Creation versus evolution: Thinking outside the box
Before we go into more detail concerning the operation of cellular reproduction and the very tiny electron microscopic level, before we get into the standard methods Darwin apologists use to try to muddy the waters and before we even look at dating methods, I would like to suggest something: Most Darwinists are afraid to think outside of the box. But the best scientists are NEVER afraid to think outside of the box.
How utterly boring to take the exit that leads to the main expressway into Darwin City! You get in the long line of cars creeping along the disinformation highway heading for the inevitable conclusions time and time again. How much so-called science is sprinkled with the words believe and think and presume and so on? If you can find two people with framed pieces of paper on the wall to agree, you can start a sentence with "Experts believe..."
Now some scientists just research and work and discover things whether evolution has anything to do with anything or not. I was reading the site where a very well done presentation on chemosynthesizing organisms is found under the name of Dr. Alissa J. Arp. Here are two excerpts from her page on the subject LIFE WITH TOXIC SULFIDE:
"Introduction
What I want to do today is talk with you about a number of animals, from three different habitats that live in the presence of a toxic gas, hydrogen sulfide. Hydrogen sulfide is a naturally occurring compound. It smells like rotten eggs. If you walk out on the mud flats, you'll smell it. It occurs in many different environments. The interesting thing about hydrogen sulfide, biologically, is that it is a highly toxic molecule. It is toxic on the same level as cyanide. It is toxic because it binds to iron. There are two important iron atoms in biological systems. One is at the center of the hemoglobin molecule. So, typically in the presence of hydrogen sulfide oxygen transport by hemoglobin is blocked and can no longer go on. The second and more ubiquitous problem with hydrogen sulfide is that it binds to the iron at the center of cytochrome molecules, Cytochromes, of course, are the basis of aerobic respiration. So any animal that is aerobically poised in their metabolism in the presence of sulfide, barring special adaptations, will be unable to utilize molecular oxygen as the basis for their metabolism.
Hydrogen Sulfide Detoxification
There are a number of animals that are tolerant of sulfide and can live in sulfide rich environments. Several strategies that could be employed for the tolerance of sulfide include:
- The exclusion of sulfide from the body surface, which typically is not seen in nature because sulfide is a very small molecule. It easily diffuses across membranes, particularly respiratory surfaces which are the site of toxicity.
- It is theoretically possible that animals could evolve sulfide insensitive cytochrome, some molecular variation of cytochrome which is insensitive. This has not been shown to date.
- Animals can also employ anaerobic metabolism. Now this is a very real possibility because many animals, marine invertebrates are anaerobic in their metabolism, at least part of the time, that is they can continue to respire, metabolize and be active in the absence of oxygen. If an animal is able to get by without oxygen, molecular oxygen as an energy source, then it doesn't matter if sulfide is around because their poisoning of aerobic metabolism isn't of concern.
The fourth theoretical strategy for tolerating sulfide and one which I have spent most of my career investigating is sulfide detoxification, by either binding it and removing it from harms way, or chemically converting it to another compound that is no longer a toxic molecule."
"Alissa J. Arp, Ph.D., Director and Professor, Romberg Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies, San Francisco State University presents aspects of physiology in marine invertebrates exposed to energy rich, but highly toxic, hydrogen sulfide in three different environments. Various sulfide detoxification strategiesare employed by marine animals in these sulfide environments. Some organisms contain symbiotic, chemosynthetic bacteria. These symbionts detoxify the sulfide and provide nutrition for their hosts. Others do not contain symbionts, and detoxify sulfide through physiological pathways.
In the deep-sea hydrothermal vents, chemoautotrophic endosymbiont-harboring worms, Riftia pachyptila , clams and mussels utilize sulfide to fuel bacterial metabolism while protecting their tissues from toxicity by the sulfide detoxification process of binding the sulfide to blood-borne components.
In cold seeps, chemosynthetic communities congregate around naturally seeping pools of sulfide, methane and hypersaline brine.Chemosynthetic mussels utilize methane as their inorganic energy supply. Newly discovered polychaete worms colonize mounds of frozen methane.
In estuarine mudflats at low tides, the non-chemosynthetic, echiuran worm, Urechis caupo, is exposed to toxic sulfide. The animal tolerates moderate sulfide levels through physiological adaptations that protect the body tissues and internal fluids."
Now knowing the prevailing paradigm it is unlikely that Dr. Arp would agree with me, but these discoveries of previously unknown means of sustenance for life have stacked the odds against evolution far higher than ever! That photosynthesis would ever have happened by a series of chance events has always seemed preposterous to me anyway. Now when you read very much about the Riftia Pachyptila you realize that this has to be yet another evolutionary pathway, another life form that had to have just luckily appeared apart from any that depended upon the energy of the sun for their life cycle. These tube worms do not have stomachs or mouths but rather they depend upon the bacteria living within their bodies for sustenance. Now how do you suppose that such a miraculous and extraordinary symbiotic relationship might have evolved? What baby steps might an organism take to get to the point that they could survive and thrive on frozen methane?
We are now, speaking of mankind, truly just beginning to explore the depths of the oceans. We have only looked carefully at a few of the thousands of sea mounts in the world's oceans. We've discovered the Dumbo Octopus and the Vampire Squid and deep cold water coral that do not depend on sunlight to survive and in fact probably outnumber the population of the "normal" reef colonies we knew. Not only have we found far, far more organisms as we explore the depths of the ocean and the most unexplored jungles we have also found more and more "Lazarus" specimens, being organisms found in the fossil records thought to be:
1) Ancestors of "modern" kinds of organisms
2) Long extinct
So all these living fossils, as their numbers pile up, begin to help falsify the Darwinist supposition that the sedimentary rock records are evidence of millions upon millions of years of evolution. It is about time! People, it really does not make sense that every fifty million years or so some kind of catastrophic event captured a snapshot of the world's ecosystem when the Noahic Flood is a far far better explanation for the rock records. Now that we know that all the sedimentary rocks are catastrophic in nature the time for clinging to the last shreds of uniformitarianism should be gone. I intend to present a great deal of evidence concerning dating methods and the possible age of the Earth but first I appeal to your brains. I ask you to put aside the childish fairy tales of Darwinists and realize that all aspects of that hypothesis have been falsified by the complete lack of transitional forms in the fossil record and the remarkable and complex design of organisms.
The very existence of Mensa stands in mute testimony to the fact that intelligent people can be fooled and foolish. If you are actually exceedingly intelligent you do not need to belong to a club to prove it. Mensa membership, if you qualify, requires a payment. If you pay someone to tell you that you are smart, are you actually smart?
Darwinism stands in mute testimony to the reluctance of supposedly highly intelligent scientists to think outside of the box. Any ordinary person would come upon a new Subaru Forester sitting in their driveway and recognize that a great deal of engineering had gone into the manufacturing process of the vehicle. Having been involved in the automobile industry, I promise you that the design process of a vehicle begins several years in advance of production, as engineers work on various ways to improve gas mileage and reduce costs, streamline production and etc. New automobiles do not just happen to go *poof* and appear before your eyes.
Darwinists continue to claim that organisms somehow came to life from non-life and developed all their systems and instincts and processes and came to contain so much detailed information by a series of lucky breaks. The evolution fairy did it!
I am going to be honest with my readers, I think that anyone who believes this preposterous concept just cannot stand the thought of the existence of a God, because no one with any common sense at all could study these things carefully and for a moment conceive that all this complex design and brilliant coding came about by accident! Just wait until my next post on DNA and cellular function during reproduction. Hopefully I will kill off the weak arguments and continual evasions of the Darwinist commenters thereby...but I will not hold my breath.
To those of you who have not sold out to notGod as of yet, I ask you to study this situation very carefully and I ask you to ignore the opinions about the evidence and all the spin and all the propaganda and simply begin studying the actual evidence. Do not take anything for granted, because Darwinists have so brainwashed the average person that they take millions of years for granted as if both long ages and Darwinism are proven facts. In fact they are unproven hypotheses that I hope to keep smashing until that ridiculous pinata of an idea is broken and all the pixies and fairies and hobbits and dwarves and elves spill out onto the ground.
