Die kritiek teen die Darwinistiese evolusieleer is daarop bereken om uit te wys op hoeveel essensiële vlakke die darwiniste blote aannames, assumpsies, maak, omrede daar juis nie enige bewys is van die praktiese uitvoerbaarheid of selfs bestaan, van die gegewe wat by wys van assumpsie gepostuleer word, nie en om die praktiese onbewysbaarheid daarvan aan te dui en dat die hele darwinistiese evolusie leerstelling, vir daardie rede, ‘n klug is. Trouens, toetse van die hipoteses aan die hand van praktyk, en fossiel fondse, bevestig véél eerder die betrokkenheid van ultra Goddelike intelligensie tydens ‘n skeppingsproses, met mikro- en intra spesifieke ontwikkeling, ingewerk.
“First, geochemists have failed to find evidence of the nitrogen-rich prebiotic soup required by Oparin's model. Second, the remains of single celled organisms in the very oldest rocks testify that, however life emerged, it did so relatively quickly; that is, fossil evidence suggests that chemical evolution had little time to work before life emerged on the early earth. Third, new geological and geochemical evidence suggests that pre biotic atmospheric conditions were hostile, not friendly, to the production of amino acids and other essential building blocks of life. Fourth, the revolution in the field of molecular biology has revealed so great a complexity and specificity of design in even the simplest cells and cellular components as to defy materialistic explanation. Even scientists known for a staunch commitment to materialistic philosophy now concede that materialistic science in no way suffices to explain the origin of life (Dose 1988, 348-56; Shapiro 1986) . As origin-of-life biochemist Klaus Dose has said, "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 principle theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance" (Dose 1988, 348-56; cf. Crick 1981, 88).”
“When Miller conducted his experiment simulating the production of amino acids on the early earth, he presupposed that the earth's atmosphere was composed of a mixture of what chemists call reducing gases such as methane (CH4) , ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2) ' He also assumed that the earth's atmosphere contained virtually no free oxygen. In the years following Miller 's experiment, however, new geochemical evidence made it clear that the assumptions that Oparin and Miller had made about the early atmosphere could not be justified. Instead evidence strongly suggested that neutral gases such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen and water vapor (Walker 1977, 210, 246; 1978, 22; Kerr 1980, 42-43; Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen 1984, 73-94) - not methane, ammonia and hydrogen - predominated in the early atmosphere. Moreover, a number of geochemical studies showed that significant amounts of free oxygen were also present even before the advent of plant life, probably as the result of volcanic outgassing and the photodissociation of water vapor (Berkner and Marshall 1965, 225; Brinkman 1969, 53-55; Dimroth and Kimberly 1976, 1161; Carver 1981, 136; Holland, Lazar, and McCaffrey 1986, 27-33; Kastings, Liu, and Donahue 1979, 3097-3102; Kerr 1980, 42-43; Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen 1984, 73-94) . This new information about the probable composition of the early atmosphere has forced a serious reevaluation of the significance and relevance of Miller-type simulation experiments. As had been well know even before Miller 's experiment, amino acids will form readily in an appropriate mixture of reducing gases. In a chemically neutral atmosphere, however, reactions among atmospheric gases will not take place readily, and those reactions that do take place will produce extremely low yields of biological building blocks. Further, even a small amount of atmospheric oxygen will quench the production of biologically significant building blocks and cause any biomolecules otherwise present to degrade rapidly.” - Stephen C Meyer, Kreasionis, Ph.D.,
Stigterslid en direkteur van Center for Science and Culture (CSC) van die Discovery Institute, Professor by Whitworth College, DNA and the Origin of Information, p.119.
Die basiese fondament van die darwinistiese evolusie, die toevallig gevormde protosoön, waaruit alles toevallig sou ontstaan, is dus ‘n hersenskim, asook die praktiese moontlikheid dat die ultra komplekse sisteme en lewe toevallig kon ontstaan uit die hipotetiese darwinistiese proses.
Groete,
Kobus de Klerk
Kommentaar
As daar nie bewys kan word hoe lewe op aarde begin het nie, (en niemand kan nie, want niemand was daar nie) hoe bewys dit dat die evolusieteorie verkeerd is?