HOW THE THEORY TELLS IT—According to the evolutionary theory, life began in this way:
(1) There was just the right atmosphere—and it was totally different than the one we now have.
(2) The ground, water, or ocean where life began had just the right combination of chemicals in it—which it does not now have.
(3) Using an unknown source of just the right amount of energy, amino acids then formed in sufficient quantities that—
(4) they could combine into lots of proteins and nucle-otides (complex chemical compounds).
(5) They then reformed themselves into various organs inside a main organism.
(6) They did some careful thinking (as with all the other points, beyond the mental abilities of even our best scientists today), and developed a genetic code to cover thousands of different factors.
(7) At this point, they were ready to start reproducing young. —Of course, this last point reveals that all the previous six had to occur within the lifetime of just one bacterium. Since microbes and bacteria do not live very long, this first one had to think and act fast.
Charles Darwin did a lot of daydreaming in his letters and in his book, Origin of the Species. Here was one of his hopeful wishes, as expressed in a letter to a close friend: "But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes."—*Charles Darwin, in *Francis Darwin (ed.), The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (1887 ed.), p. 202 (theparenthetical comment is his also).
*Darwin was totally puzzled as to how even one of the plant or animal species could have originated, much less the millions we have today. Yet he wrote a book which, according to the title, explained the problem. An ardent evolutionist refers to the difficulty:
"Since Darwin's seminal work was called The Origin of Species one might reasonably suppose that his theory had explained this central aspect of evolution or at least made a shot at it, even if it had not resolved the larger issues we have discussed up to now. Curiously enough, this is not the case. As Professor Ernst Mayr of Harvard, the doyen [senior member] of species studies, once remarked, the 'book called The Origin of Species is not really on that subject,' while his colleague Professor Simpson admits: 'Darwin failed to solve the problem indicated by the title of his work.'
"You may be surprised to hear that the origin of species remains just as much a mystery today, despite the efforts of thousands of biologists. The topic has been the
DARWIN'S FAMOUS "POND" STATEMENT— Reprinted below is a page from *Charles Darwin's letter in which he conjectured as to the possible origin of living creatures. That conjecture was about as far as he took the process; for nowhere, in his Origin of the Species, is the origin of the species discussed or even hinted at.
The present writer does not have a printed copy of the last part of the scribbled note, below. Blanks (on the left) represent portions difficult to decipher. The spelling and punctuation was revised when *Francis Darwin later (1887) placed in print an edited version of his father's writings. (*Darwin died in the year 1882.)
Darwin's famous statement 234
CHARLES' SCIENTIFIC STATEMENT ON THE OR6IN OF THE SPECIES
DARWIN'S ORIGINAL *07f-Ffepnn|6Cl t»k>w it « page from *Ciiarlo» Darwin's letter in which he conjectured si 1o the pott ¡We origin of living cruatures. That conjecture was about as far as he took I Ha process, lor nowhere In his Origin of thtr Species is the origin of the species d'rscusaad Of even hinted at iThe lut port of (he "translation," betow contain* blanks bacauie the present writer doe« not have a copy of H in English. and 'Darwin'« tcribbtes s>e si»r-«wtui uirtlcufi 10 decipher. TM rp«Ung «rwl punctuation of then quJiaJcal nous wen revised when 'Frencie Derwin later ptecml in print en edited warilon of his father's writings.! "Bui If (pnd Ohi what a t»g Hi) we «.yl<j conceive In warm liltfe pond. Willi all sorts Of ammonia and phosphoric salts, «ohi. heal, electricity, sic . present, that a protein compound was chemically lormefl ready to undergo still mors complex changes .."— 'Ch/vist Dw'n. In 'Fr&c<9 Carwtn (td). The Uh and Latter» of Charles Otrwirt (1BB7 ed), p. 202. The most amaiing port of alt Is that such a large pan ol 20th century scientific endeavor has bean focused on an intense, almost desperate, - and quite fmitlew—effort to prove tioft thfl rambling» Of this 1Sth century British eccentric who spent hs time either nursing his digestif e prot>leme or wondering how lite might possibly have evolved.
C*n hevf twen present.- But if C++*. ¿¿n*. . fi-4- jf
(A oh what a big If) we could conceive m *om* warm little pond with ail sorts of L^tC .
ammonia end phosphoric «alts. — ft -" ' - - r. * — (
light, heat, electricity etc. pres«nt that a protein compound A, was chemically formed, ready ^
complex changes. at the present day___
the case before living eieaturM were formed I—
main focus of attention and is beset by endless controversies."—*Gordon R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 140.
One of the greatest scientists of the last 200 years said this about the possibility of life making itself out of water and mud:
"Mathematics and dynamics fail us when we contemplate the earth, fitted for life but lifeless, and try to imagine the commencement of life upon it. This certainly did not take place by any action of chemistry, or electricity, or crystalline grouping of molecules under the influence of force, or by any possible kind of fortuitous concourse of atmosphere. We must pause, face to face with the mystery and miracle of creation of living things."—Lord Kelvin, quoted in Battle for Creation, p. 232.
OUR WORLD BEGINS—Evolutionary theorists tell us that long ago, our world spun off from a stellar condensation or collision of some kind. At first it was a molten mass of very hot rock. Gradually this is supposed to have cooled over a period of millions upon millions of years.
THE PRIMITIVE ENVIRONMENT— (*#1/20 The Primitive Environment*) Finally it was time for life to originate by spontaneous generation from (according to which theorist is speaking) warm wet dirt, seashore, hot and dry dirt, ocean water, desert sand, lake, poisonous chemicals or fumes, electrified mud puddle, a volcanic rim, or something else. An atmosphere of some type had formed, and occasionally lightning would strike the earth.
Scientists have tried to analyze what conditions would have had to be like in order for spontaneous generation of life from non-life to occur. They call this the "primitive environment."
What were conditions like at that first moment when life is supposed to have created itself by random chance out of a mud hole or sloshing seawater? Evolutionists try to figure this out. Their conclusions are not only astonishing; but, in this chapter, we will learn— they even more disprove evolution!
The theorists tell us that the first life-form developed from nothing about 4.6 billion years ago. But *Steven Jay Gould of Harvard, one of the leading evolutionary thinkers of the latter part of the twentieth century, maintains that there would have been very little time for this highly improbable event to have occurred:
"We are left with very little time between the development of suitable conditions for life on the Earth's surface and the origin of life . . Life apparently arose about as soon as the Earth became cool enough to support it."—*Steven Jay Gould, "An Early Start, " in Natural History, February 1978.
*Fred Hoyle wrote in the November 19, 1981 issue of New Scientist, that there are 2000 complex enzymes required for a living organism,—yet not a single one of these could have been formed on earth by shuffling processes in even 20 billion years!
Was this article helpful?