http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/28-05-2008/105359-life_mars_earth-0
28.05.2008
Life on Mars could have come from Earth
By Babu G. Ranganathan
Recently, the headlines are filled with statements from NASA that soil on
Mars may contain microbial life. What if this is true after all? Would such a
discovery confirm evolutionary theory? No.
First, such a discovery would not prove that such life had evolved from
non-living matter by chance natural processes. And even if we do find evidence
of life on Mars it would have most likely have come from our very own planet -
Earth! In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which could
have easily spewed dirt containing microbes into outer space which eventually
could have reached Mars. A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12
mentions exactly this possibility.
"We think there's about 7 million tons of earth soil sitting on Mars",
says (evolutionist) Kenneth Nealson. "You have to consider the possibility that
if we find life on Mars, it could have come from the Earth" [Weingarten, T.,
Newsweek, September 21, 1998, p.12]. Furthermore, MIT scientist Dr. Walt Brown
(a creationist) in his book In The Beginning points out that during the great
Genesis flood, as recorded in the Bible, the fountains of the deep that were
let loose could have easily spewed out meteors and meteorites into space that
very well may have contained micro-organisms such as bacteria.
In the midst of all the arguments over evolution and intelligent design,
it is amazing how many in society, including the very educated, believe that
scientists had already created life in the laboratory. No such thing has ever
happened.
All that scientists have done is genetically engineer already existing
forms of life in the laboratory, and by doing this scientists have been able to
produce new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from
non-living matter. Even if scientists ever do produce life from non-living
matter it will only be through intelligent design or planning so it still
wouldn't help support any theory of life originating by chance or evolution.
Even in the case involving synthetic (artificial) life, scientists don't
actually create or produce life itself from non-living matter. What scientists
do in this case is create (by intelligent design) artificial DNA (genetic
instructions and code) which is then implanted into an already existing living
cell and, thereby, changing that cell into a new form of life. And, again, even
if scientists ever do create a whole living cell from scratch (and not just its
DNA) it still would not be by chance but by intelligent design. Synthetic life
is just another form of genetic engineering. But God was the first genetic
engineer. Remember that always!
If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A partially
evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become complete because it would
be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate in the open environment, especially
without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell membrane.
Although it has been shown that the basic building blocks of life, amino
acids, can come into existence by chance, it has never been shown that the
various amino acids can come together into a sequence by chance to form protein
molecules. If the amino acids are not in the proper sequence the protein
molecules will not function! Even the simplest cell is composed of millions of
protein molecules.
The cell seems to be irreducibly complex. For example, without DNA there
can be no RNA, and without RNA there can be no DNA. And without either DNA or
RNA there can be no proteins, and without proteins there can be no DNA or RNA.
They're all mutually dependent upon each other for existence! It could not have
gradually evolved! Evolutionists generally believe that it took one billion
years for the first life form or cell to have evolved. That belief, although
still taught as gospel in many elementary and secondary schools, cannot be
sustained by modern science.
Of course, once there is a complete and living cell then the genetic
program and biological mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells
into existence. The question is how did life come about when there was no
directing mechanism in Nature.
If humans must use intelligence to perform genetic engineering, to
meaningfully manipulate the genetic code, then what does that say about the
origin of the genetic code itself!
The great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle has said that the
probability of the sequence of molecules in the simplest cell coming into
existence by chance is equivalent to a tornado going through a junk yard of
airplane parts and assembling a 747 Jumbo Jet!
We tend to judge something as being simple or complex by its size. So
many of us assume that because the cell is microscopic in size that it must be
simple. Not so! Size is relative, but not complexity. If you were as big as the
Empire State building you would probably think that the tiny cars and
automobiles on the street were simple and could easily happen by a chance
combination of parts. However, we know that is not so.
Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe,
and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws cannot
fully explain the origin of such order.
Science cannot prove how life originated since no human observed the
origin of life by either chance or design. Observation and detection by the
human senses, either directly or indirectly through scientific instruments, is
the basis of science and for establishing proof. The issue is which position
has better scientific support. Both sides should have the opportunity to
present their case.
If some astronauts from Earth discovered figures of persons similar to
Mt. Rushmore on an uninhabited planet there would be no way to scientifically
prove the carved figures originated by design or by chance processes of
erosion. Neither position is science, but scientific arguments may be made to
support one or the other.
Many think that natural selection in nature is proof that we had evolved.
Natural selection does occur in nature. However, natural selection itself does
not produce biological variations. Natural selection can only work with
biological variations that are possible and which have survival value. It is a
passive process in nature. Natural selection is simply another way of saying
that if a biological variation occurs which is helpful to an animal or plant's
survival then that that variation will be preserved and be passed on. Of
course, nature does not do any active or conscious selecting. The term "natural
selection" is simply a figure of speech. Also, natural selection only applies
once there is life and not before. In other words, natural selection is not
involved in any pre-biotic, non-living interactions of chemicals.
Evolutionists believe that random or chance mutations in the genetic code
(caused by random environmental forces such as radiation) will produce the
favorable evolutionary changes necessary for natural selection to act upon.
However, there is no evidence that random or chance mutations in the
genetic code are capable of producing greater biological complexity (vertical
evolution) among natural species. Mutations are only capable of producing
horizontal evolution (variations within natural species). In any case, most
biological variations among natural species are due to new combinations of
already existing genes and not mutations.
Considering the enormous complexity of life, it is much more logical to
believe that the genetic and biological similarities between all species are
due to a common Designer rather than common evolutionary ancestry. It is only
logical that the great Designer would design similar functions for similar
purposes and different functions for different purposes in all of the various
forms of life.
All of this simply means that real science supports faith in God. Science
cannot prove that we are here by chance (evolution) or by design (creation).
However, the scientific evidence can be used to support one or the other. It is
only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design be presented to students
alongside of evolutionary theory, especially in public schools which receive
funding from taxpayers who are on both sides of the issue. Also, no one is
being forced to believe in God or adopt a particular religion so there is no
true violation of separation of church and state. As a religion and science
writer, I encourage all to read my Internet article "The Natural Limits of
Evolution" at my website www.religionscience.com for more in-depth study of the
issue.
*Some other Internet articles by the author are: "Why The Traditional
View of Hell Is Not Biblical", "Early Christianity Before The Papacy", "Free
Will and Sovereign Grace", "Christ Was Begotten, Not Created", "Artificial Life
By Intelligent Design", "Any Life On Mars Came From Earth!", "Creationists
Right On Entropy, Evolution", "Are There Natural Limits To Evolution?", "Where
Are All The Half-Evolved Dinosaurs?". The most up-to-date versions of these and
other articles may be accessed at: Babu G. Ranganathan's Articles.
The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, is an experienced Christian writer. Mr.
Ranganathan has his B.A. with academic concentrations in Bible and Biology from
Bob Jones University. As a religion and science writer he has been recognized
in the 24th edition of Marquis Who's Who In The East. The author's articles
have been published in various publications including Russia's Pravda and South
Korea's The Seoul Times. The author's website may be accessed at:
www.religionscience.com .
