Releasing the Truth

Digging for knowledge…

Tag Archives: evolution

J. G. Mendel: Why his discoveries were ignored for 35 (72) years?


Some critical comments about the effects of Darwinism on Biological Research by Pioneers of Genetics as well as further Biologists and Historians of Biology.

Especially in the decade after the publication of Darwin’s ORIGIN (1859) the scientific world was eagerly awaiting the discovery of the laws of heredity by some experimental or other scientist(s). After two lectures in 1865, Mendel published his famous Pisum-treatise VERSUCHE ÜBER PFLANZEN-HYBRIDEN in 1866. His work was quoted at least 14 times before 1900, the year of its ‘rediscovery’. There were references in such widely distributed works as Focke’s DIE PFLANZEN-MISCHLINGE (1881), THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA (1881) and the CATALOGUE OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY (1879).The treatise had been sent to the libraries of some 120 institutions including the Royal and Linnean Society of Great Britain. Moreover Mendel had 40 additional reprints at his disposal, many of which he sent to leading biologists of Europe. In fact, professor Niessl (1903 and 1906) emphasized that Mendel’s work was “well known” at his time. So in the face of the expectations just mentioned, – why was the discovery of the laws of heredity ignored by most scientists for more than 35 years, until 1900, and by the “true Darwinians” (Mayr) for another 37 years? That is 72 years in all!

The reasons have been hinted at or clearly stated by several pioneers of genetics as de Vries (1901), Bateson (1904, 1909, 1924), Johannsen (1909, 1926) as well as several historians of biology and/or biologists as Niessl (1903, 1906), Richter (1941, 1943), Stern (1962), Lönnig (1982, 1986, 1995), Callender (1988) and Bishop (1996):

All the evidence points to the main reason as follows: Mendel’s ideas on heredity and evolution were diametrically opposed to those of Darwin and his followers. Darwin believed in the inheritance of acquired characters (and tried to back up his ideas with his pangenesis hypothesis, which even Stebbins called an “unfortunate anomaly”) and, most important of course, continuous evolution. Mendel, in contrast, rejected both, the inheritance of acquired characters as well as evolution. The laws discovered by him were understood to be the laws of constant elements for a great but finite variation, not only for culture varieties but also for species in the wild (Mendel 1866, pp. 36, 46, 47). In his short treatise EXPERIMENTS IN PLANT HYBRIDIZATION mentioned above Mendel incessantly speaks of “constant characters”, “constant offspring”, “constant combinations”, “constant forms”, “constant law”, “a constant species” etc. (in such combinations the adjective “constant” occurs altogether 67 times in the German original paper). He was convinced that the laws of heredity he had discovered corroborated Gärtner’s conclusion “that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change”. And as Dobzhansky aptly put it: “It is…not a paradox to say that if some one should succeed in inventing a universally applicable, static definition of species, he would cast serious doubts on the validity of the theory of evolution”.

As the Darwinians won the battle for the minds in the 19th century, there was no space left in the next decades for the acceptance of the true scientific laws of heredity discovered by Mendel and further genetical work was continued mainly by Darwin’s critics among the scientists. In agreement with de Vries, Tschermak-Seysenegg, Johannsen, Nilsson, et al., Bateson stated (1909, pp. 2/3):

“With the triumph of the evolutionary idea, curiosity as to the significance of specific differences was satisfied. The Origin was published in 1859. During the following decade, while the new views were on trial, the experimental breeders continued their work, but before 1870 the field was practically abandoned.

In all that concerns the species the next thirty years are marked by the apathy characteristic of an age of faith. Evolution became the exercising-ground of essayists. The number indeed of naturalists increased tenfold, but their activities were directed elsewhere. Darwin’s achievement so far exceeded anything that was thought possible before, that what should have been hailed as a long-expected beginning was taken for the completed work. I well remember receiving from one of the most earnest of my seniors the friendly warning that it was waste of time to study variation, for “Darwin had swept the field“” (emphasis added).

The general acceptance of Darwin’s theory of evolution and his ideas regarding variation and the inheritance of acquired characters are, in fact, the main reasons for the neglect of Mendel’s work, which – in clear opposition to Darwin – pointed to an entirely different understanding of the questions involved (see above).

However, the idea of Bishop (1996) and Di Trocchio (1991) as to Mendel that “most of the experiments described in Versuche are to be considered fictitious” or “…we are today forced by a series of anomalies and incongruities to admit that Mendel’s account of his experiments is neither truthful nor scientifically likely, and that the strategy he really followed must have been completely different” (Di Trocchio 1991, p.487 and p. 491, emphasis added) is in my opinion for several reasons untenable. (1) It does not match Mendel’s character which is distinguished by humility, extreme modesty and accuracy in handling things. (2) Too much is known about his life, work and correspondence to simply deny the existence of the work he has described (see the publications of Orel, Stern, Weiling and many others). (3) Fisher’s claims of fraud in Mendel’s data have already been disproved by several geneticists and historians of biology (Lamprecht 1968, Pilgrim 1986, Weiling 1995, Vollmann and Ruckenbauer 1997, and many other authors, see below). Working with Pisum for 7 years, I myself have found very similar data for several characters as Mendel had. In an answer to Edward, Ira Pilgrim commented (1986, p. 138): “…one had better have a good deal more evidence (such as a set of loaded dice or perhaps the information that the man is a known cheat) before accusing someone of cheating, which is what Fisher did to Mendel, and those who cite Fisher are doing now.”

On the other hand, if not only the accusations of Fisher but also those of Di Trocchio and Bishop were true, they would make Mendel’s work one of the greatest hoaxes in the whole history of science (“he counted 19,959 individuals” etc., Zirkle) – and at the same time the most ingenious fiction ever produced: an invention hitting directly upon the truth of the laws of heredity with many basic repercussions on nearly all biological and medical areas and our understanding of the living world. However, as long as there are no real foundations for these suspicions and as long as no convincing proofs can be advanced, – proofs which could stand the test of any honest court trial, the accusations fall back on those who produce them: fiction, invention and/or lies in the minds of the inventors (according to A. Kohn, Mendel belongs to the “false prophets”, M. Gardner states that “even Brother Mendel lied” (emphasis added) and V. Orel (1996, p. 207) lists further such examples).

The more I ponder and test the accusations regarding Mendel’s works, the more improbable and absurd the accusations appear to me, and the question comes to my mind: Could it be that now – after the creation position of a scientific giant like Mendel has become clear to so many observers – these accusations are the last resort of a more or less unconscious method of evolutionary philosophy to discredit Mendel and his work after all? 

Hubert Markl comments on the accusations of dishonesty against some renowned scientists (1998, p. VII): “Even if Galilei, Newton or Mendel had cheated when presenting the reasons and evidence for the natural laws they had discovered, that which they had recognized as being true, is nevertheless true, because it was found to be right in multiple tests” (see the original German sentence in the next chapter).

Although this is in principle correct, – being deeply impressed by another study of Mendel’s VERSUCHE ÜBER PFLANZEN-HYBRIDEN (1866), – concerning Mendel I think that this comment is unnecessary (as for Galilei and Newton, I do not want to give an opinion here). I presume the proof for the authenticity and precision of Mendel’s work is to be found in – among other things – the paragraph concerning the seventh of the characters studied by Mendel. He writes (p. 11) [English Version according to]:

“With regard to this last character it must be stated that the longer of the two parental stems is usually exceeded by the hybrid, a fact which is possibly only attributable to the greater luxuriance which appears in all parts of plants when stems of very different lengths are crossed. Thus, for instance, in repeated experiments, stems of 1 ft. and 6 ft. in length yielded without exception hybrids which varied in length between 6 ft. and 7 [and] 1/2 ft.”

Thus, in this paragraph Mendel clearly describes a case of heterosis, hybrid vigour, over- or superdominance (as the phenomenon was later named from 1914 [heterosis] onward) (as for the history of the term, the genetical basis of the phenomenon and further examples, see Lönnig 1980:Heterosis bei Pisum sativumL.). Moreover, Mendel describes a second case of heterosis when continuing (pp. 11/12):

“T h e    h y b r i d    s e e d s    in the experiments with seed-coat are often more spotted, and the spots sometimes coalesce into small bluish-violet patches. The spotting also frequently appears even when it is absent as a parental character” (spaced by Mendel).

Without a theoretical basis (which is still controversial for many cases of heterosis even in our age of molecular biology) and in the absence of any experiments, it is not possible to simply ‘invent’ such unexpected phenomena of science. Rather one must “stumble over” such totally unaccustomed and unpredictable curiosities of nature to report them to an amazed audience. Dominance in all of the characters Mendel described was already astonishing enough, but the two cases of overdominance (heterosis, superdominance) represent strong evidence that Mendel had exactly done what he described. (Mendel’s explanation of the superdominant plant length found, “which is possibly only attributable to the greater luxuriance which appears in all parts of plants when stems of very different lengths are crossed” is hardly more than a tautology [here a more inclusive restatement of the phenomenon to be explained: it does not answer the question why the greater luxuriance occurs in all plant parts, of which the unusual plant length is an ingredient]. Mendel’s statement shows that he was really at a loss for any theoretical/genetical answer for the heterosis-phenomenon he had encountered and precisely described.)

One could, perhaps, object that the phenomenon of hybrid vigour had been mentioned before Mendel. However, to describe heterosis for definite characters and organs in definite sizes and quantities in definite species and culture varieties (and all that without any knowledge of the genetical and/or molecular basis of the phenomena reported), so that the experiments not only appear unlikely (in fact, unlikely!), but also prove to be entirely reproducible and true – without really having made them at all – is so improbable that we can confidently forget this objection.

Concerning Mendel’s paper, I agree on the scientific level with Mayr and Stern. Curt Stern stated (1966, p. v): “Gregor Mendel’s short treatise, ‘Experiments on Plant Hybrids’ is one of the triumphs of the human mind. It does not simply announce the discovery of important facts by new methods of observation. Rather, in an act of highest creativity, it presents these facts in a conceptual scheme which gives them general meaning. Mendel’s paper is not solely a historical document. It remains alive as a supreme example of scientific experimentation and profound penetration of data” (Stern and Sherwood 1966). Mayr concurs (1982, p. 726) that by this comment Stern has “so well” characterized Mendel’s achievement.

Hello, living fossil!

Reading many textbooks, mainstream articles, we are presented reports of absurdly long ages, “ancient”, “primitive” animals and plants depicted as the predecessors of the present, “modern” ones… Dinosaurs, trilobites and numberless others extinct species are alleged to have lived in Earth dozens of millions years ago. But, how can they be so sure of these “facts”? What if the dating methods aren’t accurate, and all they do is making use of untested speculations? It’s defended that, giving millions of years, complex, functional and fit features can spontaneously appear in organisms…

It’s also said the human evolved from ancient primates a “mere” million years ago, that means: in so few (evolutionary) time we evolved our wonderful anatomy (i.e., been able to walk upright, skilled hands with thumbs to handle stuffs, etc), speaking ability, amazing brain, consciousness, complex languages, etc! This is quite improbable and contradictory, even more after noticing the following species, called “living-fossils”.

“A living fossil is a living species (or clade) of organism which appears to be the same as a species otherwise only known from fossils and which has no close living relatives. These species have all survived major extinction events, and generally retain low taxonomic diversities.” Wikipedia

Beginning with a classic, the coelacanth:

Coelacanths are a part of the clade Sarcopterygii, or the lobe-finned fishes. Externally, there are several characteristics that distinguish the coelacanth from other lobe-finned fish. They possess a three-lobed caudal fin, also called a trilobate fin or a diphycercal tail.

Claimed to be extinct since the Cretaceous period (145 ± 4 to 66 million years (Ma) ago), found only in fossils… Well, until 1938! In that year fishermen off the coast of Madagascar hauled a live coelacanth to the surface in their nets!

Marjorie Courtenay-Latimer, who alerted the scientific community to the find, with the 1938 specimen.

Marjorie Courtenay-Latimer, who alerted the scientific community to the find, with the 1938 specimen.

Any difference to its grandpa?


Explanations for this lack of “evolution”?

“The reason for this lower substitution rate is still unknown, although a static habitat and a lack of predation over evolutionary timescales could be contributing factors to a lower need for adaptation.” (Nature)

If you have predators chasing you, surely you’ll evolve new features quickly, right?

To make things weirder, Wikipedia states:

“They follow the oldest known living lineage of Sarcopterygii (lobe-finned fish and tetrapods), which means they are more closely related to lungfishreptiles and mammals than to the common ray-finned fishes.

A BBC article reiterates this sarcopterygii-mammal kinship:

“This class of fish was ancestral to all of the four-legged vertebrates: amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals.” (BBC Nature)

If 400 million years (ncbi) hasn’t caused a change at all in the coelacanth, how much  time would thus be needed to turn it into a human?

Since 1938 others coelacanths have been caught, not just off the African and Madagascan coastlines, but also in Indonesian waters. It’s weird to see no sign of mutation, evolution after so many time! Maybe a fish is a lot complex, thus, demanding even more time to turn into something else! What about something smaller, huh, a mite to begin with; surely, such a small and “simple” creature could have changed a lot after millions of years:

Gracilidris ant

This Gracilidris specimen caught on amber is alleged to have lived in  the upper Oligocene or lower Miocene (15-20 million years ago), and surely, being a small creature with few chromosomes, it has modified a lot after that time, right? Not!

What about a 100-million years old spider?

No new (nor outdated, ancient, “vestigial”) feature over again..

The examples of living fossils with zero sign of evolution are endless:

Nautilus (500 million years old):

Tuatara (spine-bearer, in Maori idiom) (around 200 million years ago):



Tuataras are reptiles, yet retain more primitive characteristics than lizards and snakes.” says a Wikipedia article, however, only because of its resembling ancient look, such as a spiny crest along the back, its dentition, in which two rows of teeth in the upper jaw overlap one row on the lower jaw, unique among living species, and some features in its skeleton, which is said to be “apparently evolutionarily retained from fish” . Nonetheless, how can the tuatara be primitive and at the same time having such a magnificent, complex characteristics: 

“The eyes can focus independently, and are specialized with a duplex retina that contains two types of visual cells for both day and night vision, and a tapetum lucidum which reflects onto the retina to enhance vision in the dark. There is also a third eyelid on each eye, the nictitating membrane.”

A characteristic which tuataras share with lizards is an eye on the top of their heads. This third or pineal eye however is better developed in the tuataras than in other living creatures. It is visible in young animals as a translucent scale, but as they age it becomes covered with normal skin. Underneath lie a lens, a retina and a nerve which passes through a hole in the top of the skull to the brain. As the structure lacks an iris it may simply be sensitive to light, for these animals are for the most part nocturnal, or active at night. SOme say it may be useful in absorbing ultraviolet rays to manufacture vitamin D,[7] as well as to determine light/dark cycles, and help with thermoregulation.[13]

It’s interesting that they are endangered with risk of extinction, both European and New Zealand varieties.  It was the tuataras’ difficulties in competing with mammals like rats, for example, that ended in the elimination of the tuatara from the larger New Zealand islands. So, it boggles our mind with the question: how could such “unfit” animal survive that long, whereas creatures like dinosaurs, megalodon, predator X and other much more able creatures come into extinction?

“That is one of the big mysteries about biodiversity….Why these evolutionary losers are still around is a very hard thing to explain. They have been drawing inside straights for hundreds of millions of years. It’s a real mystery to biologists how there can be any tuataras, given their low rate of speciation.”

[Alfaro, M. E. et al. Nine exceptional radiations plus high turnover explain species diversity in jawed vertebrates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Published online before print July 24, 2009.]

Ginkgo Biloba (170 million-year old)


Any difference here?

Echidna (supposedly split from Platypuses 115 million years ago)


Weird animal which belongs to the monotreme order of egg-laying mammals, along with platypus! The fact that it lays eggs has been used by scholars as evidence of mammal’s evolutionary past, allegedly evolved out of reptiles. But there’s no fossil evidence showing any gradual modification, no reptile-like ancestor, nothing! Another strange characteristic of echidna is the presence of a non-venomous spur on the hind feet of males. Also, there’s  no sign that they are in transition phase, “evolving” into a new form, species, they were just born this way.


Hoatzin (24-48 mya):



This bird lives in South America forests. It’s considered a living fossil merely because it has an uncommon feature: The newly hatched bird has claws on its thumb and first finger and so is enabled to climb on the branches of trees with great dexterity! When it reaches the adulthood, however, the claws are gone.


Young Hoatzin climbing the tree with its claws


Crocodiles (83.5 mya):



Well, 83.5 millions years old, but no single feather has appeared…


Horseshoe crab (450 mya):



450 million years later… It absolutely remained the same fashion. It’s worth note that the horseshoe crab has a wonderful immunologic system which responds to any bacterial infection much faster than that of vertebrates! No wonder Dr. Norman Wainwright (immunologist at the  Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL) in Woods Hole, USA), said, ‘One of the reasons the horseshoe crab has survived for so long is its advanced immune system’ (ABCNews)

Researchers at MBL are using one species, called Limulus polyphemus, to develop a test for bacteria. Bacterial cell walls contain distinctive LPS molecules (lipopolysaccharides, molecules containing sugar units and a fat). These trigger a cascade of enzyme reactions in horseshoe crab blood that attack the bacterial proteins and culminate in the production of a protein called fibrin. This clots the crab’s blood and, in the wild, would effectively seal a wound. (CMI)

So it turns out that this “primitive” creature has a much more efficient system than the “advanced” vertebrates?

There are much more examples of these living fossils, none of them showing any slight sign of evolution; we have insects, invertebrates with advanced eyes, such as the trilobites, dragonflies, etc, dated to million of years. Meanwhile, in a few million years, however, this astounding evolution occurred:



Well, this reminds me of a famous quote:

“Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” (Theodosius Dobzhansky)

Human DNA less diversified than that of chimps: evidence for Noah’s flood?



In recent years, researchers have discovered that the DNA of humans, even among (geographically) distant ethnics, such as native Americans and Chinese people, or Europeans, it’s much less genetically varied than the genes of chimps living in a same group! How could this be? The evidences points to the occurrence of a “bottleneck”, i.e., when a population undergoes a near-extinction event, and as such, loses most of its individuals.  The following are excepts of some articles relating to this fact (of course, with a lot of evolutionary wishful thinking and nonsensical dates permeating the texts) :


Pascal Gagneux, an biologist at the University of California at San Diego, and other members of a research team studied genetic variability among humans and our closest living relatives, the great apes of Africa.  
     Humanoids are believed to have split off from chimpanzees about 5 million to 6 million years ago. With the passage of all that time, humans should have grown at least as genetically diverse as our cousins. That turns out to be not true.  
     We actually found that one single group of 55 chimpanzees in west Africa has twice the genetic variability of all humans, Gagneux says. In other words, chimps who live in the same little group on the Ivory Coast are genetically more different from each other than you are from any human anywhere on the planet.

“The family tree shows that the human branch has been pruned,” Gagneux says. “Our ancestors lost much of their original variability.” 
     “That makes perfectly good sense,” says Bernard Wood, the Henry R. Luce Professor of Human Origins at George Washington University and an expert on human evolution. 
     “The amount of genetic variation that has accumulated in humans is just nowhere near compatible with the age” of the species, Wood says. “That means you’ve got to come up with a hypothesis for an event that wiped out the vast majority of that variation.” 
     The most plausible explanation, he adds, is that at least once in our past, something caused the human population to drop drastically. When or how often that may have happened is anybody’s guess. Possible culprits include disease, environmental disaster and conflict.  

“The evidence would suggest that we came within a cigarette paper’s thickness of becoming extinct,” Wood says.

They compared the DNA variability of apes and chimps to that of 1,070 DNA sequences collected by other researchers from humans around the world. They also added the DNA from a bone of a Neanderthal in a German museum. The results, the researchers say, are very convincing. 
     “We show that these taxa [or species] have very different amounts and patterns of genetic variation, with humans being the least variable,” they state. 
     Yet humans have prevailed, even though low genetic variability leaves us more susceptible to disease. (Why? What’s wrong with the story of evolution; mutations and natural selection bringing forth new genetic information out of thin air?)


Another article, from the Oxford University website, reiterates the substantial genetic variety among chimps:


Common chimpanzees in equatorial Africa have long been recognized as falling into three distinct populations or sub-species: western, central and eastern chimpanzees. A fourth group, the Cameroonian chimpanzee, has been proposed to live in southern Nigeria and western Cameroon, but there has been considerable controversy as to whether it constitutes a distinct group.

Oxford University researchers, along with scientists from the University of Cambridge, the Broad Institute, the Centre Pasteur du Cameroun and the Biomedical Primate Research Centre, examined DNA from 54 chimpanzees. They compared the DNA at 818 positions across the genome that varied between individuals.

Their analysis showed that Cameroonian chimpanzees are distinct from the other, well-established groups.

Dr Rory Bowden from the Department of Statistics at Oxford University, who led the study, said: ‘These findings have important consequences for conservation.[…] The fact that all four recognized populations of chimpanzees are genetically distinct emphasizes the value of conserving them independently.’ (Again, what’s wrong with evolution giving rise to new genetic content ex-nihilo?) 

The researchers also contrasted the levels of genetic variation between the chimpanzee groups with that seen in humans from different populations.

Surprisingly, even though all the chimpanzees live in relatively close proximity, chimpanzees from different populations were substantially more different genetically than humans living on different continents. That is despite the fact that the habitats of two of the groups are separated only by a river.


‘That chimpanzees from habitats in the same country, separated only by a river, are more distinct than humans from different continents is really interesting. It speaks to the great genetic similarities between human populations, and to much more stability and less interbreeding over hundreds of thousands of years in the chimpanzee groups.’ (When something damages their accepted theory, they use attenuating terms such as “very, really interesting”)


And a lot more articles talk about this intriguing fact, and of course, about the supposed catastrophic event which caused the bottleneck, such as a volcano eruption or asteroid impact, 70.000 years ago:


There is one near-extinction event that is fairly well-known, although it remains controversial. Roughly 70,000 years ago, give or take a few thousand years, an enormous eruption occurred in what is now Sumatra, leaving behind Lake Toba). The eruption coincides with a population bottleneck that is often cited as the reason for the relatively low genetic diversity across Homo sapiens sapiens. Research suggests as few as 2,000 humans were left alive by the eruption and its aftereffects.

A recent paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found another population bottleneck much farther back in human history. Genetic studies found that 1.2 million years ago there were as few as 55,000 members of genus Homo, including pre-human hominids like Homo erectus and Homo ergaster. This one is interesting because we don’t have solid evidence of a catastrophic event during that period, so we’re not sure what might have caused the population crash or where to look for more evidence.

The really interesting thing about a population bottleneck is the effect it has on evolution. With a small population, mutations get passed through a very large percentage of the species’ members. Detrimental mutations could be devastating and lead to outright extinction. (Why are they afraid of mutations? They (the mutations) have allegedly caused the origin of millions of perfectly fit species, countless features, limbs, organs…)

“When humans faced extinction.” BBC News.

“Humans Might Have Faced Extinction.” Scientific American.


Others say that the bottleneck event occurred in the Pleistocene era:

It is our conclusion that, at the moment, genetic data cannot disprove a simple model of exponential population growth following a bottleneck 2 MYA at the origin of our lineage and extending through the Pleistocene. Archaeological and paleontological data indicate that this model is too oversimplified to be an accurate reflection of detailed population history, and therefore we find that genetic data lack the resolution to validly reflect many details of Pleistocene human population change. However, there is one detail that these data are sufficient to address. Both genetic and anthropological data are incompatible with the hypothesis of a recent population size bottleneck. Such an event would be expected to leave a significant mark across numerous genetic loci and observable anatomical traits, but while some subsets of data are compatible with a recent population size bottleneck, there is no consistently expressed effect that can be found across the range where it should appear, and this absence disproves the hypothesis.


Okay, it’s a fact that humans has undergone a period on which they were almost vanished from Earth. And this has caused the current small genetic diversity. So, why can’t we conceive the idea of a global flood? Surely a flood explains it quite well, and also explains some amazing fossils found, depicting unusual scenes:










Ichthyosaur Giving Birth





Those scenes, and delicate physical details can only be explained by a rapid burial, because organisms are quickly decomposed in nature…

Any other suggestion other than a flood?

Oh, homochirality…

Naturalistic theories have many insurmountable problems, dilemmas, if not for their anti-theistic commitment, many brilliant, renowned persons would never bother to conceive such a stupid wishful thinking, because the odds for a mere protein to form itself without intelligent influence are astronomical, in fact, impossible! Read now some scientific facts against the homochirality to happen by chance.

An organism is composed of countless molecules, the “building blocks” of life. Nearly all biological polymers must be homochiral (all its component monomers having the same handedness. Another term used is optically pure or 100 % optically active) to function. All amino acids in proteins are ‘left-handed’, while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are ‘right-handed’. Whether or not a molecule or crystal is chiral is determined by its symmetry. A molecule is achiral (non-chiral) if and only if it has an axis of improper rotation, that is, an n-fold rotation (rotation by 360°/n) followed by a reflection in the plane perpendicular to this axis maps the molecule on to itself. Thus a molecule is chiral if and only if it lacks such an axis.

A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture. Racemic polypeptides could not form the specific shapes required for enzymes, because they would have the side chains sticking out randomly. Also, a wrong-handed amino acid disrupts the stabilizing α-helix in proteins. DNA could not be stabilised in a helix if even a single wrong-handed monomer were present, so it could not form long chains. This means it could not store much information, so it could not support life.

To begin with, it’s a well known FACT that homochiral molecules are never found outside a cell (except, of course, in labs, under the human, therefore intelligent,  manipulation). Why? Laws of physics, dear!

consequence of the Laws of Thermodynamics. The left and right handed forms have identical free energy (G), so the free energy difference (ΔG) is zero. The equilibrium constant for any reaction (K) is the equilibrium ratio of the concentration of products to reactants. The relationship between these quantities at any Kelvin temperature (T) is given by the standard equation:

K = exp (–ΔG/RT)

where R is the universal gas constant (= Avogadro’s number x Boltzmann’s constant k) = 8.314 J/K.mol.

For the reaction of changing left-handed to right-handed amino acids (L → R), or the reverse (R → L), ΔG = 0, so K = 1. That is, the reaction reaches equilibrium when the concentrations of R and L are equal; that is, a racemate is produced. A famous textbook correctly stated:

‘Synthesis of chiral compounds from achiral reagents always yields the racemic modification.’ and ‘Optically inactive reagents yield optically inactive products.’ (Morrison, R.T. and Boyd, R.N., 1987. Organic Chemistry, 5th ed. Allyn & Bacon Inc. p.150)

It also states:

‘We eat optically active bread & meat, live in houses, wear clothes, and read books made of optically active cellulose. The proteins that make up our muscles, the glycogen in our liver and blood, the enzymes and hormones … are all optically active. Naturally occurring substances are optically active because the enzymes which bring about their formation … are optically active. As to the origin of the optically active enzymes, we can only speculate’

Nonetheless, they (the naturalists) are “sure” of the casual origin of everything… They just can’t explain HOW could it happen, nor can they show the farthest, slightest evidence of the nothingness creating things that violate its laws, such as homochirality! English biologist John Maddox called it “an intellectual thunderbolt that natural proteins should contain only the left-handed forms of the amino acids.”. But it was not for the lack of efforts and guesswork. The famous Oparin once went on to say:

“The probability of the formation of one antipode or the other is therefore the same. As the law of averages applies to chemical reactions the appearance of an excess of one antipode is very improbable, and, in fact, we never encounter it under the conditions of non-living nature and in laboratory syntheses . . . .
In living organisms, on the contrary, the amino acids of which naturally occurring proteins are made always have the left-handed configuration. . . . This ability of protoplasm selectively to synthesize and accumulate one antipode alone is called the asymmetry of living material. It is a characteristic feature of all organisms without exception but is absent from inanimate nature. 

Pasteur pointed out this fact as follows: “This great character is, perhaps, the only sharp dividing line which we can draw at present between the chemistry of dead and living nature.”” (A. I. Oparin, Life, Its Nature, Origin and Development (New York: Academic Press, 1961), pp. 59, 60)

Ever since, many theories were proposed, in an effort to solve this unbelievable puzzle, but they have all failed, as we’re going to see some now.

How can we separate the left from the right?

It’s not that simple! First of all, you need of intelligence behind the process… To resolve a racemate, another homochiral substance must be introduced. The procedure is explained in any organic chemistry textbook. The idea is that right-handed and left-handed substances have identical properties, except when interacting with other chiral phenomena. The analogy is that our left and right hands grip an achiral (non-chiral) object like a baseball bat equally, but they fit differently into a chiral object like a left-handed glove. Thus to resolve a racemate, an organic chemist will usually use a ready-made homochiral substance from a living organism.

However, this does not solve the mystery of where the optical activity in living organisms came from in the first place. An world conference on ‘The Origin of Homochirality and Life’ made it clear that the origin of this handedness is a complete mystery to evolutionists (Cohen, J., 1995. Science, 267:1265–1266). The probability of forming one homochiral polymer of N monomers by chance = 2–N. For a small protein of 100 amino acids, this probability = 2–100 = 10–30. Note, this is the probability of any homochiral polypeptide. The probability of forming a functional homochiral polymer is much lower, since a precise amino acid sequence is required in many places.

A further problem is that homochiral biological substances racemize in time. This is the basis of the amino acid racemization dating method. Its main proponent is Jeffrey Bada of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California(Bada, J.L., Luyendyk, B.P. and Maynard, J.B., 1970. Science, 170:730–732). As a dating method, it is not very reliable, since the racemization rate is strongly dependent on temperature and pH, and depends on the particular amino acid (Gish, D.T., 1975.  Impact series #23, ICR). Racemization is also a big problem during peptide synthesis and hydrolysis. It shows that the tendency of undirected chemistry is towards death, not life.

Beta decay and the weak force

β-decay is one form of radioactive decay, and it is governed by one of the four fundamental forces of nature, the weak force. This force has a slight handedness, called parity violation, so some theorists thought β-decay could account for the chirality in living organisms. However, the weak force is aptly named—the effect is minuscule—a long way from producing the required 100 % homochirality. One specialist in the chirality problem, organic chemist William Bonner, professor emeritus at Stanford University, said, ‘none of this work has yielded convincing conclusions’. Another researcher concluded:

‘the exceptional prebiotic conditions required do not favour asymmetric β-radiolysis as the selector of the exclusive signature of optical activity in living nature.’

Another aspect of parity violation is that the L-amino acids and D-sugars have a theoretically slightly lower energy than their enantiomers so are slightly more stable. But the energy difference is immeasurable—only about 10–17 kT, meaning that there would be only one excess L-enantiomer for every 6×1017 molecules of a racemic mixture of amino acids.

Homochiral template

Some have proposed that a homochiral polymer arose by chance and acted as a template. However, this ran into severe problems. A template of 100 % right-handed poly-C (RNA containing only cytosine monomers) was made (by intelligent chemists!). This could direct the oligomerisation (formation of small chains) of (activated) G (guanine) nucleotides. Indeed, pure right-handed G was oligomerised much more efficiently than pure left-handed G. But racemic G did not oligomerise, because:

‘monomers of opposite handedness to the template are incorporated as chain terminators … This inhibition raises an important problem for many theories of the origin of life.’ (Joyce, G.F., Visser, G.M., van Boeckel, C.A.A., van Boom, J.H., Orgel, L.E. and van Westrenen, J., 1984. Nature, 310:602–4)

Do you like probabilities? Let’s see what Dr. Harold J. Morowitz of Yale University has found on his extensive research for discovering the theoretical limits for the simplest free-living thing which could duplicate itself.

“He took into consideration the minimum operating equipment needed and the space it would require. Also, attention was given to electrical properties and to the hazards of thermal motion. From these important studies, the conclusion is that the smallest such theoretical entity would require 239 or more individual protein molecules.
This is not very much simpler than the smallest actually known autonomous living organism, which is the minuscule, bacteria-like Mycoplasma hominis H39. It has around 600 different kinds of proteins. From present scientific knowledge, there is no reason to believe that anything smaller ever existed. We will, however, use the lesser total of 239 protein molecules from Morowitz’ theoretical minimal cell, which comprise 124 different kinds. 
It was noted earlier that there obviously can be no natural selection if there is no way to duplicate all of the necessary parts. In order to account for the left-handed phenomenon, chance alone, unaided by natural selection, would have to arrange at least one complete set of 239 proteins with all-left-handed amino acids of the universal 20 kinds. There is reason to believe that all 20 of these were in use from the time of life’s origin.
Using figures that were furnished by Morowitz, it can be calculated that the average protein molecule in the theoretical minimal living thing would contain around 445 amino acid units of the usual 20 kinds. One of the 20 types of amino acids, glycine, cannot be left- or right-handed, because its “side chain” is not really a chain, but merely a hydrogen atom like the one opposite it. It can be presumed that this minimal theoretical cell would in many ways resemble bacteria in its make-up. In some bacteria, glycine accounts for just over 8 percent of the total amino acid molecules, so we will estimate that in the average protein of the minimal cell, there will be 35 glycine units in the chain. That will leave 410 of the total 445 which could be either left- or right-handed.

If amino acids had been formed naturally in the “primitive” atmosphere, they would have occurred in statistically equal amounts of the left- and right-handed isomers. This became clear from experiments described in the preceding chapter. That means, then, that if a protein chain is to form by random linkups, all 410 of the nonglycine sites could be occupied with equal ease by either L- or D-type amino acids.
The first one has a 1 out of 2 chance of being left-handed. The same is true for each of the other 409. Since we are now figuring this at equal probability for either hand, the probability at anyone site is not affected by the amino acid before that one in the chain.
To calculate the probability in such a case, the formula to use is the multiplication rule, the heart of probability theory. Mathematician Darrell Huff said it thus: “To find the probability of getting all of several different things, multiply together the chances of getting each one.”
To get the probability of all 410 of the isomeric or handed amino acids of just one protein chain, we must multiply the 1/2 probability which is the case for each position in the chain. It is like flipping a coin 410 times, hoping to get all heads. For each step, there is 1 chance in 2, so we must multiply the 2 by itself (2 x 2 x 2 x . . . x 2). using the figure 410 times. That is 1 chance in 2410. (The exponent means: Multiply together 410 two’s.)
It will be easier to work with this figure if we translate it
to powers of 10 instead of powers of 2. As you know, multiplying 10 by itself is just adding another zero. The equivalent of 2410 is roughly 10123.

The probability that an average-size protein molecule of the smallest theoretically possible living thing would happen to contain only left-handed amino acids is, therefore, 1 in 10123, on the average.
That is a rather discouraging chance. To get the feel of that number, let’s look at it with all the 123 zeros: There is, on the average, 1 chance in –
that all of the amino acids of a particular protein molecule would be left-handed!” (creationsafaris)

Well, it’s a bit annoying when atheists, materialistic people claim to live completely exempt of faith, after seeing these frightening numbers against them!

“Life on Earth is made of “left-handed amino acids (L-amino acids)”. The question of why organisms on Earth consist of L-amino acids instead of D-amino acids or consist of D-sugar instead of L-sugar is still an unresolved riddle. In other words, a major mystery of life on Earth is that organisms are exclusively made up of left-handed amino acids. Therefore, the effort to solve this problem is one of the biggest in research into the origins of life, a subject that remains enveloped in mystery. “ (PhysOrg)



God bless you all!

%d bloggers like this: