“Daddy, Where did I come from?”

Isn't that a question most parents rather dread ?

I remember when I first asked it and was told "God made you"
and I was totally content with the answer! It made sense.

Little did I realise that forty-plus years later my own
father would think I was barmy for telling people that God made me!

Actually...that is the point. Where did we come
from?

Did we "descend" (a contradiction in terms if ever I
heard one; surely we ascended?) from some "simple organism" via a
series of more complicated organisms until human beings "happened"?

Let's look at what the scientists themselves have to say on
the subject.

Green, David E and Robert F Goldberger in Molecular
insights into the Living Process, Academic Press, NY.

"The popular conception of primitive cells as the starting
point for the origin of the species is really erroneous. There was nothing
functionally primitive about such cells. They contained basically the same
biochemical equipment as do their modern counterparts"..."How then did the
precursor cell arise? The only unequivocal rejoinder to this question is that we
do not know"

So I have the right to ask... Is there any evidence
for this... or is it another ASSumption?

(Just in case you haven't read these columns before an
ASSumption is something a scientist shouldn't ever make; if he does; and
if he is wrong; he makes an ASS of himself!)

"Evolution from Atom to Adam" is an ASSumption: It
never happened!

Last time we looked at a "simple organism", a cell; and
we saw that just the cell wall is an incredibly complex structure which can do
more in a millionth of the space than any human-designed wall can do.

We saw how a "simple" cell can get rid of its waste
products through the cell wall with out "compromising its integrity" ( "leaking"
in NASA jargon!).

We have seen the amoeba on TV as it takes in its food by
flowing around it; the food is encapsulated in a pocket of cell wall until the
amoeba has surrounded it completely and then the pocket disappears and the food
is inside the amoeba... fascinating!

Who designed that system, I wonder? Or do the scientists who
preach "The Religion (sic) of Atom To Adam Evolution" seriously expect me to
believe that amoebae survived for squillions of years before the first one "happened"
to ingest its food?

When I was studying biology, we had drummed into us the
prerequisites of life:

1. Ingestion (eating ; sorry about the scientific
   jargon again!),
2. Excretion (getting rid of waste products),
3. Locomotion (moving about), and
4. Reproduction (making future generations)

If an "organism" didn't do all of the above things, it
wasn't alive. Simple; Scientific; a yardstick to measure things against.

So, was a virus alive? Did it ingest? Not as far as we could
make out. Excretion; who needs it without ingestion? Locomotion? Not on its own,
it can "go with the flow" though.

Reproduction? Yes! A virus needs a cell to reproduce
but that it can do!

(Incidentally; if viruses need cells to reproduce; how come
some evolutionists teach that cells are "descended" from viruses?)

Bacteria. As we discussed last time; some of them do
have motors to help them to move towards food or away from danger, they can go
against the flow. Reproduce? Certainly. It seems reasonable to ASSume that
bacteria are "alive".

How about trees? Do they move? Yes they do; they can,
they can turn their leaves towards a light source and some plants can physically
move from place to place by sending out tendrils and rooting a new plant in a
different place. The common-or-garden bramble is an excellent example of this.

We have all presumably seen a Venus fly-trap close around a
fly at surprising speed. Yes plants can move. They also ingest, excrete and
reproduce. They are "alive".

The big question is, "Where did life come from in the
first place?"

Louis Pasteur became a household name because he proved that
all life comes from life. It is known as, 'The Law of Biogenesis' and is
known by biologists the world over in Latin "Omni vivum ex vivo" (all life
comes from life).

This is the biggest stumbling block of all for "The Atom to Adam
Evolutionist".

How do dead chemicals "come to life"? How does common
salt start to: ingest, excrete, reproduce and move about? CAN it?

Can we get salt (or any other chemical or combination of
chemicals) to "come alive"?

In the 1950s two scientists called Miller and Urey took some
chemicals which they ASSumed had been in the "primitive sea" and put them
into a complicated scientific apparatus and passed a big spark through the
mixture to simulate lightning.

They got something !

They got seven amino acids (which are the building-blocks of
life!)

Everyone was terribly excited and rushed about saying, "life
in a test-tube!"

Not quite!

Amino acids are the building blocks of life. They
don't ingest, excrete, reproduce or move about. They're dead chemicals.

What's more, the analogy to "building blocks" is a very
good one.

If I can make seven bricks; does this mean that I can make
something as complicated as a skyscraper... without a design?

No, you can't! You can make seven bricks. Unfortunately for
the "life in a test-tube" brigade there were some other problems. Amino
acids come in two different basic types. Left-handed and right-handed.

A bit like a pair of gloves. Identical chemicals but one of
them is assembled as a mirror image of the other. The scientists (trust them!)
have a word for this; it's a useful word to flash around to impress your friends
"homochirality".

So what?

Good question! All the chemicals associated with proteins are
left-handed (there's nothing sinister about that!)

If you have 483,000,000 left-handed chemicals and one
right-handed one... proteins don't happen!

Don't take my word for it ...Jon Cohen in Science Vol
267 pp 1265-1266.

"Organic chemist William Bonner professor emeritus at
Stanford University, argued that homochirality must have preceeded life"...
"Bonner argued that homochirality is essential for life because without it
genetic material could not copy itself."

So?

In chemistry when you have a random selection of chemicals (a
"racemic mix" if you like the jargon) then they will be roughly 50% left and
50% right-handed.

Back to Bonner

"Specifically studies have shown that the two complimentary
strands of genetic material that make up DNA cannot bind with each other if they
are in a 'racemic' mixture, a state in which there is an equilibrium of
left-handed and right-handed enantiomers"

There is no way you could get a 100% left-handed bunch of
chemicals by accident.

There is no way that DNA, RNA and proteins can have
"happened by accident".

What does the honest scientist have to say on the subject?

Andrew Scott "Update on Genesis" New Scientist vol
106 p30-33

"We are grappling with a classic 'chicken and egg' dilemma.
Nucleic acids are required to make proteins, whereas proteins are required to
make nucleic acids and also to allow them to direct the process of protein
manufacture itself."

Do you see where we are going ?

The chemicals for life itself must have been designed...

Anything that has been designed needs a designer!

Who designed them?

If you want to read more about this there are several books
by Dr Werner Gitt who researches informatics (that's a jazzy word for the study
of information and how it is transmitted and received)

"Did God Use Evolution?" Dr Werner Gitt; ISBN
3-89397-725-2. Published in 1998, and

"In The Beginning Was Information"; published in
1997,ISBN 3-89397-255-2

And in the meantime; The God who made the heavens and the
earth, the universe and all life in it wants to know YOU: personally. Once we
understand who God is and what He did for us... all this creation stuff makes
sense. Until we know Him... it makes no sense.

He made you, just as He made your parents because He made
life.

If you want to know more... about how to get to know Him... click
here