How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30+ at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence? Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “We must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” creation.com/motor (includes animation).
Once again we see a highly educated scientist admitting “there are no detailed accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” (Italics added)
Since it is a scientific fact that there are no detailed (or any?) accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, why is evolution of this nature being taught as scientific fact to our children in schools? If you cannot observe it, cannot confirm it, and cannot repeat it or see it repeated, is it science? Creationists have been calling the teachings of this type of evolution “wishful thinking” and “just-so stories”. What do evolutionists call it? According to the evolutionist biochemist Franklin Harold this type of evolution is only “wishful speculations”.
When an evolutionist biochemist says there are no accounts, yet evolutionists still believe it occurred, who is relying on blind faith, and not actual science? Scientists should be able to use the tool of science to confirm the “evolution of any biochemical or cellular system” if it were indeed scientific fact. Until then, stop teaching your “wishful speculations” to our children, and stop trying to force-feed us your fantasies about goo-to-you evolution as though they are actually scientifically supported, with true science.
1. Harold, Franklin M. (Prof. Emeritus Biochemistry, Colorado State University) The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001, p. 205