80 (10 to the 80th power) electrons in the whole universe!"
    (Professor Harold Morowitz, Energy Flow In Biology pg. 99, Biophysicist of George Mason University)

    Dr. Morowitz did another probability calculation working from the thermodynamic perspective with a already existing cell and came up with this number:

    Excerpt: Molecular biophysicist, Horold Morowitz (Yale University), calculated the odds of life beginning under natural conditions (spontaneous generation). He calculated, if one were to take the simplest living cell and break every chemical bond within it, the odds that the cell would reassemble under ideal natural conditions (the best possible chemical environment) would be one chance in 10^100,000,000,000. You will have probably have trouble imagining a number so large, so Hugh Ross provides us with the following example. If all the matter in the Universe was converted into building blocks of life, and if assembly of these building blocks were attempted once a microsecond for the entire age of the universe. Then instead of the odds being 1 in 10^100,000,000,000, they would be 1 in 10^99,999,999,916 (also of note: 1 with 100 billion zeros following would fill approx. 20,000 encyclopedias)

    Also of interest is the information content that is derived in a cell when working from a thermodynamic perspective:

    “a one-celled bacterium, e. coli, is estimated to contain the equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. Expressed in information in science jargon, this would be the same as 10^12 bits of information. In comparison, the total writings from classical Greek Civilization is only 10^9 bits, and the largest libraries in the world – The British Museum, Oxford Bodleian Library, New York Public Library, Harvard Widenier Library, and the Moscow Lenin Library – have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.” – R. C. Wysong

    'The information content of a simple cell has been estimated as around 10^12 bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica."
    Carl Sagan, "Life" in Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia (1974 ed.), pp. 893-894

    of note: The 10^12 bits of information number for a bacterium is derived from entropic considerations, which is, due to the tightly integrated relationship between information and entropy, considered the most accurate measure of the transcendent quantum information/entanglement constraining a 'simple' life form to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium.

    1. "Is there a real connection between entropy in physics and the entropy of information? ....The equations of information theory and the second law are the same, suggesting that the idea of entropy is something fundamental..." Siegfried, Dallas Morning News, 5/14/90, [Quotes Robert W. Lucky, Ex. Director of Research, AT&T, Bell Laboratories & John A. Wheeler, of Princeton & Univ. of TX, Austin]

      For calculations, from the thermodynamic perspective, please see the following site:

      Moleular Biophysics – Information theory. Relation between information and entropy: - Setlow-Pollard, Ed. Addison Wesley
      Excerpt: Linschitz gave the figure 9.3 x 10^12 cal/deg or 9.3 x 10^12 x 4.2 joules/deg for the entropy of a bacterial cell. Using the relation H = S/(k In 2), we find that the information content is 4 x 10^12 bits. Morowitz' deduction from the work of Bayne-Jones and Rhees gives the lower value of 5.6 x 10^11 bits, which is still in the neighborhood of 10^12 bits. Thus two quite different approaches give rather concordant figures.

      These following comments are interesting as to establishing a ballpark figure of difficulty:

      The Theist holds the Intellectual High-Ground - March 2011
      Excerpt: To get a range on the enormous challenges involved in bridging the gaping chasm between non-life and life, consider the following: “The difference between a mixture of simple chemicals and a bacterium, is much more profound than the gulf between a bacterium and an elephant.” (Dr. Robert Shapiro, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, NYU)

      Scientists Prove Again that Life is the Result of Intelligent Design - Rabbi Moshe Averick - August 2011
      Excerpt: “To go from bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium.” - Dr. Lynn Margulis

    2. Notes on transcendent quantum information/entanglement within the cell:

      Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA - short video

      The relevance of continuous variable entanglement in DNA - July 2010
      Excerpt: We consider a chain of harmonic oscillators with dipole-dipole interaction between nearest neighbours resulting in a van der Waals type bonding. The binding energies between entangled and classically correlated states are compared. We apply our model to DNA. By comparing our model with numerical simulations we conclude that entanglement may play a crucial role in explaining the stability of the DNA double helix.

      Quantum Action confirmed in DNA by direct empirical research;

      DNA Can Discern Between Two Quantum States, Research Shows - June 2011
      Excerpt: -- DNA -- can discern between quantum states known as spin. - The researchers fabricated self-assembling, single layers of DNA attached to a gold substrate. They then exposed the DNA to mixed groups of electrons with both directions of spin. Indeed, the team's results surpassed expectations: The biological molecules reacted strongly with the electrons carrying one of those spins, and hardly at all with the others. The longer the molecule, the more efficient it was at choosing electrons with the desired spin, while single strands and damaged bits of DNA did not exhibit this property.

      Does DNA Have Telepathic Properties?-A Galaxy Insight - 2009
      Excerpt: The recognition of similar sequences in DNA’s chemical subunits, occurs in a way unrecognized by science. There is no known reason why the DNA is able to combine the way it does, and from a current theoretical standpoint this feat should be chemically impossible.

    3. It turns out that quantum information has been confirmed to be in protein structures as well;

      Coherent Intrachain energy migration at room temperature - Elisabetta Collini & Gregory Scholes - University of Toronto - Science, 323, (2009), pp. 369-73
      Excerpt: The authors conducted an experiment to observe quantum coherence dynamics in relation to energy transfer. The experiment, conducted at room temperature, examined chain conformations, such as those found in the proteins of living cells. Neighbouring molecules along the backbone of a protein chain were seen to have coherent energy transfer. Where this happens quantum decoherence (the underlying tendency to loss of coherence due to interaction with the environment) is able to be resisted, and the evolution of the system remains entangled as a single quantum state.

      Quantum states in proteins and protein assemblies:
      The essence of life? - STUART HAMEROFF, JACK TUSZYNSKI
      Excerpt: It is, in fact, the hydrophobic effect and attractions among non-polar hydrophobic groups by van der Waals forces which drive protein folding. Although the confluence of hydrophobic side groups are small, roughly 1/30 to 1/250 of protein volumes, they exert enormous influence in the regulation of protein dynamics and function. Several hydrophobic pockets may work cooperatively in a single protein (Figure 2, Left). Hydrophobic pockets may be considered the “brain” or nervous system of each protein.,,, Proteins, lipids and nucleic acids are composed of constituent molecules which have both non-polar and polar regions on opposite ends. In an aqueous medium the non-polar regions of any of these components will join together to form hydrophobic regions where quantum forces reign.

      Myosin Coherence
      Excerpt: Quantum physics and molecular biology are two disciplines that have evolved relatively independently. However, recently a wealth of evidence has demonstrated the importance of quantum mechanics for biological systems and thus a new field of quantum biology is emerging. Living systems have mastered the making and breaking of chemical bonds, which are quantum mechanical phenomena. Absorbance of frequency specific radiation (e.g. photosynthesis and vision), conversion of chemical energy into mechanical motion (e.g. ATP cleavage) and single electron transfers through biological polymers (e.g. DNA or proteins) are all quantum mechanical effects.

      Persistent dynamic entanglement from classical motion: How bio-molecular machines can generate non-trivial quantum states - November 2011
      Excerpt: We also show how conformational changes can be used by an elementary machine to generate entanglement even in unfavorable conditions. In biological systems, similar mechanisms could be exploited by more complex molecular machines or motors.

      Here is a analysis of the preceding paper:

      Testing quantum entanglement in protein
      Excerpt: The authors remark that this reverses the previous orthodoxy, which held that quantum effects could not exist in biological systems because of the amount of noise in these systems.,,, Environmental noise here drives a persistent and cyclic generation of new entanglement.,,, In summary, the authors say that they have demonstrated that entanglement can recur even in a hot noisy environment. In biological systems this can be related to changes in the conformation of macromolecules.

  2. You realize that you could save all those poor benighted evolutionists a whole lot of time and trouble trying to work out how - and I mean how not who - it all began by asking your God if He would kindly explain how He did it.

    I know the lesson of the story of Adam and Eve and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is that we shouldn't be asking difficult questions (or any sort of questions, really) but the damage is already done so there's nothing to lose, is there?

    Of course, my unworthy thought is that we'll be waiting for longer than the age of the Universe for an answer but, hey, you know how you can quickly prove me wrong.

    1. asking your God if He would kindly explain how He did it.


    2. bornagain77 Apr 21, 2012 12:00 PM


      So now you're saying God was the First Evolutionary Biologist??

  3. CH: You see living cells don’t live in environments that match their composition.

    Let me correct that for you.

    You see modern day living cells don’t live in environments that match their composition.

    However, we're not assuming that modern day cells were designed as a single working unit. That would be the explanatory framework that *you're* using to extrapolate observations.

    So much for being "neutral" on the subject.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. Scott states:

      'we're not assuming that modern day cells were designed as a single working unit.'

      Yet despite Scott's gradual Darwinian assumption;

      Was our oldest ancestor a proton-powered rock? - Oct. 2009
      Excerpt: “There is no doubt that the progenitor of all life on Earth, the common ancestor, possessed DNA, RNA and proteins, a universal genetic code, ribosomes (the protein-building factories), ATP and a proton-powered enzyme for making ATP. The detailed mechanisms for reading off DNA and converting genes into proteins were also in place. In short, then, the last common ancestor of all life looks pretty much like a modern cell.”

      First and foremost, we now have evidence for photosynthetic life suddenly appearing on earth, as soon as water appeared on the earth, in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth.

      U-rich Archaean sea-floor sediments from Greenland - indications of +3700 Ma oxygenic photosynthesis (2003)

      The Sudden Appearance Of Photosynthetic Life On Earth - video

      "Spooky" Non-Local Quantum Coherence In Photosynthesis - video with notes in description

      Life - Its Sudden Origin and Extreme Complexity - Dr. Fazale Rana - video

      When Did Life First Appear on Earth? - Fazale Rana - December 2010
      Excerpt: The primary evidence for 3.8 billion-year-old life consists of carbonaceous deposits, such as graphite, found in rock formations in western Greenland. These deposits display an enrichment of the carbon-12 isotope. Other chemical signatures from these formations that have been interpreted as biological remnants include uranium/thorium fractionation and banded iron formations. Recently, a team from Australia argued that the dolomite in these formations also reflects biological activity, specifically that of sulfate-reducing bacteria.

    3. I shutter at the thought of one's inability to recognize bad arguments preventing one from realizing they cannot recognize bad arguments.

      Then again, perhaps it's not so bad. After all, they say "ignorance is bliss."

    4. No argument from me Scott, Just stating the empirical evidence. But to avoid 'bad arguments', perhaps you would care to list the empirical evidence you have to support your assumption that life formed gradually by purely material processes?

      Perhaps, Scott, you can show me the exact experiment where even a single protein was formed by purely material processes so as to avoid 'ignorance'?

      "Shut up," Coyne Explained - January 2012
      Excerpt: Coyne writes that Kuhn's criticisms of current origin-of-life research are "absurdly funny" -- even though such research (into the origin of life) has not led to the abiotic formation of a single functional protein, much less a living cell.

      Homochirality and Darwin: part 2 - Robert Sheldon - May 2010
      Excerpt: With regard to the deniers who think homochirality is not much of a problem, I only ask whether a solution requiring multiple massive magnetized black-hole supernovae doesn't imply there is at least a small difficulty to overcome? A difficulty, perhaps, that points to the non-random nature of life in the cosmos?

  4. Born: Perhaps, Scott, you can show me the exact experiment where even a single protein was formed by purely material processes so as to avoid 'ignorance'?

    I'm not following you.

    If quantum mechanics "proves" that consciousness proceeds material reality, then why would such observations be evidence that "proves" that a protein was actually created by a material process, rather than evidence that "proves" those particular observations took place?

    1. To quote from a previous comment..

      For example, there is the rival interpretation that fossils only come into existence when they are consciously observed. Therefore, fossils are no older than human beings. As such, they are not evidence of dinosaurs, but evidence of acts of those particular observations. (Born appeals to this sort of interoperation of QM, yet I doubt he thinks dinosaurs are just an "interpretation" of fossils)

      Again, since you claim that consciousness always proceeds material reality then, apparently, you think any protein developed in an experiment only came into existence when consciously observed. Therefore it would not be evidence of creation by material forces, but evidence of those particular conscious observations. Right?

      If so, then you're demanding observations that you wouldn't interpret as evidence for evolution, to somehow "prove" that evolution is true.

      It's unclear how this is reasonable or even rational.