Science Science is the human endeavor to discover truths about the world around us. Scientists seek out answers through observation and experimentation. As we discover more and more, we are able to apply what we've learned to develop new technologies and to improve everyday life. But perhaps more importantly, as we gain knowledge through science, we are able to begin satisfying our deep-felt need to know more about ourselves.      Abiogenesis – A brief history Even though Darwin himself focused on the origin of species, some scientists have tried to apply the concept of evolution to the first life to form the concept of abiogenesis. In 1924, Russian biochemist Alexander Oparin proposed that living cells arose gradually from nonliving matter through a sequence of chemical reactions. According to Oparin, gases present in the atmosphere of primitive earth, when induced by lightening or other sources of energy, would react to form simple organic compounds. These compounds would subsequently self-assemble into increasingly complex molecules such as proteins. These, in turn, would organize themselves into living cells. In 1953, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey tested Oparin’s hypothesis by conducting an experiment that attempted to simulate the atmospheric conditions of primitive earth. In their experiment, water boiled into vapor at the bottom of a flask and then passed through an apparatus, combining with ammonia, methane, and hydrogen. They then subjected the resulting mixture to a 50,000-volt-spark before cooling and collecting it in a trap at the bottom of the apparatus. When Miller and Urey examined the resulting tar-like substance, they found a collection of amino acids, the building blocks of life. Abiogenesis – The problems Unfortunately Miller’s attempt to demonstrate the possibility of abiogenesis (that life can come from non-life) did not honestly simulate conditions on the primordial earth. For example, oxygen was evidently present on the early earth -- but the presence of oxygen prohibits the development of organic compounds. Even though we require an abundance of oxygen to survive, our bodies also need many special adaptations in order to manage it safely. In the 1950’s, origin-of-life researchers assumed that the early earth had very little oxygen. Geological evidence now suggests, however, that substantial quantities of oxygen were present in the earth’s earliest atmosphere. If the gases that scientists now believe were present on the early earth were to be used in the correct proportion, no such amino acids are produced. But let us suppose that Miller’s experiment faithfully recreated conditions on the early earth, would the experiment be validated? A further major difficulty is that such experiments cannot produce the right kinds of amino acids. Amino acid conformations exist as mirror-isomers. In other words, there are left-handed (L-form) amino acids, as well as right-handed (D-form) amino acids. The amino acids that comprise living proteins are of the left-handed form, yet in simulations such as Miller’s, an equal mixture of left-handed and right-handed amino acids are produced. All known natural mechanisms by which amino acids are produced, produce amino acids in roughly the same proportion of right- and left-handed forms. But let us suppose that some naturalistic mechanism were discovered which could indeed segregate the left-handed forms needed for life. It would still remain inexplicable how the L-form amino acids became correctly ordered with the proper links (peptide bonds) to form proteins. The odds would still be stacked highly against obtaining even a single protein from a primordial soup made up of exclusively L-form amino acids. But let us suppose that not only was a naturalistic mechanism discovered which could segregate the left-handed forms needed for life, but also a soup was discovered which possessed a mystical capacity to form proteins. To form a living cell requires hundreds of specialized proteins that need to be precisely coordinated. We would also need to produce DNA, RNA, a cell membrane, and a host of other chemical compounds -- not to mention arranging them into their correct locations to perform their respective functions. Abiogenesis – Conclusion Clearly to get from the Miller-Urey experiment to a living cell by unguided materialistic processes requires that improbabilities be stacked upon improbabilities. For this reason, Dean Kenyon rightly concludes: “It is an enormous problem, how you could get together in one tiny, sub-microscopic volume of the primitive ocean all of the hundreds of different molecular components you would need in order for a self-replicating cycle to be established.” Ape to Man -- Did humans evolve from hominids? In the television premiere of Ape Man: The Story of Human Evolution, former CBS anchor Walter Cronkite declared that monkeys were his “newfound cousins.” Cronkite went on to say: “If you go back far enough, we and the chimps share a common ancestor. My father’s father’s father’s father, going back maybe a half million generations—about five million years—was an ape.” Is Cronkite right? Do we and the chimps share a common ancestor? Or, is this an illustration of the antiknowledge surrounding ape-men? Ape to Man -- The Illustration First, whether in Ape Man, National Geographic or Time, the ape-to-man icon has itself become the argument. Put another way, the illustration of a knuckle-dragging ape evolving through a series of imaginary transitional forms into modern man has appeared so many times in so many places that the picture has evolved into the proof. In light of the fanfare attending the most recent candidates nominated by evolutionists to flesh out the icons of evolution, we would do well to remember that past candidates such as Lucy have bestowed fame on their finders but have done little to distinguish themselves as prime exemplars of human evolution. Ape to Man -- The Chasm Furthermore, as the corpus of hominid fossil specimens continues to grow, it has become increasingly evident that there is an unbridgeable chasm between hominids and humans in both composition and culture. Moreover, homologous structures (similar structures on different species) do not provide sufficient proof of genealogical relationships—common descent is simply an evolutionary assumption used to explain the similarities. To assume that hominids and humans are closely related because both can walk upright is tantamount to saying hummingbirds and helicopters are closely related because both can fly. Indeed, the distance between an ape, who cannot read or write, and a descendant of Adam, who can compose a musical masterpiece or send a man to the moon, is the distance of infinity. Ape to Man -- The Missing Link Finally, evolution cannot satisfactorily account for the genesis of life, the genetic code, or the ingenious synchronization process needed to produce life from a single fertilized human egg. Nor can evolution satisfactorily explain how physical processes can produce metaphysical realities such as consciousness and spirituality. The insatiable drive to produce a “missing link” has substituted selling, sensationalism and subjectivism for solid science. William Fix said it best: “When it comes to finding a new trooper to star as our animal ancestor, there’s no business like bone business.” Big Bang Theory - The Premise The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment. According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know. After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang"), expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it: incredible creatures living on a unique planet, circling a beautiful star clustered together with several hundred billion other stars in a galaxy soaring through the cosmos, all of which is inside of an expanding universe that began as an infinitesimal singularity which appeared out of nowhere for reasons unknown. This is the Big Bang theory. Big Bang Theory - Common Misconceptions There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe. Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we. Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory? First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning. Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted. Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery. Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins. Big Bang Theory - The Only Plausible Theory? Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."4 In 2003, Physicist Robert Gentry proposed an attractive alternative to the standard theory, an alternative which also accounts for the evidences listed above.5 Dr. Gentry claims that the standard Big Bang model is founded upon a faulty paradigm (the Friedmann-lemaitre expanding-spacetime paradigm) which he claims is inconsistent with the empirical data. He chooses instead to base his model on Einstein's static-spacetime paradigm which he claims is the "genuine cosmic Rosetta." Gentry has published several papers outlining what he considers to be serious flaws in the standard Big Bang model.6 Other high-profile dissenters include Nobel laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvén, Professor Geoffrey Burbidge, Dr. Halton Arp, and the renowned British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who is accredited with first coining the term "the Big Bang" during a BBC radio broadcast in 1950. Anatomical Homology – A definition Homology refers to similarity between characteristics in different species of organisms. Bats and butterflies are quite different from each other, yet both have wings to fly; bats fly and whales swim, yet the bones in a bat’s wing and whale’s flipper are strikingly similar. While ‘analogy’ refers to different structures which perform the same function, ‘homology’ refers to similar structures which perform different functions. Prior to the advent of Darwinism, homology was attributed to the existence of archetypes: biological structures are similar because they conform more or less to pre-existing patterns. Charles Darwin, however, offered a different explanation for homology. Darwin proposed that bats and whales possess similar bone structures, not because they were constructed according to the same archetype (which would imply design and thus intelligent causation), but because they were inherited from a common ancestor. Anatomical Homology – Does evolution have the goods? Clearly, in the common ancestor, there would have been just one organ, with the current homologues being modifications of it. Thus, if the evolutionary account of homology is correct, then derivation from a common ancestral organ should be reflected in the homologous organs being derived from a comparable embryological source -- equivalent to that of the organ in the common ancestor. In other words, if two organs are derived from different embryological sources then it should be possible for them both to appear in the same organism (conjunction). Combined with this understanding that homologous structures should be derived from comparable embryological tissues, it was thought that they should also be formed by similar developmental processes. So, if evolution is to provide an adequate explanation for homology, it is necessary to show that there is a viable route by which today’s homologues could have arisen from a common predecessor. Most obviously this implies a common embryological source, and secondly the use of comparable developmental processes. The problem is, in many cases, organs and structures which appear identical (or very similar) in different animals do not in fact develop from the same structure or group of embryo cells. It is not uncommon to find fundamental structures (e.g. the alimentary canal) that form from different embryological tissues in different animals. For example, in sharks the alimentary canal is formed from the roof of the embryonic gut cavity; in frogs it is formed from the gut roof and floor; and in birds and reptiles it is formed from the lower layer of the embryonic disc or blastoderm. It is difficult to envisage why or how developmental processes should evolve dramatically differently yet still lead to substantially the same morphology which is the principal object of natural selection. Nevertheless, some see the different developmental mechanisms to ‘homologous’ structures not as a challenge to evolution but simply as evidence that developmental mechanisms have evolved while still retaining a similar end structure. But surely that is circular reasoning -- predicated on the assumption that the various groups with similar morphologies but different developmental mechanisms have evolved from a common ancestor. Anatomical Homology – Conclusion It is clear that the expected harmony between homology and evolution is lacking. Evolution no longer explains the facts of morphological homology and -- as a consequence -- homology is no longer the evidence for evolution that it was once believed to be. Indeed, not only is homology no longer the support for evolution that it was once believed to be, but the inconsistency between morphological homology and supposed phylogenetic relationships delivers a further blow to the theory of evolution -- if evolution does not explain homology, then the facts of homology are at odds with the theory of evolution. In particular, if similar morphological structures (structures that appeared homologous and had initially been seen as evidence of common ancestry) actually develop from different embryological sources, then this is strong evidence pointing away from an evolutionary relationship for the organisms concerned. Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature). Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Natural Selection While Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a relatively young archetype, the evolutionary worldview itself is as old as antiquity. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the evolutionary descent of man from animal. Charles Darwin simply brought something new to the old philosophy -- a plausible mechanism called "natural selection." Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic mutations. Suppose a member of a species developed a functional advantage (it grew wings and learned to fly). Its offspring would inherit that advantage and pass it on to their offspring. The inferior (disadvantaged) members of the same species would gradually die out, leaving only the superior (advantaged) members of the species. Natural selection is the preservation of a functional advantage that enables a species to compete better in the wild. Natural selection is the naturalistic equivalent to domestic breeding. Over the centuries, human breeders have produced dramatic changes in domestic animal populations by selecting individuals to breed. Breeders eliminate undesirable traits gradually over time. Similarly, natural selection eliminates inferior species gradually over time. Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Slowly But Surely... Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a slow gradual process. Darwin wrote, "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." [1] Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [2] Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system". An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. [3] Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece. The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called "the hammer," a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex. [4] Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5] And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6] Endoplasmic Reticulum – A brief overview The endoplasmic reticulum is a complex system of membrane channels and sacs. It is made up of two regions. In the rough endoplasmic reticulum, ribosomes are associated with the outer surface of the ER membrane. The proteins made by these ribosomes are deposited into the central cavity (lumen) of the ER for further biochemical processing. The proteins transported into the lumen will eventually make their way into the lysosomes and peroxisomes, become incorporated into the plasma membrane, or will be secreted out of the cell. Endoplasmic Reticulum – Quality Control It is not at all uncommon for proteins in the ER lumen to become incorrectly folded or to be improperly assembled. Quality control activities ensure that proteins are properly produced and processed by the rough ER. Biochemists have discovered that proteins in the ER lumen experience both primary and secondary quality checks. Primary quality control operations monitor general aspects of protein folding. Secondary quality control operations oversee posttranslational processing unique to specific proteins. Remarkably, the ER quality control mechanism has the ability to discriminate between misfolded proteins and partially folded proteins that appear to be misfolded but are in fact in the process of adopting their intended structures. If the quality control operations could not efficiently make this distinction, it would be catastrophic to the viability of the cell. The ER quality control systems utilize information contained within oligosaccharides as sensors to monitor the folding status of proteins. The process begins when the ER’s machinery attaches an oligosaccharide (Glc3Man9GlcNAc2) to newly made proteins after they have been manufactured by ribosomes and translocated into the lumen of the ER. Inside the ER, two Glc units are trimmed from the oligosaccharide to form Glc1Man9GlcNAc2. This modified attachment signifies to the ER’s machinery that it is time for chaperones to assist the protein with folding. Once folding has been completed, the remaining Glc residue is cleaved to generate the oligosaccharide Man9GlcNAc2. This attachment tells the ER’s quality control system to scrutinize the newly folded protein for any defects. If improperly folded, the ER’s machinery reattaches Glc to the oligosaccharide and sends the protein back to the chaperones to be refolded. After this, the ER machinery removes a Man group to generate Man8GlcNAc2. This marker subsequently triggers the ER machinery to send the protein to the Golgi apparatus. If any proteins with the Man8GlcNAc2 attachment are detected as being misfolded, they are targeted for degradation. Thus, if the structure of the bound oligosaccharide does not match the expected state of the protein, either a recycling or a destruction sequence will be triggered. Proteins targeted for destruction are shuttled into the cell’s cytoplasm and coated with the protein ubiquitin, where it is destroyed by the proteasome. Endoplasmic Reticulum – Conclusion Only a designer who exercises thought and foresight could be so deliberate as to orchestrate effective quality control procedures. The cell’s quality assurance systems logically compel the conclusion that life’s chemistry emanates from the work of an intelligent designer.  Which do you love more, organic food or green energy?  Because you may have to choose. Oregon is the site of a conflict between food and energy, though it is a state that claims it loves both - but the people who love each primarily do so because it makes them money. You really can't love both anyway, because environmental activists are in a never-ending war against the bulk of society and its bad habits, and also in a war with each other.  They not only love Gaia more than you do, they love Gaia more than other environmentalists. Willamette Valley, which surrounds the Willamette River just east of the Coast Range and extends from south of Eugene to north of Salem, is a nice area to grow lots of crops, including those vegetables known as brassicas, like cabbage and cauliflower and other foods I won't touch. Organic stuff, of course, because it's Oregon, which is culturally like California, just with fewer people. Like California, the conversation about right and wrong is dominated by social authoritarians.  They love to ban stuff.  California, which used to be the home of freedom and independence, leads America in banning things now but Oregon is not far behind.  One thing they ban is a particular brassica, canola. Yet green energy proponents would like for canola not to be banned.  In watching that discussion you get to witness the dirty underbelly of both kooky anti-science activism and organic food.  Organic cabbage growers say canola brings pests and that it will cross-pollinate with their absolutely pure plants that have apparently been untouched by outside forces for millenia.  They invoke, of course, genetic modification as the creepy monster hiding under the organic bed. "This is an existential threat," farmer Frank Morton, told the Jonathan Cooper of the Associated Press. "If canola comes here, it's the beginning of the end of this industry." Ummm, why again?  Right now, wheat farmers have to burn their fields to interrupt pest and disease cycles.  Doesn't that cause global warming?  Sure it does and therefore burning is...wait for it, wait for it...banned. Planting canola as an alternate crop would accomplish the same result - naturally - and also provide more green energy. Bureaucrats in Oregon agree, since the only other solution to curbing pests is evil pesticides but wealthy organic farmers, who, like rich progressives on the coast that see a proposal for windmills in the water and get a case of NIMBY-ism (Not In My Back Yard), are against canola. Green energy is great but it should be where poor people are, not where it works best, because it might interfere with yachting and the view. Organic cabbage growers have one more argument they invoke as often as possible - every other farmer is dumb. Basically, they believe wheat and rapeseed growers who also want canola are too stupid to control the stuff they produce.  Why isn't the entire area overrun with wild organic cabbage if these seeds spread so easily and take over entire regions?  Are organic plants just not robust enough to spread like wildfire the way activists think GMO canola will? That sounds like evolution at work.