Evolution Just Got Harder to Defend

Source: CNS News
Published: Sep 15, 2016
Author: Eric Metaxas
Post Date: 2016-09-15 11:27:46 by Orwellian Nightmare
Views: 2876

By Eric Metaxas | September 14, 2016 | 10:59 AM EDT

Stromatolites in Shark Bay. (AP Photo/Hinrich BSsemann/Picture Alliance)

A new fossil discovery makes it even tougher for Darwinists to explain the origin of life.

There’s an old story about a chemist, a physicist, and an economist stranded on a desert island with nothing to eat but a can of soup. Puzzling over how to open the can, the chemist says, “Let’s heat the can until it swells and bursts from the buildup of gases.” “No, no,” says the physicist, “let’s throw it off that cliff with just enough kinetic energy to split it open on the rocks below.” The economist, after thinking a moment says, “Assume a can opener.”

There’s more than one trade that deals in assumptions. The way Darwinists approach the origin of life is a lot like that economist’s idea for opening the can. The Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection explains everything about life, we’re told—except how it began. “Assume a self-replicating cell containing information in the form of genetic code,” Darwinists are forced to say. Well, fine. But where did that little miracle come from?

A new discovery makes explaining even that first cell tougher still. Fossils unearthed by Australian scientists in Greenland may be the oldest traces of life ever discovered. A team from the University of Wollongong recently published their findings in the journal “Nature,” describing a series of structures called “stromatolites” that emerged from receding ice.

“Stromatolites” may sound like something your doctor would diagnose, but they’re actually biological rocks formed by colonies of microbes that live in shallow water. If you visit the Bahamas today, you can see living stromatolites.

What’s so special about them? Well, they appear in rocks most scientists date to 220 million years older than the oldest fossils, which pushes the supposed date for the origin of life back to 3.7 billion years ago.

This, admits the New York Times, “complicate[s] the story of evolution of early life from chemicals ... .” No kidding! According to conventional geology, these microbe colonies existed on the heels of a period when Earth was undergoing heavy asteroid bombardment, making it virtually uninhabitable. This early date, adds The Times, “leaves comparatively little time for evolution to have occurred … .”

That is an understatement. These life forms came into existence virtually overnight, writes David Klinghoffer at Evolution News and Views. “[g]enetic code, proteins, photosynthesis, the works.”

This appearance of fully-developed life forms so early in the fossil record led Dr. Abigail Allwood of Caltech to remark that “life [must not be] a fussy, reluctant and unlikely thing.” Rather, “[i]t will emerge whenever there’s an opportunity.”

Pardon me? If life occurs so spontaneously and predictably even under the harshest conditions, then it should be popping up all over the place! Yet scientists still cannot come close to producing even a single cell from raw chemicals in the lab.

Dr. Stephen Meyer explains in his book “Signature in the Cell” why this may be Darwinism’s Achilles heel. In order to begin evolution by natural selection, you need a self-replicating unit. But the cell and its DNA blueprint are too complicated by far to have arisen through chance chemical reactions. The odds of even a single protein forming by accident are astronomical. So Meyer and other Intelligent Design theorists conclude that Someone must have designed and created the structures necessary for life.

Meanwhile Darwinists, faced with a fossil record that theoretically pushes the origin of life back further into the past, are forced to assume the metaphorical can opener. They just don’t know how these early cells came into existence, and the more we dig up, the more improbable—rather than likely—life becomes.

For them at least.

Eric Metaxas is the bestselling author of “Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Prophet, Martyr, Spy.” He is the radio host of “The Eric Metaxas Show” and the co-host of “BreakPoint.”

Editor's Note: This piece was originally published by BreakPoint.

Post Comment   Private Reply

#1: Pinguinite    To: Orwellian Nightmare (#0)

In my view, it's a combination of evolution and so-called "intelligent design".

While intelligent design advocates can poke fun at the difficulties of evolution explaining how life began, they have the luxury of not having to prove anything. Creationism becomes the "default" theory of how life began when no other theory can be devised.

But those claiming evolution has never occurred and cannot occur have a difficult road themselves in explaining how the fossil records apparently show different kinds of life treading the earth over millions and billions of years.

Pinguinite posted on 2016-09-15 12:21:14   Reply   Private Reply


#2: VxH    To: Pinguinite (#1)

t's a combination of evolution and so- called "intelligent design".

Agree. The more deeply the process is understood the more wonder filled it becomes.

I think the curious perception of such beauty is part of having been created in the image of our Creator.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Sex_Evolution_and_Behav ior.html?id=VodHAAAAMAAJ

VxH posted on 2016-09-15 12:26:16   Reply   Private Reply


#3: A Pole    To: Orwellian Nightmare (#0)

I tend to think that the evolution took and takes place, but it is very different from the vulgarized Neo-Darwinism taught in the American high schools at the end of the XX century.

Yes, everything changes and gets selectively eliminated, but the life is much more complex.

A Pole posted on 2016-09-15 12:58:52   Reply   Private Reply


#4: ConservingFreedom    To: Orwellian Nightmare (#0)

'Experts are likely to debate whether the structures described in the new report were formed biologically or through natural processes. [...] Another expert in the early Earth’s environment, Tanja Bosak of M.I.T., said the structures do resemble modern stromatolites but their origin “will be hotly debated,” given there is no sign of certain features that might bolster the case for biological origin, such as crinkling in the layers of sediment.'

ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-09-15 14:18:48   Reply   Private Reply


#5: Pinguinite    To: A Pole (#3)

I tend to think that the evolution took and takes place, but it is very different from the vulgarized Neo-Darwinism taught in the American high schools at the end of the XX century.

Yes, everything changes and gets selectively eliminated, but the life is much more complex.

Agreed on both points.

One assumption made by both evolutionists and creationists about evolution is that "mutations" in offspring are random. But what if that's wrong? There could be a reproductive mechanism in play that caters to favoring offspring to possess embellished traits the parents needed to survive.

Pinguinite posted on 2016-09-15 15:24:49   Reply   Private Reply


#6: Justified    To: Pinguinite, all (#1)

In my view, it's a combination of evolution and so-called "intelligent design".

I agree.

Evolution occurs within species but has never been proven that one species can evolve into a new species. I have told people for ever that evolution works in limited fashion and only within species because be a Christian that is what God had designed or intelligent design.

Its the people who see religion as the problem and manipulate their data to harm religion.

Justified posted on 2016-09-15 17:43:20   Reply   Private Reply


#7: Pinguinite    To: Justified (#6)

Evolution occurs within species but has never been proven that one species can evolve into a new species.

It is a challenge for evolutionists to explain how a new species could evolve in nature. But it is one that may be answered at some point.

But whatever manner humans came to be is of no importance to me personally beyond being a scientific curiousity. Our spiritual significance is not diminished in an evolutionary scenario.

Pinguinite posted on 2016-09-15 19:57:31   Reply   Private Reply