Nothing excites the anti-God crowd like a good “evolution is right” story.
Over the years, there have been a lot of them. If you believe the media, Darwinian evolution is scientific fact that has been proved thousands of times.
The truth is somewhat different as evolution evidence is subject to a lot of interpretation and wishful thinking.
One of the biggest holes in Darwinism is that while his theory attempts to explain the variety of life on Earth, it never even sought to explain the origin of the first species, the beginning of life itself.
Not that scientists have stopped trying, nor journalists stopped wishfully overblowing the reality.
Take for example a study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, in which scientists used a high-powered laser to replicate the hypothetical conditions of an ancient meteor crash and produced four chemical bases present in RNA.
This was enough for AP to churn out a headline that said, “Scientists re-create what may be life’s first spark.”
Far from life’s first spark, the experiment created some chemicals that can be found in RNA. There was no RNA, mind you, and much less anything like a strand of DNA or a simple cell. In short, the experiment yielded no life, just some non-interacting chemicals, and in such small amounts as to be almost insignificant.
Across the Pond, the Daily Mirror trumpeted a different experiment with a headline that said, “Synthetic life breakthrough as scientists mimic evolution using oil droplets — and researchers say experiment could explain how life first appeared on Earth.”
This time, researchers at the University of Glasgow dropped an oily mixture of four chemicals into water and used a robot to analyze the drops for “fitness” based on a short list of criteria. The drop that performed best was then replicated, subtly altering the chemical mix each time. After 21 generations, the drops were more stable in the water than the original drops.
So oil drops and a pile of chemicals are the current best evidence for how life appeared from non-life and evolved into us.
The holes in those conclusions are obvious.
Robots and high-powered lasers aren’t the most convincing models for evolution. If you were trying to provide support for intelligent design, on the other hand …