Political Corruption of Science Revealed in New Book

Perverted Truth Exposed cover image

In Perverted Truth Exposed, Kay Kiser exposes areas of science that have been corrupted by progressive and atheist philosophies disguised as science, including  evolution, origin of life, cosmology, quantum physics and climate change.

The climate change debate presents a modern example of how the perversion of science is politically imposed to support an anti-God, anti-human progress agenda of Marxist control and power while silencing opposition through intimidation. Kiser also answers:

  • Did Darwin really steal his theory of evolution from Alfred Wallace?
  • Why did Wallace later abandon the theory as not having sufficient evidence?
  • If Hubble discovered the expanding universe leading to the Big Bang Theory, why did he continually try to convince others that their conclusion was wrong?
  • Is man-made carbon dioxide causing global warming or is it a trailing indicator of climate change in a system dominated by solar cycles, cloud cover, and ocean currents?

Available online from the following outlets in print and as an eBook.

Political Corruption of Science Revealed in New Book

Perverted Truth Exposed cover image

In Perverted Truth Exposed, Kay Kiser exposes areas of science that have been corrupted by progressive and atheist philosophies disguised as science, including  evolution, origin of life, cosmology, quantum physics and climate change.

The climate change debate presents a modern example of how the perversion of science is politically imposed to support an anti-God, anti-human progress agenda of Marxist control and power while silencing opposition through intimidation. Kiser also answers:

  • Did Darwin really steal his theory of evolution from Alfred Wallace?
  • Why did Wallace later abandon the theory as not having sufficient evidence?
  • If Hubble discovered the expanding universe leading to the Big Bang Theory, why did he continually try to convince others that their conclusion was wrong?
  • Is man-made carbon dioxide causing global warming or is it a trailing indicator of climate change in a system dominated by solar cycles, cloud cover, and ocean currents?

Available online from the following outlets in print and as an eBook.

AGW Claims vs Truth – 2b Benefits of Carbon Dioxide

Chart Source: Review Article: “Environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide,” Willie Soon (1), Sallie L. Baliunas(1), Arthur B. Robinson (2), Zachary W. Robinson (2) Climate Research. 13, 149-164, (1999)
CO2 Enhanced Plant Growth Rates – Chart Source: Review Article “Environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide,” Willie Soon (1), Sallie L. Baliunas(1), Arthur B. Robinson (2), Zachary W. Robinson (2) Climate Research. 13, 149-164, (1999)

a.) Animals exhale CO2 and breathe in O2, while plants use CO2 for photosynthesis and “exhale” O2. Professional greenhouses often add extra CO2 to increase growth rates. Increased plant growth removes much of the CO2 released into the atmosphere. Between pre-industrial and present times, studies show an average of 15 percent increase in plant growth rates, with some species increased many times that, e.g, young pine trees.  Increased plant growth rates and wider distribution of arable (farmable) land due to warming as well as improved farming practices can solve the so-called overpopulation problem.

b.) Critics created the “progressive nitrogen limitation hypothesis,” which assumes that increased growth rates of trees would deplete poor soils of nitrogen, thus mediating the positive effects of increased CO2. This is a scenario based on an unproven hypothesis, not reality, which stubbornly refuses to support the hypothesis. Many studies[1] show that, contrary to the hypothesis, although roots grow deeper and produce more fine hairs, soil and forest floor are enriched in nitrogen from biological sources, ie, increased root mass and leaf litter supporting beneficial microbes in the soil.  Deeper roots with more fine hairs also make plants mean enhanced tolerance to dryer conditions. (also see next item)

c.) One benefit of increased CO2 is that the stomata (openings) of leaves, which take in CO2 and emit water vapor and oxygen, are reduced, leading to less water loss, enhanced water use and improved tolerance to dryer conditions. At elevated CO2 levels, stomata do not need to be open as far to allow sufficient CO2 in for photosynthesis and, as a result, less water is lost through transpiration[2]. In controlled studies, an additional benefit of reduced stomata openings is a reduction in ozone damage.

d.) The increased rate of growth of plants, from forests to sea algae, results in more of certain cooling aerosols being produced. These include Carbonyl Sulfide (COS) from soil and seas that become highly reflective sulfate in the stratosphere to reflect more solar radiation back into space; iodo-compounds[3] from sea algae that nucleate clouds to reflect more solar radiation back into space; and dimethyl sulfide (DMS), from seas that nucleates clouds as well as other aerosols such as isoprene from trees with similar effects.

The increase in carbon dioxide is greening many arid regions because of more efficient use of water and the increased growth rate. Sub-Saharan Africa is blooming, the Amazonian jungle is flourishing and global vegetative cover is increasing.  The effect on ocean phytoplankton is equally as dramatic.  Significant reduction of carbon dioxide levels as proposed by the various climate agreements would have a detrimental effect on plant growth and consequently food supplies.  A concentration of 150 ppm is too low for photosynthesis to occur and plants die.

Hormesis Diagram with CO2 concentration on the horizontal axis vs plant growth
Hormesis Diagram with CO2 concentration on the horizontal axis vs plant growth rate

Hormesis is a phenomenon, commonly seen in medicine and nutrition, where a low or moderate concentration or dose results in a positive effect, but a larger dose results in damage. For instance, some salt and water are necessary to good health, but beyond a certain point, ingesting more can be harmful or fatal. The effect of CO2 on plant life appears to be one such system. Increased CO2 obviously benefits plant life, but it is uncertain at what level CO2 might have a detrimental effect on growth. In professional greenhouses and experiments, even ten times the current level is still beneficial.

[1] Example: Phillips, R.P., Finzi, A.C. and Bernhardt, E.S. 2011. “Enhanced root exudation induces microbial feedbacks to N cycling in a pine forest under long-term CO2 fumigation”. Ecology Letters 14: 187-194.

[2] See review article of research papers: “Responses of agricultural crops to free-air CO2 enrichment” Kimball, B.A., Kobayashi, K. and Bindi, M., Advances in Agronomy 77: 293-368 2002.

[3] Iodo-compounds contain iodine derived from seaweed

Opening Scientific Exploration

What do we really know about our world? What is fact and what is opinion? What is knowledge and what is belief, and can we know the difference? Isn’t science about facts and religion about faith? Well, not entirely. Science, with all of its trappings of mathematics, still is subject to interpretation, ie, belief, based on assumptions. There is as much faith in science as in anything else we do. Consensus and computer models do not change a belief into a fact.


  • that there was a Big Bang that started the universe?
  • that black holes, parallel universes, exotic dark matter or dark energy exist ?
  • how all of the elements and physical laws originated?
  • how the galaxies, stars, the solar system, planets, the Earth or the moon were formed?
  • the true distances to other galaxies?
  • the age of the universe, our galaxy or the Earth?
  • that the universe, including space itself, is expanding?
  • that the fourth dimension or multiple dimensions exist?
  • that a dimension known as space-time exists?
  • what gravity is?
  • what time is?
  • what life is?
  • that life spontaneously arose from a soup of chemicals?
  • that all species evolved gradually from a common ancestor?
  • that the mind is just a program created by the brain?
  • what consciousness, thought or memory are?
  • what sleep is?
  • what instinct is?
  • why we have free will and are not just robotic slaves to our genes?
  • why we have abilities and skills that are not necessary or are detrimental to survival?

The answer to most of these and many other questions about science and our understanding of our world is MAYBE, NO, or PROBABLY NOT.

The bad news is that we don’t know as much as we thought we knew.

The good news is that we don’t know as much as we thought we knew.

Bringing some accepted scientific “facts” or the evidence supporting them into question will not tear down our knowledge base. On the contrary, it will open doors to more exciting discoveries, unconstrained by fixed paradigms[1] or established systems into which they must be fitted. By questioning everything, we can look at all things with fresh eyes and with minds open to all possibilities, regardless of established beliefs. This should lead to more scientific study and discoveries, not less. Robust scientific theories and real facts will be strengthened by such questioning.

Only the theories without proper basis or support will suffer. Even those will benefit from fresh approaches that may come closer to solving some of the remaining mysteries than is currently possible. It is to our benefit that true understanding can develop unconstrained by dogma[2]. Fixed dogma tends to constrain and inhibit new knowledge, especially if the new knowledge does not fit neatly into the established picture.


“Michael Faraday warned against the tendency of the mind ‘to rest on an assumption’ and when it appears to fit in with other knowledge to forget that it has not been proved.”

W. I. B. Beveridge, The Art of Scientific Investigation


[1] Paradigm – A picture or view of reality into which all facts and beliefs must fit.

[2] Dogma –established opinion put forth as authoritative, especially without adequate grounds.

Origin of Life Scenarios


Complex structures of cyanobacteria[1]

 The earliest known Life fossils are 3.8 billion year old stromatolites, rocky structures composed of cyanobacteria and sand. 

 From the previous post, “What is Life?” it is readily apparent that living things possess multiple levels of complexity. For even the simplest organism to survive, all of the components, whether they be physical structures or biochemicals, must perform their functions well and in concert. Living things must balance on a thin edge of interconnected complexity to survive.

How is it possible to believe that all of this was built up piece-meal over millions of years, during which many of the components and functions were not fully in place, or to believe that small, stepwise changes in DNA over time result in new structures, when the incomplete sections of DNA must have existed long before there was a workable function? To believe that is not only improbable but insane! And it is not science. It is based on the progressive philosophy that the universe is naturally progressive and will naturally, without any directions, progress from simpler to more complex and from nonliving to living. When applied to the origin of life a new principle is proposed called the Life Principle[2]. This theory assumes that the universe will naturally self-organize to produce life in any “suitable” environment over time.

The scenarios for the first life are equally unbelievable except to the true philosophical believer. These scenarios cannot be called theories, but at best hypotheses and at worst wild speculations.  Among the speculations about where and how life emerged from nonliving matter, the most popular are as follows.

  1. Interstellar Pre-assembly: Life self-assembled from amino acids, peptides (short sections of protein), and proteins that came to earth from space where they were assembled from stardust.
  2. Warm Soup: In the absence of life to consume them, biochemicals that spontaneously formed accumulated in shallow seas until there were enough to form the first primitive life. This is the warm soup Darwin spoke of.
  3. Panspermia: Life forms came to earth from space where they had existed for eons, thus extending the time period for their formation beyond the 4.5 billion years of earth’s existence.
  4. Geothermal Energy: Life formed at geothermal vents that provided the energy needed to build complex biochemicals and structures that then came to life.
  5. Deep Hot Biosphere: Life formed deep underground from hydrocarbons cooked by mantle heating to form more and more complex molecules that then came to life.
  6. Clay Template: Life formed from biochemicals on the surface of clay, which acted as a template for assembling biochemicals and structures that eventually came to life.
  7. Inorganic Life: Life first formed from inorganic particles such as clay, later adding organic chemicals for more efficient functions and finally rejecting or eliminating the original inorganic chemicals.
  8. RNA World: RNA formed first and “learned” to make proteins and other structures through self-catalysis, later replaced by catalysis by protein enzymes.
  9. Protein First: Proteins formed first that then assembled RNA and/or DNA and membranes.
  10. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, (PAH), assumed to be abundant in space and early earth, through reactions such as hydroxylation, oxygenation and hydroxylation, led to formation of more complex molecules such as amino acids, proteins and RNA.

Whatever the means, it is hard to believe that all of the interlocking biochemical systems and cellular structures could have self-assembled over eons of time. The famous experiment that true believers point to as evidence of spontaneous creation of life is the Urey-Miller experiment[3]. In it, a mixture of methane, ammonia and hydrogen, which were thought to compose the earth’s early atmosphere, were subjected to an electrical spark, simulating lightening. Over time, a few of the smallest amino acids, the basic building blocks of proteins, were formed in very low concentrations within a mixture. The truth about the experiment is that it formed a tar of numerous organic chemicals often referred to a “beilstein,” meaning a gross mixture. Beilstein is short for the largest and oldest database of organic chemicals that was first published in 1881 as Beilstein’s Handbook of Organic Chemistry. Its current electronic database can be found on line at Reaxys and contains many thousands of chemicals, thus the definition.

The conditions of the experiment are now not thought to have existed on the early earth. HDTKT? They took an “educated” guess from proxy evidence. Additionally, oxygen would have prevented many of the reactions leading to amino acids and would have destroyed many other products. However, without oxygen in the atmosphere, there would have been no ozone layer to protect the products from the destructive effects of ultraviolet rays streaming from the sun. Reaction products that were formed by lightning in the atmosphere would not be favored or exist for long enough to accumulate under such conditions. Water will also prevent or retard these reactions, and it is destructive to many products. Interfering molecules and water would have to be eliminated to create even the simplest peptide, (a short section of a protein consisting of a few amino acids linked together by eliminating one molecule of water for each link).  Excess water would result in peptide links falling apart to leave amino acids.

The few amino acids in the experiment were formed as mixtures of right and left handed molecules, but only left handed amino acids are used by living things. Going from a mixture of amino acids in low concentrations in a tar containing many compounds to proteins or larger amino acids is not so evident, nor is it evident that it led to the creation of life. Forming a few amino acids in a tar in a highly controlled experiment does not point to an accidental, spontaneous creation of life or molecular evolution. If anything, it points to a designer, not the opposite. It is a leap of faith and thus not science. It is philosophy, opinion or religion, not science based on facts.

The encouraging thing about origin of life studies is that there are still multiple schools of thought, which is a healthy situation in theoretical science. A lot of work is being done to try to determine the best solution to the problem, but the search is far from over. Even if we can discover A route from dead chemicals to living systems, we will never know if it is THE way it occurred. It is a one-time event that cannot be fully understood by science because Science is only concerned with predictable, repeatable and measurable aspects of the universe with which we can or could conceivably interact.

[1] Image from Wikipedia “Cyanobacteria” used under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license, User:Kelvinsong/Great board of biology

[2] Robert Shapiro, Planetary Dreams, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1999

[3] Urey-Miller experiment or simply Miller experiment by Stanley L. Miller directed by Harold C. Urey in 1953.

What is Life?


Composite Photo source:  Wikipedia “Animal_Diversity” in article “Animal” by permission through Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

What is life?

 We can describe the characteristics and infinitely varied forms of living things, but what exactly is life itself? In the past, it was assumed that there was a vital force present in all living things that passed down from life to life. This philosophy was called vitalism. Because it borders on the Devine, today vitalism has been replaced by the philosophy of mechanism, which states that all natural phenomena, particularly life, can ultimately be explained through physics and chemistry. The universe is thought to be merely mechanical in nature. Under this philosophy, life is just a process produced by physical laws acting on matter.

Life is assumed to be a given, like gravity, which incidentally has not been explained or understood well either. We know gravity exists and how it behaves, but really don’t understand why. There is not a single location in any creature or cell that we can point to and say, this is its life. Definitions of Life usually describe what living things consist of and what they do. They do not actually tell us what Life itself is. We can’t collect, isolate or test it, so it appears to be a transcendent quality. What exactly distinguishes a living cell from a dead one or a mixture of cellular components? Depending on the source, explanations vary from biochemical to functional.

Life only comes from life. Spontaneous generation of living things has been shown over and over to be false. Spoiled food does not beget flies or mold. Each only comes from other flies or mold spores. Life as a process requires just the right kind and amount of regulated energy and a fine balance of the right molecules and structures. Science has not been able to create life or even most biological molecules without the help of molecules first derived from living systems or those systems themselves, e.g. bacteria engineered to produce insulin. Even if all of the components of a living organism are blended in the lab in the correct proportions no life results.

What is it that assembles and winds up the machine or provides the vital spark? Science does not know.   Proponents of molecular Evolution believe that non-living molecules at least once in earth’s history spontaneously became a living system from which all subsequent life descended. They argue (and with some merit) that spontaneous generation cannot occur today because living organisms would consume any components before they would have time to accumulate and self-organize into a living system. They assume that only in the absence of life could components accumulate sufficiently to form life spontaneously from non-living components.

Never mind that the key molecules, e.g. proteins and nucleic acids, are unstable in water for the length of time that would be necessary to accumulate and assemble the correct mixture into a living system. These molecules are assembled by linking smaller molecules together with the loss of a water molecule for each link. When excess water is introduced, e.g. ocean or pond, the reactions tend to be reversed and the links fall apart. That is why proteins inside cells are constantly being assembled to replace those that have been degraded. Molecular Evolution proponents believe that production of life in the laboratory can be accomplished at some future time, although they have no evidence to support that belief. We will look at some of the more popular origin of life theories and the validity of the arguments later.

Life is a continuous process that is constantly working against forces that would end it. It has been said that Life (1) is improbable, (2) defies entropy (the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics), (3) is unstable (4) needs a constant supply of raw materials and energy to survive. Let’s look at each of these claims.


  1. Life is Improbable

Life really is improbable, partly because of the extremely low probabilities of such complex systems forming by random chance even once. It is the ultimate “Infinite Improbability Drive”[1].   Even the simplest known bacterium contains thousands of types of proteins and other unique biological molecules and structures. Metabolic processes necessary for life depend on thousands of different, specific enzymes for facilitation and regulation through feedback, etc. Enzymes are proteins made of chains of amino acids that are folded into useful shapes. If we suppose that an average enzyme is 200 amino acids long[2], using the 20 left-handed amino acids living beings use, the probability of only one specific enzyme sequence forming at random is 1 in 20200 or 1 in 10260. That’s a 1 with 260 zeros after it.

If the universe is 13.7 billion years old, there have been 4.32 x 1017 seconds since it began. We would need to make 231.4 x 10180 attempts each second since the beginning of the universe to make the random assembly of even this one specific protein plausible – that is, to make the number of attempts that are in the same ball park as the odds against it. This all pre-supposes that all of the amino acids have been pre-assembled and are readily available. Amino acids occur in left and right-handed forms, and only left-handed forms are used by living things. If we take this into account, the odds would be much higher. But remember, to form even one cell all this must happen in a very confined space so that all of the proteins and other molecules can be collected in one place, not just anywhere in the universe or even anywhere on the earth.

If we assume that life molecules were assembled on earth, which is thought to be only 4.5 billion years old, and evidence of life was present 3.8 billion years ago, then the number of attempts per second rises to even more impossible levels by a factor of about 3.4 (13.7/4 billion). And that is just for one protein enzyme assembled from readily available units, excluding interfering molecules, and under the ideal conditions for assembly and preservation. Already we are seeing the extreme odds against a specific enzyme being produced. If we look at what it would take to produce by chance the thousands of different specific enzymes necessary for metabolism, the probability of random assembly of the correct mix would be (20200)3000 for a simple bacterium with 3000 enzymes, or 1 in 10780,000; that’s a 1 with 780,000 zeros after it. The terms “impossible” and “miracle” come to mind.

Now let us look at DNA. There are four different molecules that form base pairs like the rungs on a ladder along the coiled “double helix” of DNA that encodes for proteins, etc. Bacterial DNA, whose chain forms a circle and is tightly wound around proteins, is 300,000 to 4 million base pairs in length. If we assume that a simple bacterium has DNA that is 500,000 nucleotides long, using 4 types of “bases” (two purines and two pyrimidines), the probability of forming the correct sequence is 1 in 4500,000 or 1 in 10301,030 – that’s a 1 with 301,030 zeros after it. Even this presumes that each nucleotide has already been pre-formed from one of the four readily available bases, its partner and a pair of specific phosphorylated sugar (deoxyribose) molecules that form the sides of the “ladder.”

It’s even worse than that, however, since each purine must pair with its specific pyrimidine to form each base pair[3] so double the number is needed. Now add the probabilities of assembling, in one place, the DNA and its associated proteins (histones), the thousands of enzymes and other structures like cell membranes, and it is obvious that the probability of forming even the simplest bacterium is so infinitesimally small that it can only be called either impossible or a miracle. Even if we assume that an earlier form contained a tenth or a hundredth of this number of components, it would still be called impossible or a miracle. For 1% of the components, it would be 1 in (10260)30 or 1 in 107800 (1 with 7800 zeros) for enzymes and 1 in 103010 (1 with 3010 zeros) for DNA (or RNA), plus assembly of all the other components as noted above. Over a ten thousand-fold reduction (0.001%), would be required to make it meaningful, which would leave precious few components to “live.”

One of the origin of life theories proposes that RNA, not DNA was the original control and inheritance molecule. The difference in the structures of DNA and RNA is that DNA uses the deoxy- form of ribose sugar and RNA uses ribose itself. Since DNA now transcribes instructions for protein assembly to RNA first, this theory skips this extra complexity as a more believable scenario. Presently, some viruses use RNA instead of DNA, but viruses are incapable of most life processes on their own and must take over the DNA of host cells to reproduce, etc.   They can be thought of as parasitic “seeds”, not complete organisms.

Fred Hoyle, a famous astronomer and atheist, stated that the odds of forming a living being at random from lifeless molecules would be like the chance that “a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.” Note that Fred Hoyle and N. C. Wickramasinghe estimated the odds at 1 in 1040,000 by assuming that numerous structures of enzymes could perform the same functions. That’s still pretty steep odds. Others have calculated the odds with various assumptions and outcomes, but all result in extremely small odds. Many are enthusiastic about the possibility of life or life’s building blocks arriving from outer space after being assembled by high energy processes in space. Looking at the extreme odds, pre-assembly elsewhere is like weighing a flea on the back of an elephant. It is not a real answer. Some even have speculated that a more advanced, intelligent life form seeded earth with life, but that only pushes the causes further back in time. How did life come to these advanced civilizations?

All of the extreme improbabilities above don’t even address whether life would spontaneously arise under the right conditions, if all components are available, or whether we would just have the same non-living jumble of molecules we could assemble in a laboratory. In other words, we still haven’t addressed what assembles and winds up the mechanism to start life processes. Clearly, some other unknown process or overarching principle besides random chance has been at work in both assembling the components and in turning them into something alive.


  1. Life Defies Entropy (the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics)

Entropy is a measure of the disorder of a closed system and the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that entropy always increases – that chaos always increases and usable energy always decreases. Life seems to defy entropy because life is very, very organized and uses matter to generate energy and build more and more complex structures. However, living things are never closed systems; they need material and/or energy from outside to survive, so an organism that seems to decrease entropy within itself may increase entropy of its surroundings continually. Is it enough to result in a net increase in entropy of the earth or the universe? The answer is unknown but possible. Note that this assumes that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is absolutely true in all cases, but this has not been proven either. It is a well-accepted and thoroughly tested theory and thus is a scientific law by that definition.

A planet with abundant life is far more complex and organized than a dead planet simply because the chemistry of life is far more complex and dynamic than inorganic crystalline structures. It is difficult to see how the net decrease in entropy caused by life on an isolated planet can affect any other planet, much less the universe as a whole. If the planet is considered the “closed system” then there is indeed a net decrease in entropy and a net increase in complexity, order and usable energy, e.g. fossil fuels. Of course, that also depends on your definition of order and disorder. If we define disorder as an increase in the number of states, and order as uniformity of form and function, than the dead planet is not as disordered as a planet with abundant life in all its forms and complexity of functions. However, if disorder is the rule, then the ultimate outcome of continued disordering and loss of energy is a uniform, cold, dead universe in the lowest energy and organizational state possible.


  1. Life is Unstable

Life is indeed unstable because it exists on the edge of destruction, far from equilibrium. Ordinarily, chemical reactions reach a state of lowest energy called equilibrium where they are stable. At that point the reaction stops or is stabilized dynamically where the net amount of products no longer increases and the net amount of starting materials no longer decreases. Life is never at or near equilibrium and requires input of material and energy to maintain itself in this unstable state. It can only exist under very specific physical circumstances including temperature, pH, pressure and presence or absence of oxygen. An aerobic organism requires oxygen, whereas oxygen is deadly to an anaerobic organism. The only time an organism is stable or at equilibrium is when it is dead. This brings us to (4.).


  1. Life needs a constant supply of raw materials and energy to survive

Life requires a constant or nearly constant supply of materials and energy from outside itself to survive. Ultimately, most of life on earth depends on the products of photosynthesis as a source of energy that is initially derived from the sun. The only exceptions are those living systems present in deep seas and deep interiors that derive energy from bacterial processing of inorganic chemicals such as hydrogen sulfide. In both cases, energy and material from outside the organism are necessary to maintain life.

Since no one knows what life actually is, the best we can do is define what living things must have and must do to live. All living things are more alike than different. An advertising flyer I received a few years ago from a supplier of products for biochemistry stated “Did you know that humans share about 50% of their DNA with bananas?[4]” All living things use essentially the same basic biochemical processes such as metabolism in the everyday business of living, so the DNA that encodes for the chemicals used for life processes are necessarily very similar. The differences are relatively minor compared to the similarities. The processes used to accomplish all of life’s functions at the molecular or cellular level have to be very similar for all living beings. Because the processes are so complex and similar, the surprising thing is not that the workhorse protein molecules (and thus the DNA that encodes for them) of different living things are so similar, but that they are as different as they are and still function in essentially the same way.

Living things at the minimum consume and process food, excrete waste, grow and reproduce. Some evolutionists would add “and, through natural selection, adapt in succeeding generations”[5]. Some living things also move, sense and communicate. Some can even go dormant for long periods and only “come to life” when conditions are right. This is true of many bacteria. Bacteria that had lain dormant for 120,000 years have been found under Greenland’s glaciers[6]. Once, I left a closed jar of saturated salt solution, which I had used to treat a sore throat, sitting for a month or so. When I started to throw it out, there was a fuzzy white ball of bacteria floating in the middle of it. This extremophile[7] bacteria that could grow in this high salinity environment was probably from the salt and may have been dormant for thousands of years before awakening[8]. Re-vitalization of dormant organisms is a great mystery. How can life itself be suspended and then be restarted spontaneously?   Is it really suspended or is it just slowed to an imperceptible level? But how could it survive for thousands of years?

So, we are only left with questions about what life is and how it came to be. Obviously the odds against life forming spontaneously put it into the realm of miracles, unless there is some as yet undefined and undiscovered process or principle. In a later post, we will examine some of the theories put forth to try to explain life’s origin.

[1] Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Douglass Adams, 1979. A satire in which instantaneous intergalactic travel is possible due to an infinite improbability drive.

[2] Note that the hypothetical numbers given here of amino acids, proteins and DNA nucleosides in a simple bacterium are simplified to make calculations easier.

[3] Purines Adenine (A) and Guanine (G) must pair with Pyrimidines Cytosine (C) and Thymine (T), only as A-T and G-C to form each nucleotide pair that forms each “rung” of DNA. RNA substitutes Uricil for Thymine.

[4] Sigma Life Science, part of Sigma Aldrich Company, St. Louis, MO, USA. http://www.sigmaaldrich.com

[5] Life, from Wikipedia

[6] Tiny Frozen Microbe May Hold Clues To Extraterrestrial Life, Science Daily (June 15, 2009) — “A novel bacterium — trapped more than three kilometres under glacial ice in Greenland for over 120,000 years… Dr Jennifer Loveland-Curtze and a team of scientists from Pennsylvania State University report finding the novel microbe, which they have called Herminiimonas glaciei, in the current issue of the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. The team showed great patience in coaxing the dormant microbe back to life; first incubating their samples at 2˚C for seven months and then at 5˚C for a further four and a half months, after which colonies of very small purple-brown bacteria were seen. … and it has been shown that ultramicrobacteria are dominant in many soil and marine environments.”

[7] Extremophile – bacteria that thrive in extreme conditions that would kill other organisms. They have been found in boiling hot water, under extreme pressure, at high altitudes, in sulfuric acid rich waters, in oil wells, etc. Almost no place on earth is devoid of life. It is ubiquitous.

[8] Table salt is produced in two ways, mines or evaporation of salt water, so it is uncertain if this was an ancient organism. Ponds used to evaporate sea water are often tinged purple or red by halobacteria and must be purified before sale for food products, so salt with dormant microbes was probably mined from deep underground.