RNA strand Credit: Vossman/Wikipedia/Creative Commons
It has been a problem that has haunted evolutionists for years — how did ribonucleic acid (RNA) evolve?
According to the RNA Society, “Ribonucleic acid, or RNA is one of the three major biological macromolecules that are essential for all known forms of life (along with DNA and proteins).”
It is a required cog for producing enzymes. However, there was a major evolutionary problem. Since RNA requires its own enzymes to replicate, it was impossible for RNA to evolve without enzymes.
It was the old what came first — the chicken or the egg. Since the enzyme could only be created by RNA and it could only replicate with the enzyme, both had to spontaneously appear at exactly the same time for it to evolve.
It sounds more like creation than evolution.
But in 2016 Nobel Prize laureate Jack Szostak, a genetics professor at Harvard Medical School, wrote a paper stating he had discovered how RNA replicated without the required enzyme paving the way for its evolution. It was a ground-breaking announcement that fell in line with the evolutionary view of the universe.
But there was one major problem. Though he had supposedly created an environment where the enzyme did not exist and yet the RNA replicated, another scientist in Szostak’s lab was unable to duplicate the experiment.
Embarrassed, Szostak quickly retracted his paper. In a statement posted on the website Retraction Watch, the scientist admitted, “In retrospect we were totally blinded by our belief [in our findings]….”
I appreciate his honesty and who hasn’t fallen into that trap.
But one wonders if for some the blinding goes a bit deeper than that. Because of their belief in evolutionary theory, some scientists see what they want to see and blind themselves to anything that contradicts their evolutionary beliefs.
In 2004, North Carolina State University Paleontologist Mary Higby Schweitzer was working on a broken dinosaur bone from the Hell Creek formation in Montana when she discovered organic, non-fossilized material (blood, blood vessels, cartilage) inside the fossilized bone. Since it was estimated to be 80 million years old, this was impossible.
But Higby is also an Evangelical Christian and is not stuck in the typical dogma that controls evolutionary research. She wrote an article in Journal Science reporting on her discovery of soft tissue in the fossil.
There was an immediate reaction with one scientist writing an article for PLoS ONE in 2008 challenging her findings. However, a second article published two years later in the same scientific journal admitted that her findings were right.
Since then, scientists have been finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones around the world.
- RELATED: Tests confirm it’s dinosaur blood | Did finding soft tissue in dinosaur bone result in a scientist’s firing?
However, here is the point evolutionists have examined hundreds of thousands of fossilized bones over the past 120+ years and they only noticed soft tissue inside them for the first time 13 years ago?
Undoubtedly, soft tissue was discovered hundreds of times before 2004, but evolutionists were blinded to what they found because it contradicted their theory.
In fact in 1999, Higby had written an earlier article about her suspicions that there was organic material inside dinosaur bones. She submitted it to a number of scientific journals but all of them refused to publish it, except one, because it didn’t fit their evolutionary theory.
Tellingly, the scientific community ignored her findings reported in the one journal that accepted her article.
Essentially, it was their theory that defined the facts, not the facts that defined the theory.
The Apostle Paul recognized this problem centuries earlier when he wrote:
4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (2 Corinthians 4:4 NASV)
Sources:
OpentheWord.org 