Column: No plausible explanation for evolution
By Phil Drietz, Delhi
A July 2 letter to the editor titled “Another take on creationism” said: “Let’s settle our arguments and recognize that a supreme being — known as God, Allah, Jehovah etc. — used evolution to create our wonderful world.” The writer apparently just assumes that macro-evolution is fact.
My March 12 letter in this paper explained why there is still is no plausible explanation on how simple dead chemicals combined and formed the simple one-cell bacteria. It may be a dumb-looking little bacteria, but it’s far from simple. It has a library of instructions residing in its DNA that approaches the same complexity level as on how to build a space shuttle. It’s a factory that makes another factory, like itself, in less than 30 minutes.
Machines throughout the cell are performing a thousand operations at any one time. Some are extremely complicated. For instance, ATP synthase, which produces the chemical energy packets for other machines in the cell, has 40,000 parts (atoms), all of which have to be in the right place for proper operation. This bustling city, with its central library of construction and maintenance information, is supposed to arise by itself from a pile of dead chemicals?
We’re told that the process took over a billion years to come about, but it should be obvious that no amount of time will produce something so complex without intellectual input. Even their billion-years claim is shaky; i.e. when 50-year-old lava rock samples from New Zealand were sent to a lab in Boston for potassium-40/ argon-40 radiometric dating. The lab was not told where the rocks came from nor what geologic period they were associated with — just that they were probably “young formations.” The lab repeatedly came up with ages ranging from 270,000 to 3.5 million years. This method assumes an initial condition (uniform mixing) that cannot be confirmed by laboratory analysis; therefore it is not to be trusted for determining age of the earth.
It seems to me that all living things were designed, and then given a toolbox with just the right amount of hardware and software to make adjustments to their “systems structure” in response to pressures from the surrounding environment — but not to do a total upgrade into some new species that would then produce a motley mix of transitional forms, which we should see happening today but doesn’t seem to be currently happening.