Evidence that the building blocks of life are abundant in the interstellar medium? Yes, but it's not a big deal.

Greetings, mortals!  Earlier today, scientists with the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy announced their finding that isopropyl cyanide, an organic molecule, is abundant in the interstellar medium.  They made this "discovery" by observing the Sagittarius B2 gas cloud with the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) of radio telescopes to analyze the radiospectrometric signatures of the various molecules that make up the gas cloud. 

While researchers have previously detected organic molecules in space, isopropyl cyanide is the first such organic molecule seen that has a branched carbon backbone.  It, unlike any of those previously-observed molecules, is thus more like the amino acids that your sciences (incorrectly) believe form the building blocks of life here on Earth.  Because the amino acids, like isopropyl cyanide, have a branched, carbon-based structure.

What's the significance of this?  Well, if you believe life on Earth arose naturalistically, this finding strongly suggests that other branched carbon molecules -- including, possibly, amino acids themselves -- exist in abundance in space.  That would further support the theory that life arose on Earth without any supernatural intervention because it means those building blocks were likely already present here on Earth and didn't have to form from simpler molecules under the right conditions.

In other words, if branched carbon molecules are abundant in space, they were likely abundant on Earth from its earliest days.  And if that's true, the number of steps humans thought were needed to move from molecules present on Earth to the emergence of life decreases.  It also increases the likelihood that life exists elsewhere in the universe.

Said another way, given the existence of branched carbon organic molecules in space, the number of assumptions in the chemical synthesis-based hypotheses of abiogenesis goes down.  And as scientists are always fond of telling us, the simpler a hypothesis is in relation to competing hypotheses, the more likely it's true.

Does this undermine Creation or Intelligent Design?  No, of course not.  First of all, if you want to blaspheme by calling Creation a hypothesis, it's the simplest hypothesis of all: God did it.  You don't even need to assume anything (apart from the agency of a supernatural being of limitless power and eternal duration whose very existence is at variance with all available evidence, which evidence is consistent only with a naturalistic universe).  QED.

Second, even if branched carbon organic molecules were abundant on Earth from its beginning, no one was around to see those molecules become self-replicating bases for all terrestrial life.  That means abiogenesis can't be proven, which means, of course, abiogenesis must not be true.  And if abiogenesis isn't true, then Creation must be, because it says so in the Bible.  QED again!

If God Created all, why, then, are complex organic molecules present in interstellar space?  Simple.  As I said in my last post, God has been expanding the veil of Heaven to make sure human space exploration doesn't pierce through it.  It's been a big project and something we had to do pretty quickly, so, well, there wasn't a lot of time to clean everything up.

Basically, the organic compounds you're seeing in space are the cast-off materials from Creation.  It's the sawdust on the floor of God's workshop.  That's all.  There's no significance to it at all apart from being further proof that God Created all life on Earth.

So quit getting all excited about this, okay?  Focus on something more important.  Like praying, or figuring out better ways to rationalize the Bible into being literal truth.  The salvation of your immortal soul is, after all, both incompatible with and more important than knowledge.

Thank you for reading, and as always, I welcome your comments below!

Rapid evolution in butterflies? No, God pitying unfortunate physicists.

Greetings, mortals!  Apologies for my long absence.  I have been focusing on my Twitter ministry (@angelofscience), which so far goes well.  I have, admittedly, converted zero infidels and nonbelievers to Christ, but I feel I've come close on at least one occasion.  Maybe.  Towards the end of my proselytizing efforts, the person became intensely and aggressively interested in what I was wearing, and in what I would do to her or his nether regions.  I was compelled to disengage and scourge myself as penance.

Anyway!  Earlier this month, scientists at Yale University announced that through selective breeding, they were able to induce the butterfly Bicyclus anynana to "evolve" from having dull, brown wings to having wings streaked with violet.  The researchers published their results in Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences.

The colors in butterfly wings -- whether brilliant or dull -- are, of course, merely expressions of the glory of God.  Your sciences nonetheless say that such colors are the result of constructive interference of light reflected off of microscopic structures in butterfly wings.  B. anyana has wings that are predominantly brown.  Two other Bicyclus species, B. sambulos an B. medontias, have "evolved" more brightly decorated wings.  The Yale researchers hypothesized that B. anyana, under selective pressure favoring the development of more colorful wings, could thus "evolve" similar nano-morphologies and begin to display more colorful wings.  Their experiment was not only successful, the B. anyana butterflies developed wings streaked with violet in just six generations.

Now, is this shockingly quick change a demonstration that even slight changes in genotype can, in a very small number of generations, rapidly produce exactly the kind of phenotypic variations that would, given the various selective pressures in different ecological niches, account for the massive diversity of life, thus supporting modern theories of biological evolution?

No!  No, of course not.  The theory of evolution is contradicted by the entirely factual and internally consistent Creation story in Genesis, and so is necessarily false.  Here's what the Yale researchers' work really means.

God felt bad for them.  Truly bad for them.  These were physicists studying butterflies.  Do you know what other physicists are like if you're studying an observable, physical object that's subject to Newtonian mechanics but isn't a hypothetical frictionless sphere?  They're awful.  Just, I mean, awful.  Incredibly derisive.  And they never give up mocking you because your social cues of offense and shame aren't hypothetical frictionless spheres, and so bullying physicists don't bother to observe them.  Given what these poor researchers were going through, God pitied them.  He made their butterflies all pretty.

What proof of this do I have, you ask?  Well, first, as always, stop questioning God lest you go to Hell.  Second, since it wasn't evolution, it had to be the Christian God.  There's no other God, per the Bible, so if a phenomenon was caused by supernatural means rather than evolution, it has to be Him instead of some other un-evidenced, supernatural cause.  QED.

Thank you, mortals, for reading!  As always, I look forward to your comments and questions.