Search This Blog

Sunday, November 13, 2011

Why Abiogenesis aka Chemical Evolution aka Spontaneous Generation is a myth, not science! Part Two.

Anonymous Jon Woolf said...
You can repeat it as many times as you like, Radar. It won't make any difference. You're still assuming the conclusion, and that's a logical fallacy.
5:56 PM
Blogger radar said...
Wrong. Real science does the following: Observation, hypothesis, test, results - if successful, test again and again. If successful present to the world of science that they may test and test again. If all find the hypothesis falsifiable, testable, repeatable and always supported, it becomes a Law. That is the Law of Biogenesis. However, Darwinists realized that evolution still came with God included and God was not in their worldview so they have ignored Biogenesis and pretended that life can come from non-life despite the findings of science. Now hordes of scientists have presented conclusive evidence that, not only have we found that life never comes from non-life, the makeup of life is demonstrably designed and very well engineered so that it is inconceivable that organisms could have arisen from random anything. Signature in the Cell makes this very clear. So I say to you, au contraire, it is Darwinists who assumed that Biogenesis could be ignored and that assumption is anti-science and has absolutely no hope whatsoever. Superstition and magical thinking will never fix this for Darwinists. Louis Pasteur rightly told you long ago that the concept of life from non-life was a chimera. It is illogical, anti-science and impossible.

The subject? The post:

Why Abiogenesis aka Chemical Evolution aka Spontaneous Generation is a myth, not science!

The Thursday post represented a devastating blow to Darwinists, not because I am so persuasive but because the evidence is so persuasive. I also added that post to the permanent online document entitled The Ullitmate Information Post.

Now as it happens, I have read every book written by a number of favorite authors, one of whom is Jane Austen.   I had always enjoyed the 1940 movie Pride and Prejudice starring Sir Laurence Olivier and Greer Garson, even though it was more comedic than the novel and the society appeared to be more Victorian in dress, customs and certainly scenery.   Imagine my surprise to find that the 2005 version was not only quite accurate in dress and scene to the early 1800's but that the plot and very words of the movie were often exactly true to the novel.   The result was that Keira Knightly and Matthew Macfadyen were a far better Elizabeth Bennet and Darcy than were the fabled Garson and Olivier.  In addition, the wonderful cast of the newer movie was superior to that of the 1940 version, especially Donald Sutherland and Judi Dench because they were allowed to represent the actual characters in the novel.   In my opinion the 2005 Pride and Prejudice is a great movie based on a great novel and is far superior to the 1940 version because it was a successful attempt to be true to the novel.  By comparison one wonders if the 1940 version was first written for the stage and then converted to the screen.  

It is also true that once upon a time I believed in evolution and completely bought into the geological column, long ages, a smooth transition of fossils from simple to complex, the whole nine yards.  I was a Darwinist.  But I have since been exposed to the evidence itself, not stories and myths but the actual evidence.  Much like my experience upon first watching the 2005 version of Pride and Prejudice, I found that Darwinism was a poor rendition of the facts on the ground and was not relevant to the makeup of organisms found today.  Just as I have now no desire to see the 1940 version of Pride and Prejudice again as it would seem cartoonish in comparison to the 2005 version, I cannot now imagine how I ever believed the propaganda that is Darwinism now that I have been exposed to so much evidence for design and intentionality.  If Austen's book Pride and Prejudice is the evidence then the 1940 film is the more famous movie but the 2005 film is far, far better and is far and away truer to the book.   As an avid reader and a big fan of Austen's work, I recognized quickly which movie was true to the book and which one was a stylized, farcical and fanciful Hollywood production that was only based on the book in general rather than an attempt to actually translate book to movie.

Both movies were watchable.   Only one would ring true to the avid reader of Austen.  In the same way, Darwinism seems plausible to those who do not know the science and the evidence.   Once people are educated on the science and the evidence they have a tendency to cast Darwinism aside and this causes Darwinists to focus great efforts and untold millions of dollars on censorship of Creationist and ID sources of information, especially seeking to keep them from being teachers in colleges and members of scientific societies.   The NCSE is devoted simply to stamping out Creationism and ID whenever it is detected in schools.   Yet the general public has a tendency to believe God created at a minimum as they do have some basic common sense that balks at the Darwinist tale.   Even before they have had the opportunity to actually hear both sides.

It is utterly amazing how bereft the Darwinist tale is at every turn when you look at actual evidence.  As John Woodmrappe asserts about the fabled and mythical Geological Column:

Figure 1. The presence or absence of all ten Phanerozoic systems in a 'stack' is not the only issue concerning the reality or otherwise of the geologic column.  The column to the left represents the maximum thickness of sedimentary rock attributed to each geologic period (100 miles).  The column to the right represents to the same scale the thickness of sedimentary rock in North Dakota.  Clearly the geologic column is far from complete in North Dakota.

"There are a number of locations on the earth where all ten periods of the Phanerozoic geologic column have been assigned.  However, this does not mean that the geological column is real.  Firstly, the presence or absence of all ten periods is not the issue, because the thickness of the sediment pile, even in those locations, is only a small fraction (8–16% or less) of the total thickness of the hypothetical geologic column.  Without question, most of the column is missing in the field.

Secondly, those locations where it has been possible to assign all ten periods represent less than 0.4% of the earth’s surface, or 1% if the ocean basins are excluded.  Obviously it is the exception, rather than the rule, to be able to assign all of the ten Phanerozoic periods to the sedimentary pile in any one location on the earth.  It does not engender confidence in the reality of the geological column when it is absent 99% of the time.

Thirdly, even where the ten periods have been assigned, the way in which they were assigned can be quite subjective.  It is a well known fact, for example, that many unfossiliferous Permian rocks are ‘dated’ as such solely because they happen to be sandwiched between faunally-dated Carboniferous and faunally-dated Triassic rocks. Without closer examination, it is impossible to determine how many of the ‘ten Phanerozoic systems superposed’ have been assigned on the basis of index fossils (by which each of the Phanerozoic systems have been defined) and how many have been assigned by indirect methods such as lithological similarity, comparable stratigraphic level, and schematic depictions.  Clearly, if the periods in these locations were assigned by assuming that the geological column was real, then it is circular reasoning to use the assigned ten periods to argue the reality of the column.

Finally, the geological column is a hypothetical concept that can always be rescued by special pleading.  A number of standard explanations are used to account for missing geological periods, including erosion and non-deposition.  Clear field evidence, such as unconformities, is not necessarily needed before these explanations are invoked.  Similarly a range of standard explanations is used to account for the fossils when their order is beyond what the column would predict.  These include reworking, stratigraphic leaking, and long-range fossils.  Even if all ten periods of the column had never been assigned to one local stratigraphic section anywhere on the earth, the concept of the geological column would still be accepted as fact by conventional uniformitarian geologists.

To the diluviologist this means, of course, that only the local succession has to be explained by Flood-related processes.  Very seldom do all ten geologic systems have to be accounted for in terms of Flood deposition.

There is no escaping the fact that the Phanerozoic geologic column remains essentially non-existent.  It should be obvious, to all but the most biased observers, that it is the anti-creationists who misrepresent the geologic facts.  The geologic column does not exist to any substantive extent, and scientific creationists are correct to point this out."

In this post, I will call upon Joseph Mastropaolo to add additional evidence to the previous post.   Dr. Mastropaolo is a gentleman who I am intentionally bringing into the conversation this week as I discovered that he had been cast out of the comments thread of Pharygula.   Apparently the Darwinist bloggers are not as interested in free speech as am I, since I let the commenters insult my background, intelligence, character, credentials, heck, you name it they attack it but as long as the language is not foul I let them say it.  They say all sorts of things, many of them that I consider to be absurd but to me the comments thread is a public soapbox and as long as it is suitable for family reading I do not censor people.  In any event, since one large Darwinist blog does not like to deal with Joseph's contentions, I am going to present some of them here and now.   I do believe he makes a telling point that ups the ante for Darwinists and that point is originality.  So we shall put forth the information and, at the end, I just can't wait to see what Darwinists can say about it!  I usually blue the quotes FYI.  Reference numbers will be in red.

Three main points.  

  1. Statistical impossibility of life forming by chance. 
  2. Organisms actually demonstrate devolution, the reverse of evolution.
  3. Originality in all organisms and throughout the Universe is a death blow to Darwinism.

They say "no two snowflakes are alike" and they are scientists of all sorts.

But what if no two ANYTHING that we see in nature are alike?  What can Darwinism say to this?

Evolution Is Biologically Impossible
© Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D., 1999.2

Published in Acts and Facts 28 (11): i-iv, Impact #317, November 1999, Institute for Creation
Research, P.O. Box 2667, El Cahon, CA 92021.

Charles Darwin was daydreaming when he wrote that he could visualize “in some warm
little pond,” with all sorts of salts and electricity, the spontaneous generation of the first living
cell.2 Darwin’s dream of the magical powers of salts and electricity may have come from his
grandfather. Mary Shelley in her introduction to Frankenstein reveals, “They talked of the
experiments of Dr. Darwin . . . who preserved a piece of vermicelli in a glass case, till by some
extraordinary means it began to move with voluntary motion.” She goes on to speculate that
galvanism (electricity) was the extraordinary means.9 All theories need testing so I bought some
vermicelli pasta, kept it in salt water in a test tube for a month and never saw any motion,
voluntary or otherwise. I also used a tesla coil to conduct “galvanism” through it to a fluorescent
bulb. The bulb lit and the vermicelli eventually began to cook, but never came to life.

“ Darwin’s bulldog,” Thomas Huxley, had a vision of himself on the early Earth as “a
witness of the evolution of living protoplasm from non-living matter.”6 In Huxley’s day, the cell
was blissfully considered simply a blob of protoplasm. Huxley also may have read Mary
Shelley’s subtitle to Frankenstein, “The Modern Prometheus.”9 Prometheus was the Greek
mythical Titan, who formed a man of clay then animated it. This myth may be the earliest
reference to abiogenesis, the animation of inorganic materials. In order not to leave that
possibility untried, I fashioned a clay man and directed the tesla coil spark over it to light the
bulb. The clay man was not animated.

Evolutionists currently invoke the “primeval soup” to expand the “warm little pond” into
a larger venue, the oceans. They aim to spontaneously generate the first cell so they must
thicken the salt water with (take a breath) polysaccharides, lipids, amino acids, alpha helixes,
polypeptide chains, assembled quaternary protein subunits and nucleotides, all poised to selfcombine
into functional cellular structures, energy systems, long-chain proteins and nucleic
acids.1 Then during an electrical storm, just the right mix of DNA, mRNA, ribosomes, cell
membranes and enzymes are envisioned in the right place at the right time and the first cell is
thunderbolted together and springs to life.5 That marvelous first cell, the story goes, filled the
oceans with progeny competing in incredible polysaccharide, lipid, amino acid, nucleotide and
cannibalistic feasts. The predators thereby thinned the soup to the watery oceans we have today
while the prey escaped by mystically transmuting themselves into the current complex animals
and plants, or perhaps vice versa because no one was there to record it. We are assured by the
disciples of Darwin and Huxley that the “once upon a pond” story to obtain a blob of
protoplasm is still sufficient for the spontaneous generation of the cell as we know it today. All
demur when asked for evidence. All balk when asked to reverse-engineer a cell in the laboratory
in spite of the fact that laboratories rival nature and reverse engineering is orders of magnitude
easier than engineering an original design. One wonders why they balk if cell stuff is so easily
self-generated and carbon molecules seem to have such an innate tendency to self-combine.

To test simply the alleged self-combining tendency of carbon, I placed one microliter of
India (lampblack) ink in 27 ml of distilled water. The ink streaked for the bottom of the test tube
where it formed a dark haze which completely diffused to an even shade of gray in 14 hours. The
carbon stayed diffused, not aggregated as when dropped on paper. At this simple level there is
no evidence that the “primeval soup” is anything but fanciful imagination.

In science, the burden of evidence is on the proposer of the theory. So although the
evolutionists have the burden of providing evidence for their fanciful tales, they take no
responsibility for a detailed account or for any evidence demonstrating feasibility. Contrarily,
they go so far as to imply that anyone holding them to the normal requirements of science is
feebleminded, deranged or evil. For example, Professor Richard Dawkins has been quoted as
saying, “It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in
evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).”7
Instead of taking proper responsibility for the burden of evidence, the evolutionist propagandizes
by the intimidation of name calling.

To set a better example, let us take up the evolutionist’s burden of evidence to see where
it leads. Our first observation is that apparently all functions in a living organism are based
largely upon the structures of its proteins. The trail of the first cell therefore leads us to the
microbiological geometry of amino acids and a search for the probability of creating a protein by
mindless chance as specified by evolution. Hubert Yockey published a monograph on the
microbiology, information theory and mathematics necessary to accomplish that feat.
Accordingly, the probability of evolving one molecule of iso-1-cytochrome c, a small protein
common in plants and animals, is an astounding one chance in 2.3 times ten billion vigintillion.
The magnitude of this impossibility may be appreciated by realizing that ten billion vigintillion
has 75 zeros. Or to put it in evolutionary terms, if a random mutation is provided every second
from the alleged birth of the universe, then to date that protein molecule would be only 43% of
the way to completion. Yockey concluded, “The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is
impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is impossible in

Richard Dawkins agreed with Yockey by stating, “Suppose we want to suggest, for
instance, that life began when both DNA and its protein-based replication machinery
spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves the luxury of such an
extravagant theory, provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not
exceed 100 billion billion to one.”3 The 100 billion billion is 10^20. So Dawkins’ own criterion for
impossible in probability, one chance in more than 10^20, has been exceeded by 50 orders of
magnitude for only one molecule of one small protein. Now that Professor Dawkins has joined
the ranks of non-believers in evolution, politesse forbids inquiring whether he considers himself
“ ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.”

Let us proceed to criteria more stringent. For example, Borel stated that phenomena with
very small probabilities do not occur. He settled arbitrarily on the probability of one chance in
10^50 as that small probability. Again according to this more stringent criterion, we see that
evolving one molecule of one protein would not occur by a wide margin, this time 25 orders of

Let us go further. According to Dembski, Borel did not adequately distinguish those
highly improbable events properly attributed to chance from those properly attributed to
something else and Borel did not clarify what concrete numerical values correspond to small
probabilities. So Dembski repaired those deficiencies and formulated a criterion so stringent that
it jolts the mind. He estimated 10^80 elementary particles in the universe and asked how many
times per second an event could occur. He found 10^45. He then calculated the number of
seconds from the beginning of the universe to the present and for good measure multiplied by one
billion for 10^25 seconds in all. He thereby obtained 10^80 x 10^45 x 10^25 = 10^150 for his Law of
Small Probability.

I have not been able to find a criterion more stringent than Dembski’s one chance in 10^150.
Anything as rare as that probability had absolutely no possibility of happening by chance at any
time by any conceivable specifying agent by any conceivable process throughout all of cosmic
history. And if the specified event is not a regularity, as the origin of life is not, and if it is not
chance, as Dembski’s criterion and Yockey’s probability may prove it is not, then it must have
happened by design, the only remaining possibility.

Now to return to the probability of evolving one molecule of one protein as one chance in
10^75, we see that it does not satisfy Dembski’s criterion of one chance in 10^150. The
simultaneous availability of two molecules of one protein may satisfy the criterion, but they
would be far from the necessary complement to create a living cell. For a minimal cell, 60,000
proteins of 100 different configurations would be needed.5,8 If these raw materials could be
evolved at the same time, and if they were not more complex on average to evolve than the iso-1-
cytochrome c molecule, and if these proteins were stacked at the cell’s construction site, then we
may make a gross underestimation of what the chances would be to evolve that first cell. That
probability is one chance in more than 104,478,296, a number that numbs the mind because it has
4,478,296 zeros. If we consider one chance in 10^150 as the standard for impossible, then the
evolution of the first cell is more than 104,478,146 times more impossible in probability than that

Reproduction may be called a regularity because billions of people have witnessed billions
of new individuals arising that way, and in no other way, for thousands of years. The origin of
life was a unique event and certainly not a regularity. Therefore, according to the mathematical
logicians, the only possibilities left are that life either was generated by chance or by deliberate
design. The standard for impossible eliminated evolution so the only remaining possibility is that
life was designed into existence. The probability of the correctness of this conclusion is the
inverse of the probability that eliminated evolution, that is, 104,478,296 chances to one.
Although the certainty of design has been demonstrated beyond doubt, science cannot
identify the designer. Given a designer with the intelligence to construct a cell and all life forms,
it is not logical that he would construct only one cell and leave the rest to chance. The only
logical possibility is that the designer would design and build the entire structure, the entire
biosphere, to specified perfection. That seems to be as far as science can go.

Life was designed. It did not evolve. The certainty of these conclusions is 104,478,296 (1
followed by 4,478,296 zeros) to one. This evidence suggests a Designer who designed and built
the entire biosphere and, for it to function, the entire universe. Primary and secondary sources
from history properly provide additional information on the Designer because the biological
sciences are not equal to that task .

1 Behe, Michael J. (1996) Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, New
York: Touchstone, pp. 262-268.
2 Darwin, F., ed (1888) The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, London: John Murray, vol. 1, p. 83.
3 Dawkins, Richard (1996) The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a
Universe Without Design, New York: W.W. Norton & Co., p. 146.
4 Dembski, William A. (1998) The Design Inference:Eliminating Chance Through Small
Probabilities, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 5, 209, 210.
5 Denton, Michael (1986) Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Bethesda, Maryland: Adler&Adler, p. 263.
6 Huxley, Thomas H. (1870) “Biogenesis and Abiogenesis” in (1968) Collected Essays of Thomas.H.
Huxley, vol. 8, Discourses Biological and Geological, New York: Greenwood Press., p.256.
7 Johnson, Phillip E. (1993) Darwin On Trial, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, p.9.
8 Morowitz, H.J. (1966) “The Minimum Size of Cells” in Principles of Biomolecular Organization,
eds G.E.W. Wostenholme and M. O’Connor, London: J.A. Churchill, pp. 446-459.
9 Shelley, Mary W. (1831) Frankenstein: or, The Modern Prometheus, London: Henry Colburn and
Richard Bentley, Introduction, p.9.
10 Yockey, Hubert P. (1992) Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 255, 257.


© Joseph Mastropaolo 2003
Published as:
Mastropaolo, Joseph. Biology Confronts Evolution.
Acts and Facts 33 (2): i-iv, Impact #368, February 2004,
Institute for Creation Research, P.O. Box 2667, El Cahon, CA 92021.

Evolution pretends to be biology but it plays us for fools because it has no successful experiment. Let’s see if there is one scintilla of scientific evidence to support evolution. Most biology textbooks show a glass apparatus in which the precursors for amino acids are boiled and electrically sparked and after a week sure enough there are trace amounts of a few amino acids. The implication is that if the boiling and sparking were continued, then a living cell would evolve. Such logic is like stating that automobiles evolved billions of years ago by means of rubber sap, sand, iron ore, and coal falling into a volcano. The iron ore and the carbon in the coal made steel, the sand melted and made glass, and the sap vulcanized and made rubber. Then after billions and billions of trials and errors, the text may say, there evolved spontaneously better and better pistons, cylinders, whole engines with spark plugs and transmissions, axles on four wheels with rubber tires under bodies of steel with glass windows, windshield wipers, headlights, and tanks full of gasoline. The text might similarly state that the first cell and all life evolved in the same way. Scientists note that such a tall tale is a fantasy of a peculiar type. If someone said he had bought a brand-new car the night before and in the morning found it rusted and rotted to a pile of powder, then we would note that his story described correctly the direction of the laws of physics but rust and rot do not occur that fast. Contrarily, if he says that a pile of sand and iron ore evolved into a brand-new car, then we recognize this as an inverted fantasy because it is the exact opposite of the way reality works. So, the amino acid and volcano car examples are not merely fantasies, they are inverted fantasies. They are not the cow-jumped-over-the-moon kind of tall tale because cows can jump a low fence. They are the grass-ate-the-cow kind of tall tale, the inverted, upside-down kind of fantasy. One way that scientists reject tall tales is with observation. Scientists are persuaded by observing cars coming off the assembly lines in Detroit and note that no one has ever seen one spontaneously, nor purposefully, evolved in or out of a volcano. Scientists therefore
unequivocally conclude that all cars were created intelligently and by the similar observations so were all life forms.

But is biology sufficient to explain life or must it be supplemented by inverted evolutionary concepts to fully describe the biological world? Let us pursue this answer by examining the life cycle of a representative life form.

Survival by Means of Genetic Reserves

The monarch butterfly is a good illustration of biology because all observations can be
verified. Its whole life cycle is from one allotment of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and can be
observed in 60 days. The monarch butterfly egg is an oval about one millimeter long that hatches
in three days to a caterpillar which spins a chrysalis around itself then hatches as the butterfly.
Now it has the ability to fly twenty-four miles an hour while navigating a three-thousand-mile
migration with all the navigational equipment on board in the size of the head of a pin. Shortly
after completion of their reproductive functions, both male and female become dehydrated and

Unique Sequential Genetic Reserves

The life cycle of the monarch butterfly teaches that in the seemingly inert egg are all of
the genetic instructions to form a sixteen-legged caterpillar and a six-legged butterfly. There was
no physical manifestation of the caterpillar when it was an egg just as there was no physical
manifestation of the butterfly when it was a caterpillar. There was a manifested morphology
while there were unmanifested in the organism’s genetic reserves meticulously planned
transitional structures and different morphologies. To observe such remarkable transformations
in 60 days teaches an important lesson on genetic reserves. These incredibly complex
transformations, which no human engineer can blueprint, may be called sequential genetic
reserves. They occur once in a rigorous order to attain adulthood and do not occur again. Every
complex organism has them. Some do not transform from sixteen legs to six legs, some do not
transform from pedestrians to flyers, but the transformations to adulthood are no less remarkable.
Every multicelled life form must grow and develop from an egg or seed to an adult configuration
and that requires continuous structural and functional alterations that are molecularly planned,
organized, coordinated, controlled, and commanded beyond human comprehension. We do not
know how the DNA did it, but we do know that such megengineering could not have been done
brainlessly the way evolution pretends. There are other kinds of genetic reserves.

Punctual and Precise Cyclical Genetic Reserves

When the arctic fox has a gray coat of fur in summer, which blends with the tundra, it has
in its genetic reserve the white fur it will wear in winter. The fox’s white fur in winter blends
with the snow but its genetic reserve still contains the gray fur for the following summer.
Similarly, the rock ptarmigan draws from its genetic reserves to display feathers of mottled
reddish-brown in spring, then brownish-gray in fall, then white in winter. Trees leaf and bloom
in spring, fruit in summer, then drop their leaves in the fall. Birds nest and rear young in spring
and summer, then migrate in the fall. These periodicities are from the organism’s cyclical DNA
genetic reserves and go on repetitively for its lifetime with punctuality and precision. The fox has
white fur for the first snowfall, not the last, and gray fur for the first thaw, not a week or a month
later. And it never grows red or green or orange or blue fur by trial and error like evolutionists
would have us believe. If its cyclical genetic reserves were not engineered for precision and
punctuality, it could not survive one season.

Punctual and Precise Arousal Genetic Reserves

Exercise in the heat arouses the genetic reserve to synthesize heat-shock proteins that
enable activity in the hot environment. Activity patterns arouse new proteins for muscle actin
and myosin contractile filaments. Skeletal muscle hypertrophy and bradycardia are aroused from
training, and skeletal muscle atrophy and tachycardia from bed rest. An increased concentration
of red blood cells and 2,3-diphosphoglycerate are aroused by sojourns at high altitude, then lost
by a return to sea level. New collateral coronary arteries are synthesized in two months to get
around blocked arteries. New bone cells are aroused by fractures and new scar tissue from
abrasions, cuts or tears. These are but a few of the innumerable DNA genetic reserves manifested
by arousal that are built into each life form. They may be aroused in a matter of hours, not
millions of years. They cannot be incorporated by evolution because the organism cannot
experience what is needed until the event and it will not survive unless the need is immediately
satisfied. Vacant-minded evolution cannot plan or organize or coordinate or command or control
change because it is brainless. What is brainless cannot comprehend or act in what is complex to
the extreme: life and survival.

All Genetic Reserves Function At Once

From conception to death, the DNA of the life form makes available as needed all genetic
reserves and there is no interference amongst them. For example, the life form may arouse
simultaneously the separate proteins for heat shock and altitude as it climbs a mountain in the
heat of the day as well as the proteins to withstand the bitter cold at night. Always at the ready,
the abundant genetic reserves may manifest themselves in any appropriate pattern at any time.
They provide each life form with remarkable arrays of morphological, functional, and behavioral
mechanisms to meet punctually and precisely the variabilities of any environment and to survive
the extremes. And they do it right the first time. They do not do it by magic or brainless iteration
over alleged millions of years, as the inverted brainless evolutionist superstition would have us
believe. If the arctic fox had to evolve its white coat for the first snowfall by brainless iteration, it
would not have survived one day. Like every life form, it needed the versatility, precision, and
punctuality of all its genetic reserves from conception or it would never have survived even to
being born.

Are Response, Adaptation, Acclimation, and Acclimatization Evolution or Design?

If a person exercises, the heart rate will increase and this the evolutionists call, a
response. If a person trains for weeks with exactly that exercise, then the heart rate will be lower
than the initial response. That lowered heart rate for the same exercise the evolutionists call,
adaptation. If such a modified response is instigated by an environment, then it may be called,
acclimation. If in response to a change in climate, then it may be called, acclimatization.
Evolution misleads us because the immediate response is mediated by the autonomic nervous
system, which is an integral part of the individual’s design from its DNA. The modified response
is the revised expression of the individual’s ever-changing physiology as continuously modified
by the arousal genetic reserves. Those reserves continuously synthesize the appropriate new
proteins whether the stimulus comes from within, like the exercise, or from outside like the
climate or something else in the environment. By inventing four names, the evolutionists not
only mislead us but they also complicate what is in reality quite simple. The dynamic
physiological design takes care or everything. Evolution has nothing to do.

Are There Speciation, Micro and Macro Evolution in Reality Biology?

Anyone can observe remarkable variation in biology. All brothers and sisters are
different. Even identical twins have different fingerprints and behaviors. The Chihuahua is not a
different species. It is a dog from breeding the runts of the litters. “Speciation” and “micro
evolution” are attempts to appropriate the immense variability of biology. All Chihuahuas
devolve and die but not one will ever evolve to a cat or a raccoon or anything else. So too
“ macro evolution,” the fictional extension of the micro evolution fiction, is the fraudulent
misrepresentation that has never been seen because it is an inverted fantasy like grass eating a

Life Described Scientifically

As anyone can observe, the Primordial Law of Biology is minor vita ex vita, life arises
only from life and always with less vitality. Biology is under the jurisdiction of the laws of the
universe, the propaganda of evolution notwithstanding. The Primordial Law of the Universe is
natura semper scalas descendet, nature always descends, that is, devolves. Therefore,
devolution, never evolution, is the relentless, inescapable law of the universe. The true nature of
the universe, and therefore biology, is devolution, the exact opposite of masquerading evolution
interloping in public school and university biology textbooks.

The history of each individual in each generation is the same as for the population, but on
a smaller scale. The individual is conceived with its greatest vitality and progressively devolves
that vitality until death, that is, its extinction. Just as no individual can live forever, so no
population can live forever. All life forms individually and collectively are fixed and mortal.
From environmental pollutions that cause genetic disorders, populations lose their vitality
until they cannot reproduce viable offspring. That is the advent of extinction. By contrast, the
evolution superstition in biology textbooks is a multi-inverted fantasy because it not only teaches
that life can spring up like the volcano car but that life and the car can perfect themselves forever
like fictional perpetual motion machines.


As we have seen, biology is the best explanation of life. It is the most complete, the most
observable, and the most verifiable with experiments. There is no need to employ any of the
unnecessary, misleading, multi-inverted, and unobservable complexities of evolution
superstition. Biology completely eliminates evolution.


Mastropaolo, Joseph. The Rise and Fall of Evolution, A Scientific Examination. 2003. Pp. 115-


Originality Throughout the Universe by Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D.

The following are posts from the site above dealing specifically with originality.

Where Are the Data Banks?

Ask anyone about snowflakes and they will share that each one is an original. There are no duplicate snowflakes. That is common knowledge. But we know from engineering, that a data bank is necessary in order to manage the snowflake system. Planning, organizing, coordinating, commanding, and controlling are necessary to select the new original snowflakes and to eliminate the duplicates. Every engineer knows these necessities. But no one can tell where the managing engineer is. Further, no one can tell where the data bank is or who or what is doing the management.

Ask anyone about fingerprints and they are likely to share that each one is an original. Further, the human libraries of fingerprints number many billions with occurrences that go back more than 100 years. These are a part of a viable data bank, not a non viable data bank like the one for snowflakes. Very well, where is this data bank of fingerprints? And if the first humans had fingers and fingerprints, and if each of those fingerprints were originals like those of the last 100 years, then where is the managing engineer, the managing engineer with the extreme longevity, the immortal managing engineer?

I have searched. No one seems to know where the data banks are, or who or what is managing originality. Evidently, it is not nature, for nature cannot build anything, and certainly nothing original. Nature only degenerates, for the forces of nature act like a demolition ball, and that is the opposite of what is wanted. If nature is eliminated, then where are the data banks and the engineering management of those data banks?
The 64 vigintillion dollar questions are: where are the data banks and who or what has been and is managing the data banks?


Universal Originality

Originality throughout the Universe, Classical Science Laws for Life on Earth. 

The evidence in this book disposes of atheism and evolution.*

The evidence indicates that all viable and non viable objects composing the universe are originials. The parts of the objects also are originals. There are no duplicates. The consequence for the origin of life is that it must have been mega-engineered by means of mega-intelligence, not such impotent superstitions as natural selection.

The evidence also indicates an original Adam and Eve carried all of the originality information for their population and passed it on to each of the progeny. Population survival was by the preemptive salvo of remedies already expressed by the originalities of the individuals in the population. Survival of one pair was enough to preserve all of the originality information for the entire population (see p. 95).

Evidently in the entire universe, there is only one star like our sun and only one planet, Earth, with life on it. In all of human history, there has never been a confidence game anywhere near as big as the hundreds of billions of dollars of our space program wasted trying to find a duplicate of life on Earth. The chances of being wrong in this, that the search for extraterrestrial life is not a confidence game, is one chance in more than 23,000, the number of stars in the Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram (see pp. 11 to 14, 97). Recall that one chance in 20 is considered statistically significant in science (see p. 3).

The answers to the questions put to the universe by the research seemed like a soliloquy that its nature is, always has been, and always will be originality.


“Default-judgment. Judgment entered against a party who has failed to defend against a claim that has been brought by another party.” -Black’s Law Dictionary.

*Atheists may sign up for unlimited $10,000 mini-trial awards (see below).
*Mini-Trial Rules for Disposal of Atheism and Evolution.
1. Joseph Mastropaolo puts $10,000 in escrow with the judge.
2. The atheist puts $10,000 in escrow with the judge.
3. If Joseph Mastropaolo proves that the evidence disposes of atheism and evolution, then Joseph Mastropaolo is awarded the $20,000.
4. If the atheist proves that atheism, or evolution, is true, then the atheist is awarded the $20,000.
5. Evidence must be scientific, that is, objective, valid, reliable, and calibrated.
6. The preponderance of evidence prevails.
7. At the end of the trial, the judge hands the prevailing party the $20,000.
8. The judge is a superior court judge.
9. The venue is a courthouse.
10. The prevailing party pays the court costs.

Information for Darwinists who wish to try evidence (not stories) in a court of law: The Life Science Prize = follow the link.

Save $100 billion. See how in the book, Originality Throughout the Universe, Classical Science Laws for Life on Earth, 2010, 104 pp, i-iv,
© Joseph A. Mastropaolo 2011.

What is the astounding finding reported in this book? Does the finding apply only to planet, Earth? Is there a complementary finding? And does that apply only to planet, Earth? Does the book calculate the probability that the findings could be wrong? Are the probabilities the ones scientists use or are they arbitrary? Can you state what the paradigm shift is? And why the paradigm shift is needed? Does the paradigm shift apply only to non living objects?

How do the findings apply to common objects like snowflakes and grains of sand? Suppose a human engineer specified those characteristics for snowflakes? For grains of sand? For living objects? Would the engineer be praised for such a preliminary design review? If the engineer actually discovered that those findings were true of the entire universe, would the engineer be lauded and promoted? Would such findings for some objects extend over and over again in the future? What vested interests would struggle desperately to suppress this new knowledge?

The evidence for Originality was obtained purposely with simple, inexpensive instrumentation, simple data analysis, and simple inferences from small samples to populations that included the entire universe. The archetype paradigm shift was likely to cause more than the usual doubt on the veracity of the evidence. By making things easy and inexpensive, the anticipated confirmations by other scientists would likely be expedited.

Originality contains about 290 pictures. They document the evidence more completely than words and abbreviate the tedious descriptions that tend to mire reading a book.

The question arose as to the usefulness of Originality. Is there a friend or relative that is an atheist? Does the person say the atheism is caused by science? If so, then the science in Originality should convince the atheist that no force in nature could possibly create the quadrillions and quadrillions of originals in the non living and living domains of the universe. Unaided nature could not possibly do it. Would that fact convert the atheist to reality? If any atheist reads Originality and either converts from atheism, or is not convinced, I would like to read about it.

Originality Throughout the Universe, Classical Science Laws for Life on Earth, may be purchased for $19.95.

About Life Science Prize Administrators

Joseph A. Mastropaolo has a B.S., M.S., Ph.D. in kinesiology and a three-year Post-Doctoral Research Fellowship with the National Heart Institute of the National Institutes of Health in human physiology (possibly the equivalent of the European habilitation). As Aerospace Physiologist for Douglas Space Systems, he published two monographs on life in space, one for humans and one for experimental animals. He received two Vice Presidential Awards, one for Aerospace Safety and one for Aerospace Medicine. He also received a patent for a crew conditioning device for extended manned space missions and engineered the life support specifications for the Manned Orbiting Animal Research Facility. He taught biomechanics and physiology at California State University, Long Beach for 26 years and was the engine physiologist for the Gossamer Condor and Gossamer Albatross human powered flight projects which earned a medal in physiology from the Royal Aeronautical Society for the Kremer Cross Channel Challenge. He built five unique laboratories and was principal investigator for 17 grants to support the pure and applied research that resulted in the publication of 22 science articles in peer reviewed science journals. He discovered the maximum-power stimulus theory for muscle which simplified, unified, and exceeded the various theories of strength and endurance for maximum performance, including the best records for performance enhancement from drugs. He may be reached at:

Karl Priest is a retired public school teacher in West Virginia with
over 30 years experience as an educator including four years as a
For the last five years of his full-time career, with the full
knowledge (and dismay) of state and county school officials as well as
the ACLU he demonstrated to his students that mathematics proves
beyond the shadow of doubt that evolutionism is nonsense.
Karl currently is the West Virginia State Coordinator for Exodus
Mandate which encourages the rescue of children from government
schools to the safety of home or truly Christian schools.
For more information see Karl's website at