Laying bricks at an angle hexagonal foundation. DIY brickwork

Another Desperate Try: The Fox Experiment

Challenged by the above dilemma, evolutionists began to develop unrealistic scenarios to deal with this "water problem" which disproved their theories. Sidney Fox was one of the most famous of the explorers; He proposed the following to solve this problem: according to his theory, the first amino acids at least formed rocks near the volcano after their formation in the early ocean. The water contained in the amino acid mixture on the rocks evaporated when the temperature rose above the boiling point.

In this way, the "dried" amino acids could be combined together to form proteins. However, this "complicated" solution did not take many people because amino acids do not withstand such high temperatures. Research has confirmed that amino acids immediately break down at high temperatures.

Fox, however, did not give up so easily. He produced the combination of purified amino acids in the laboratory "under very special conditions" by heating them in a dry environment. Even though the amino acids combined did not form proteins. What he actually achieved were random loops of amino acids that were randomly crammed, and these loops were far from looking like any living protein. Additionally, these loops would dissolve if Fox kept the amino acids at a stable temperature. 121.

Another point that invalidated the experiment was that Fox did not use the useless end products that arose from Miller's experiment, but pure amino acids from living organisms, while this experiment was considered a continuation of Miller and, accordingly, according to the results of the experiment, the latter had to come out. Neither Fox nor any other researcher ever used the useless amino acids produced by Miller. 122.

Fox's experiment was not very well received, even in evolutionary circles, because it was obvious that the essential amino acid chains he scored could not be formed naturally, and furthermore, proteins, the basic building blocks of life, could not be prepared. The problem of the origin of proteins remains. In a report in a well-known scientific journal In the 1970s Chemistry News, Fox's experiment was mentioned as follows.

Sydney Fox and other researchers were able to combine amino acids in the form of "proteinoids" using very special heating techniques and under conditions that were not actually present in the primordial phases of the earth. They are also not very similar to the very common proteins found in living things. These are nothing but useless irregular chains. It was also mentioned that even if such molecules were formed on early stages development, these molecules would be destroyed. 123.

The proinoids produced by Fox were in fact completely different from true proteins, both in structure and function. The difference between proteins and “proteinoids” is about the same as between a high-tech apparatus and a bunch of raw materials. Moreover, even these disordered amino acid chains did not have the potential to survive in the primordial atmosphere. In view of all this, the idea that proteinoids could be the basis of life gradually lost all support among scientists.

Our recent studies at the molecular level have shown that the evolution of amino acids has not been enlightened by evolutionists. Protein formation itself is a mystery, but the problem is not limited to amino acids and proteins: this is just the beginning. Apart from them, the ideal structure of the cell resists evolutionists with a barrier. The reason for this is that the cell is not just an accumulation of amino acid-based proteins, but a living mechanism that contains hundreds of fully developed systems and is so complex that humans are unable to explore its secretions.

Complex systems are left aside; evolutionists are not even able to explain the formation of the basic units of the cell. While evolutionary theory has failed to offer a coherent explanation for the presence of molecules that form the basis of cellular structure, developments in the science of genetics and the discovery of nucleic acids have overwhelmed evolutionary theory with new challenges. Many scientists have turned to the science of genetics.

All structural differences in people depend on the sequence of these letters. This is a kind of database built on four letters. At this moment it is necessary to do very important detail: A defect in the nucleotide sequence in which a gene is built will render the gene unusable. Frank Salisbury, an evolutionary biologist, comments on this impossibility as follows.

The average protein may contain about 300 amino acids. If you multiply ten 600 times with itself, you get a number of 600 zeros! This number is beyond our imagination. This number is obtained by placing 600 zeros as one. A trillion has 12 zeros, a number with 600 zeros is actually difficult to capture.

When forming complex molecules such as nucleotides chemical processes, we must clearly distinguish between two phases: the production of single nucleotides - which is possible - and their combination in specific sequences. The latter is absolutely impossible. Turkish evolutionist, Professor Ali Demirsoy, was forced to make the following assumption about this.

The probability of protein and nucleic acid formation is actually far below any discretion, and the probability of a particular protein chain being produced is so small that it can be called astronomical. 127. American microbiologist Jacobson gives the following comment.

The commands associated with the duplication of plans, the energy and extraction of parts from the prevailing environment, the sequence of growth and the effect or mechanism that translates these guidelines into the growth process were all present to be simultaneously. It seems unlikely that the combination of these events is an unplanned event and is therefore often attributed to divine intervention.

It is highly unlikely that proteins and nucleic acids, which are complex structures, are created randomly at the same time and in the same place, and yet it seems impossible to exist without the other. So, at first glance, one may be led to conclude that life could never have been produced by chemical means.

The same fact is also accepted by other scientists. How does the genetic code arise along with the mechanisms of its translation? For the present we must content ourselves with a feeling of terrible surprise rather than an answer. Two German scientists, Juncker and Scherer, explained that the synthesis of each of these molecules requires different conditions for chemical evolution and that the likelihood of combining these materials, which have theoretically very different extraction methods, is zero.

So far, no experiment is known that could be used to obtain all the molecules necessary for chemical evolution. Therefore, under optimal conditions, it is necessary to produce different molecules in different places and then transport them to another place, during which time they must be protected from harmful effects such as hydrolysis and photolysis. 129.

In short, the theory of evolution is unable to explain any of the evolutionary steps that are said to have taken place at the molecular level. Instead of giving them answers to such questions, the progressive development of science confronts evolutionists with more complex and difficult problems to solve.

It's interesting that evolutionists adhere to all of these impossible scenarios as if each of them were scientific fact. Because they are conditioned to ignore creativity, they have no choice but to believe in the impossible. Renowned Australian biologist Michael Denton tackles this topic in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.

For the skeptic, this is simply an insult to intelligence and reason to assume that the genetic programs of higher organisms, consisting of almost a thousand millions of information data, in encrypted form, from countless thousands of advanced algorithms that contain the controls, specifications and instructions for the growth and development of trillions and trillions of cells in complex organisms were composed entirely by chance. But for a Darwinist this idea is undeniable without a glimmer - the model has the advantage.

The discovery in the 1970s that gases that were originally present in premature earth's atmosphere, which made the synthesis of amino acids impossible, were a serious blow to the theory of molecular evolution. It was clear that the "primitive atmospheric experiments" of evolutionists such as Miller, Fox and Ponnamperuma were irrelevant. For this reason, the efforts of evolutionists in the 1980s were undertaken.

Built on a chain of impossibilities in each individual phase, this unimaginable model only increased the problem and raised many difficult or irrefutable questions rather than explaining the origin of life. Where did she find the nucleotides she used to reproduce?

Amino acids, on the other hand, are only raw materials. However, there is no mechanism for producing proteins. Production without the participation of production facilities and work force also unthinkable in this case. Protein is made in the "ribosome factory" by many enzymes and an extremely complex process inside the cell. A ribosome is a complex cellular organelle consisting of proteins. Therefore, this situation reveals another absurd assumption, namely, that the ribosome must also have occurred at the same time.

Even a laureate Nobel Prize Jacques Monod, one of the most fanatical proponents of evolution, argues that protein synthesis cannot be underestimated since it depends solely on information in nucleic acids. The code is meaningless if it is not translated. When and how did this circle join?

It goes beyond the idea. 133. Evolutionists have no answer to these questions. The ability to reproduce without the help of proteins and the ability to catalyze any stage of protein synthesis. 134. We see no reason to regard them as proven or even promising.

This research demonstrated how incredibly difficult it would have been for living cells to arise by chance from inanimate matter at the time on Earth. This demonstration is an important contribution to science. Future research will also have great importance. However, given the newly understood complications of continuing to make life spontaneously out of inanimate matter, it is very surprising. It is reminiscent of the “work” of medieval alchemists who tirelessly tried to turn lead into gold. 136.