Evolution's Fundamentally Errant Flaw

Written By Marvin Thomas Cox Flynn

Copyright © 2016 Marvin Thomas Cox
DBA: Marvin Thomas Cox Flynn
All Rights Reserved

As a teenager attending High School in the early 1970's, it was said by Evolutionists that Life
had sprang into existence billions of years ago within the Earth's primordial soupy seas. Also,
according to Evolutionists of that time period, this first speck of Life most likely began as a primitive
unicellular organism, similar to bacteria, with its genetic material contained in a single loop inside the
cell, without the refinement of a nucleus. Such a unicellular organism was said to have reproduced
through binary fission to clone itself into a semblance of microscopic immortality.
To those who actually sit and ponder such things, there arises the inquisitive question as to how
that very first unicellular organism came to possess that genetic material which, both, motivated and,
enabled it to reproduce. Why is this an important question? Because of this seemingly incontrovertible
reality: With those theorized soupy primordial seas of nonliving existence inexplicably giving rise to
the perfect recipe of chemical components combining together to serve as a catalyst reactant moment of
unique singularity wherein nonliving matter ceased existing as nonliving matter in spontaneously
exploding upon the scene of the nonliving world as that very first living, metabolizing, instance's
example of Life, if that initial speck of unicellular Life had not already possessed an intrinsically
inherent genetically coded instinct which mandated that it must reproduce, with that mandated instinct
genetically coupled harmoniously in unison with a (already possessed and mandated as necessitated)
biologically equipped ability to actually bring about successful reproduction, it would have quickly
perished to never take an active role in that Evolutionary process which Science touts as its expository
answer to the origin of Life on Earth, and the resulting existence of Man.
A cold harsh fact of reality: The odds of that very first speck of Life instantaneously bursting
upon the scene of living Life existence within all of Existence upon planet Earth, and that in full
possession of every genetically coded requirement which would assure its designated lifespan of
survival — while also insuring the survival of its future descendants in posterity via a fully operative
reproductive capability inexplicably possessed in that very moment of transformation from nonliving
matter to that very first living metabolizing speck of Life — are infinitesimally, unfathomably,
incomprehensibly high and, needless to say, preposterously improbable, not to mention absolutely
ridiculously implausible ...

Evolution's Fundamentally Errant Flaw by Marvin Thomas Cox-Flynn Page 1

 Yet curiously, an equally valid point to be considered? Where did that first unicellular speck of
Life obtain the genetically necessitated instinct which mandated and enabled it to seek out a suitable
food source as necessary nutrients for survival, and then absorb such a food source through its cell
membrane? Better yet, how did such a primitively initial first speck of Life as a unicellular organism
also come to handily possess a cell membrane, a protective and intricately complex mechanism that
allows or prohibits foreign materials and substances from entering the interior of a living cell? But,
that is a question we shall ponder further along in our discussion.
Evolutionists, however, would suggest that these pertinently serious questions are easily
answered by suggesting that our initial unicellular speck of Life was the result of hit and miss, trial and
error, until such an organism, somehow mysteriously, learned to reproduce and replicate itself. If we
are to believe such an explanation, we must also assume that the poor ignorant creature would likely
have starved to death — in slipshod trial and error endless repetitive fashion quite similar to Bill
Murray's repetitive adventures in the movie Groundhog Day — long before getting around to such
mindful (a necessitated programmed presence of flawlessly precise genetic coding) considerations such
as the survival of its kind (species?) which would necessitate that it also acquire, via that same trial and
error process, a satisfactory means of reproduction. Now, in the movie Groundhog Day, Bill Murray
eventually achieved his fervently sought after trial and error goal, but that climactic result was pure
imaginative fantasy written into a movie script for the purpose of entertaining movie goers. Not a
single movie goer believed that Bill Murray actually woke up each morning at six am to relive the same
day over and over again in his quest to win the heart of a woman, because the story line of the movie
was based upon the sheer delightfulness of romance brought to life as imaginative fantasy. Likewise, I
shall demonstrate that the teachings of Evolution are also nothing more than imaginative fantasy,
wishful thinking and grasping at straws brainstorming of overactive minds.
For the record, I find myself to be a bit of a conundrum as a nonconformist Creationist who
does not support or advocate the teachings of Organized Religion. Hence I attest the necessitated
existence of a Creative Source, a Creator of all that is and will ever be that I choose to term as An
Extant Catalyst Reactant Ultimate Source Point Of Origin Of All Existence. Whether such a Creative
Source, who or whatever as such might turn out to be, made use of some form of prototype to arrive at
present day lifeforms remains to be demonstrated, proven, and established. But clearly, no matter your
personal beliefs be they religious or atheist, such a necessitated Creative Source did not make use of
any process deemed as discovered, ascertained, and explained within Darwin's Theory Of Evolution.
With this shared, let us move on to examining in further detail that which I believe to be Evolution's
fundamentally errant flaw.
Time truly will tell, and time does move on, and in the many years of heated debates between
religion motivated Creationists and Science motivated Evolutionists over the veracity of Darwin's
Theory, Evolutionists have, consequentially, been forced to regroup, rethink their strategy, and alter
their presentation of Evolution due to the above aforementioned undeniable reality: The question of
how that very first unicellular organism came to possess the precise genetic coding which, both,
motivated and enabled it to seek, acquire, and absorb nutrition, and reproduce before the culmination of
its given lifespan, is a most viable and logical question for which an answer must be provided. Such a
logical question would seem to require an equally logical answer, would it not?
Not surprisingly, the answer, this new generation of Evolutionists would have us to accept,
involves a not so subtle change of the Evolutionary equational scenario we were fed in the past, in an
attempt to plug the loophole of how that first unicellular organism could have come to exist, hunt and
eat, and, then, reproduce without having, first, received the proper genetic encoding and biological
enabling to motivate and insure that it could and would reproduce. Now, my simple mind equates this
crafty move to a bookkeeper attempting to compensate — somewhat like a rabbit attempting to pull

Evolution's Fundamentally Errant Flaw by Marvin Thomas Cox-Flynn Page 2

itself out of a hat in sheer desperation — for discrepancies in his poor record keeping in order to hide
the fact that he has made a grave error at the expense of his biggest client. Let's have a look, shall we?
The new equational scenario of the modern minds of The University of California Museum of
Paleontology, Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California, in their online publication,
Understanding Evolution1, is that:

“simple organic molecules” ... “Are the building blocks of life and must have been involved in its origin.”

Now, I respect higher education, and would never intend any slight or discredit to those who
have devoted their lives to the study of the origins of Life in the academic fields of Paleontology,
Biochemistry, or Genetics. However, once again, Science appears to be attempting to enable a rabbit to
pull itself out of a hat, without a logical explanation as to where the rabbit, or the hat, originated from.
All life-forms consist of various types of molecules and substances that comprise their biological and
chemical composition, but they have nothing to do, directly, with the origin of how those life-forms
came to exist. This is approach is called double speak, talking in circles, but wait — it gets better.

“Experiments suggest that organic molecules could have been synthesized in the atmosphere of early Earth and
rained down into the oceans. RNA2 and DNA3 molecules — the genetic material for all life — are just long
chains of simple nucleotides.”

Again, our minds are being battered and bruised with the obvious in order to conceal the not so
obvious slight of hand double speak that is going on in a manner here that reminds me of those within
Christianity who resort to speaking mystically when they cannot give you a direct answer to a direct
question — a question which they simply have no answer for. In fact, one will find when reading the
full entirety, this article does not so much as touch upon the question of how that very first speck of
unicellular Life came to possess and be fully equipped with the genetic coding that would instinctively
motivate it to know it must eat in order to survive. It is almost as though we are expected to accept
such equipping of that first speck of Life as a given4, when in fact it is not a given with that topic never
breached or touched upon within the textual body of this article. Thus, we must examine that which
this article does dare to touch upon: Reproduction via Replication ...
We were all taught in school that DNA is the genetic code and building blocks of all Life. So,
the statement above does not give us any information that we do not already know. But, it does have a
most familiar ring to it, for if organic molecules were to form in the air — theoretically speaking —
then, it is logical to assume that water vapor (and other substances) would likely play a role in this
formation, as water vapor is present in the atmosphere around us.
The familiar ring we hear, tingling our ears, is quite reminiscent of Organized Religion's
Creation account which speaks of a firmament5 dividing the waters of the heavens 6 from the waters
upon the earth. Is Science slyly setting forth an illusory allusion of aligning itself with the Biblical
Creation Story in an attempt to tickle the mental ears of religious folk quite willing to accept an answer
to our logical question if it gives forth a scented hint of a seeming rationalization that deceptively
appears to set itself in line with that which they already fervently believe? You bet! Shall we read
further?

“All living things reproduce, copying their genetic material and passing it on to their offspring. Thus, the ability
to copy the molecules that encode genetic information is a key step in the origin of life — without it, life could
not exist. This ability probably first evolved in the form of an RNA self-replicator — an RNA molecule that could
copy itself.”

Evolution's Fundamentally Errant Flaw by Marvin Thomas Cox-Flynn Page 3

 As always, Evolutionists follow the time weathered ruts along the path of that age old adage
which states,“If you can't dazzle'em with brilliance, baffle'em with bullshit,” as the statement above
does nothing to answer the question of how the first unicellular organism came to possess the ability to
reproduce. It simply creates another unanswered question which is hoped you — an inverted method
of answering a question with a question — will accept as that answer that has never been answered or
given. But, there's more.
If you haven't caught the drift here, we are being set up to believe something as fact that is
outside the realm of belief. The above quote implies that this theorized self-replicating RNA was, in
fact, a primitive life-form. As such is not openly stated, but it is truly implied, as one reads further into
the new wave of Evolutionary teachings, of The University of California Museum of Paleontology,
Berkeley, and the Regents of the University of California, this subliminal message becomes more than
clear.

“Many biologists hypothesize that this step led to an 'RNA world' in which RNA did many jobs, storing genetic
information, copying itself, and performing basic metabolic functions. Today, these jobs are performed by many
different sorts of molecules (DNA, RNA, and proteins, mostly), but in the RNA world, RNA did it all.

Self-replication opened the door for natural selection. Once a self-replicating molecule formed, some variants of
these early replicators would have done a better job of copying themselves than others, producing more
'offspring.' These super-replicators would have become more common — that is, until one of them was
accidentally built in a way that allowed it to be a super-super-replicator — and then, that variant would take
over. Through this process of continuous natural selection, small changes in replicating molecules eventually
accumulated until a stable, efficient replicating system evolved.

Replicating molecules became enclosed within a cell membrane.

The evolution of a membrane surrounding the genetic material provided two huge advantages: the products of
the genetic material could be kept close by and the internal environment of this proto-cell could be different
than the external environment. Cell membranes must have been so advantageous that these encased replicators
quickly out-competed 'naked' replicators. This breakthrough would have given rise to an organism much like a
modern bacterium.

Up until this point, life had probably relied on RNA for most jobs (as described in Step 2 above). But everything
changed when some cell or group of cells evolved to use different types of molecules for different functions:
DNA (which is more stable than RNA) became the genetic material, proteins (which are often more efficient
promoters of chemical reactions than RNA) became responsible for basic metabolic reactions in the cell, and
RNA was demoted to the role of messenger, carrying information from the DNA to protein-building centers in the
cell. Cells incorporating these innovations would have easily out-competed "old-fashioned" cells with RNA-based
metabolisms, hailing the end of the RNA world.”

Having absorbed and contemplated the above excerpts passages, we are asked to believe that a
nonliving RNA molecule learned to replicate itself, which we are to also accept as implying that these
replicating RNA molecules had now become living RNA molecules (for all practical purposes of this
article excerpt) representing that very first speck of Life (self replicating RNA likened to a brain
without organs to keep it alive?), until one day this RNA molecule, inexplicably, came to realize that it
was naked (no epidermal covering or organs?) and magically acquired a cell membrane; to then
survive long enough (as that first unicellular organism) to learn how to replicate itself now equipped
with its magical cell membrane (hitherto, never replicated before) through binary fission; to then
evolve into a unicellular organism no longer dependent upon RNA (but DNA) without explanation as to
when this nonliving RNA molecule became a living life-form, until that moment, in time of trial and

Evolution's Fundamentally Errant Flaw by Marvin Thomas Cox-Flynn Page 4

error, it suddenly realized it was naked — a true garden of Eden scenario if ever there was one.
Hence, without the amenities of fig leaves to cover its exposed innards, it felt motivated to acquire the
modest apparel of an intricately complex cell membrane, though this great feat of accomplishment was
all for naught as the Big Kahuna self-replicating RNA molecule soon found itself given the old pink
slip of cell management unemployment in favor of the new kid in town (DNA), to then be dishonorably
discharged, stripped of rank (replication abilities) and relegated to the position it holds today as a mere
messenger boy for the Big Cheese biological software corporation DBA7: DNA. It is an eloquently told
tale, but I, for one, do not buy it.
For a theorized self-replicating molecule of RNA to suddenly be motivated to acquire a cell
membrane, it would necessitate that such RNA had already complied with, and adhered to, the basic
biologically characteristic attributes that are recognized by Science as defining Life as a living
organism8 or life-form.
What's more, a cell membrane is not something that a simple average Joe RNA molecule —
even a self-replicating RNA molecule — can just up and decide it wants to wear to the all teen genes
unicellular prom. Why not, one might ask? Because, according to Chemical Society Reviews: “The
cell membrane9 is one of the most complicated biological complexes.”
Yes, there do exist specialized cells10 that are not DNA based but, instead, are RNA based cells.
However, such cells have a very short life span, and are found only within multi-cellular organisms.
Viruses are RNA based, but a virus11 is classified as a nonliving infective agent that is best simplified as
a nucleic acid molecule in a protein coat that is incapable of reproduction without coming into direct
contact with a living cell to serve as the host machinery of its replication. In other words, living cells
existed first and before any RNA based virus came to replicate itself. Cases in point: Viruses do not
possess the theoretically magical self-replicating style of RNA that Evolution wishes to impress upon
our minds as being a viable answer as to how that first speck of Life (no matter what it was) possessed
the genetic and biological means to reproduce.
The reality, to date, is that there are no known DNA-less12 unicellular organisms in existence
upon the Earth. I would speculate, therefore, that no known fossilized records of DNA-less organisms
exist in the hands of Evolutionists, or else their theoretical presentation would no longer be theory, but
established fact. But of that, there is not a hint.
Speaking of hints, beyond any shadow of a doubt, the implication applied to the concept of
theorized self-replicating RNA, above, is that RNA (or at least self-replicating RNA) is a primitive
form of Life — and, therefore, a life-form. Of course, our initial question in reference to, both, the
concept of that first speck of Life as, a unicellular organism or, self-replicating RNA, is how would
either one have come to possess the genetic and biological motivation and ability to reproduce — as
well as that remaining untouched and unanswered question of where, exactly, the genetically coded
motivational means to acquire and consume nutrients originated, and when?
Furthermore, if the new Evolutionist thinking is going to imply that the simple RNA molecule,
somehow, became a life-form when it theoretically learned or attained the ability to replicate itself, then
what unseen event was the ultimate source point of origin of that replication enablement that
transformed a nonliving simple molecule into a living primitive life-form — and if a life-form (thus,
possessing Life), then a living organism that would also require it to exhibit all the characteristics
attributed to Life13? Curiously, what is the biological definition of Life?
Biology Online defines Life as, “A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead
organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond
(to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce.14”
A simple molecule is not a life-form, and does not possess the characteristics of a life-form as
per accepted Scientific biological definition. Science Fiction sometimes does become fact, in due time,

Evolution's Fundamentally Errant Flaw by Marvin Thomas Cox-Flynn Page 5

but most of the time it always remains fiction that has used Science as a ploy to draw a fan base and a
belief in the spectacular that will never come true. Yet, some things are possible, while others continue
upon the path of never being accurately or adequately explained, as per the conclusions of UCLA's
article, Understanding Evolution.

“ … Origins biochemist, Andy Ellington, hypothesizes that in the early RNA world, RNA copied itself, not by
matching individual units of the molecules (as in modern DNA), but by matching short strings of units — it's a
bit like assembling a house from prefabricated walls instead of brick by brick. He is studying this hypothesis by
performing experiments to search for molecules that copy themselves like this and to study how they evolve ...”

“All the evidence gathered thus far has revealed a great deal about the origin of life, but there is still much to
learn. Because of the enormous length of time and the tremendous change that has occurred since then, much
of the evidence relevant to origins has been lost and we may never know certain details. Nevertheless, many of
the gaps in our knowledge (gaps that seemed unbridgeable just 20 years ago) have been filled in recent years,
and continuing research and new technologies hold the promise of more insights. As Ellington puts it, 'Origins is
a huge knotty problem — but that doesn't mean it's an insoluble one.'”

In an attempt to draw this discussion closer to its conclusion, even if we were to entertain the
possibility that RNA molecules somehow developed the ability to replicate themselves — an ability
that would, then, be purely genetic — we continue to face the issue of what, exactly, transpired to
induce this simple RNA molecule to be motivated and enabled to develop this uniquely new born
process of replication. Are we to believe that one particular RNA molecule, somehow, possessed an
awareness, knowledge, something, that other theoretical RNA molecules out there in the air of the
firmament or primordial soupy seas did not have, and were thus breaking down into their basic
Elemental components? If RNA, indeed, possessed such primitive instinctive intelligence, then it
would likely have come into existence with the ability to replicate itself in the first place, which brings
us right back to the question of where did the ability to reproduce, via replication originate from?
Also, if this theoretical replicating RNA, to later, inexplicably, become DNA, did plausibly
become part of the genetic structure of that very first unicellular organism, then, again where did the
necessary genetic information come from to now enable that RNA transformed into DNA to maintain,
support the life functions, and motivate this new life-form, as a unicellular organism, to reproduce? It
stands to reason that the genetic material necessary for the theoretical replication of a molecule would
be vastly different than the necessary genetic material to support the life functions of a unicellular
organism and, in addition, enable and induce it to primitively reproduce through the very first initial
process of binary fission.
The bottom line: if we are to believe that RNA could somehow learn to replicate itself — how
does a nonliving simple molecule learn? — based upon the fact that Scientists hope in theory to create
such a molecule that could one day replicate itself (there is currently no experimentally successful
prototype), would we truly be any closer to answering the question, the question above all questions,
that Evolution fails to answer — all because it refuses to accept the only viable answer there is?
Because, even if Evolutionists had their theoretical ducks in an accurate row — I sincerely do
not believe that they do — and their theoretical self-replicating RNA was once a primordial reality,
there must have been (had to have been) an origin for that very first RNA molecule's attainment of self-
replication, which has been my point of conjecture as per the focus of this discussion. It also stands to
reason, that if one day, in the future, Evolutionary Biochemists successfully completed an experiment
that yielded self-replicating RNA, that created specimen of successful lab results would be attributed as

Evolution's Fundamentally Errant Flaw by Marvin Thomas Cox-Flynn Page 6

a momentous achievement by a man, or a group of men, who in turn would represent all Mankind.
Proper respect and credit would be given to whom respect and credit was due.
Therefore, would it not equally stand to reason that all the hoopla to follow this momentous
event — in claims that this example of man-created self-replicating RNA was now proof that similar
self-replicating RNA must have existed in the primordial soupy seas as per this latest theoretical
thinking of Evolutionists — should serve to demonstrate that such self-replicating RNA, produced in
the perfect conditions of those primordial soupy seas, also had an origin of its own that is just as logical
to be arrived at as was the obvious conclusion of that laboratory produced specimen of self-replicating
RNA? Is not the world simply a laboratory on a much larger scale that requires the presence and
professionalism of a Master Laboratory Technician, an originator of all laboratory experiments set to
task of what yields satisfactory results and what does not — a Creator (An Extant Catalyst Reactant
Ultimate Source Point Of Origin Of All Existence) responsible for every momentous achievement and
every disastrous disappointment?
I submit that origins is a huge knotty problem, only because Science, as a staunch supporter
Evolution, refuses to see or accept any other origin for Life upon Earth except that of Evolution,
negating, nullifying, and denying the possibility — no matter how much the evidence declares
otherwise — of a Creative Source, a Creator of all that is and will ever be, existing as An Extant
Catalyst Reactant Ultimate Source Point Of Origin Of All Existence.
And this point, my friends, is the errant flaw present in Darwin's Theory Of Evolution, even as
presented today, a flaw that causes Science to go out of its way in depriving the Anonymous Creator of
Life credit for the work, planning, design, and achievement of the creation of the Universe and our
existence within it — all that is and will ever be.
Yet, in all fairness, I must point out that Organized Religion is every bit as stubborn in its
refusal to seek verifiable truth, rather than its continuance of teachings that possess not a shred of
substantiated evidence. Perhaps, in the same manner that Science is fearful of admitting the possibility
of the necessitated existence of a Creative Source, Organized Religion, attesting the existence of a God
that created Man in His Own Image, is every bit as fearful of examining any possibility of Man having
descended from Apes, because if he did, such a potential exploration of possible admission would
assuredly tend to make a monkey's Ape out of God.
My personal conclusion is this: Science and Organized Religion are, both, equally fearful of
what is out there, some where, some place, that we have as yet to meet, greet, isolate, comprehend,
understand or explain. Things that cannot be accurately or adequately explained should never be
presented as facts — and that's a fact folks — whether it be Science, or Organized Religion.
Lastly, allow me to sum up the points sought out in this article's discussion by sharing an
excerpt from my article, Via Intelligent Design, as a final bite of food for contemplative thought:

“... That very first tiny speck of Life, not only had to possess the ability to reproduce but also,
had to have possessed the ability to absorb nutrients (i.e., a primitive digestive system) from its
environment around it, and it also had to have had — at the very moment it sprang into
existence, indeed, as that very first tiny speck of Life — the necessary genetic coding to initially
serve as a primitive instinct to seek out and absorb (feed itself) such nutrients in order to
survive.
These vital — absolutely necessary for survival — abilities and genetic traits could not
have been acquired over time, or else that very first tiny speck of Life would have perished —
starving to death for lack of inspiration and the equipped ability to feed itself in order to later

Evolution's Fundamentally Errant Flaw by Marvin Thomas Cox-Flynn Page 7

reproduce itself out of yet another inexplicably attained and, to date unexplained, acquired
ability that is discussed in more detail within my article, Evolution's Fundamentally Errant
Flaw15. The end result of such a lack of life sustaining abilities would have been to see the
beginnings of Life upon planet Earth spring into existence, only to quickly become extinct in
leaving this earth a lifeless and desolate third rock from the sun.
Evolution could not possibly have played a part in the survival of that very first tiny
speck of Life. That very first tiny speck of Life came into its existence fully equipped with all it
needed to survive, adapt, and reproduce, totally outside, and independent of, any Scientific
theory of Evolution …16”

(Written April 15, 2016 — Revised December 17th, 2020)

Please do invest the time to study the Evidential Footnotes I have provided for my readers below.

Evolution's Fundamentally Errant Flaw by Marvin Thomas Cox-Flynn Page 8

1 Understanding Evolution — http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/origsoflife_01
2 RNA — Abbreviation for ribonucleic acid: a nucleic acid that is generally single stranded (double stranded in some viruses) and plays a role in
transferring information from DNA to protein-forming system of the cell. Ribonucleic acid (RNA) is a molecule consisting of a long linear chain of
nucleotides. Each nucleotide unit is comprised of a sugar, phosphate group and a nitrogenous base. It differs from a DNA molecule in a way that the sugar
backbone is a ribose (deoxyribose in DNA) and the bases are adenine, guanine, cytosine and uracil (thymine in DNA). In eukaryotes, it is found in the
nucleus and in the cytoplasm. In some viruses, RNA is the genetic material. For most organism, RNAs are involved in: protein synthesis, post-
transcriptional modifiction or DNA replication, gene regulation. http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Rna
3 DNA — Deoxyribonucleic acid: A double-stranded nucleic acid that contains the genetic information for cell growth, division, and function. DNA is
composed of two strands that twist together to form a helix. Each strand consists of alternating phosphate (PO4) and pentose sugar (2-deoxyribose), and
attached on the sugar is a nitrogenous base, which can be adenine, thymine, guanine, or cytosine. In DNA, these bases pair; adenine pairs with thymine
and guanine with cytosine. Hence, DNA is a ladder-like helical structure. DNA is found in the cytoplasm of prokaryotic cells, and chiefly in the nucleus
of eukaryotic cells. A small fraction of total DNA is present in mitochondria and chloroplasts. DNA is a long polymer of nucleotides to code for the
sequence of amino acid during protein synthesis. DNA is said to carry the genetic 'blueprint' since it contains the instructions or information (called genes)
needed to construct cellular components like proteins and RNA molecules. http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/DNA
4 A given — Something that can be assumed or relied upon. https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/a+given
5 Firmament — Gen 1:7 KJV: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above
the firmament: and it was so. http://www.bible-history.com/faussets/F/Firmament/
6 The heavens — English translation of the Hebrew words HaShamayim, which literally means sky. http://biblehub.com/bdb/8064.htm
7 DBA — an initialism of “doing business as,” referring to a person or company that operates under a name other than their registered or legal name.
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/DBA
8 Inanimate Matter vs Living Organisms — http://medical.rossu.edu/medical-school/students/documents/IntroductiontoBiochemistryprematriculationsegment.pdf
9 Cell Membrane — State Key Laboratory of Electroanalytical Chemistry, Changchun Institute of Applied Chemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Changchun, P. R. China: The cell membrane is one of the most complicated biological complexes, and long-term fierce debates regarding the cell
membrane persist because of technical hurdles. With the rapid development of nanotechnology and single-molecule techniques, our understanding of cell
membranes has substantially increased. Atomic force microscopy (AFM) has provided several unprecedented advances (e.g., high resolution, three-
dimensional and in situ measurements) in the study of cell membranes and has been used to systematically dissect the membrane structure in situ from both
sides of membranes; as a result, novel models of cell membranes have recently been proposed. This review summarizes the new progress regarding
membrane structure using in situ AFM and single-molecule force spectroscopy (SMFS), which may shed light on the study of the structure and functions
of cell membranes. http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2015/cs/c4cs00508b#!divAbstract
10 RNA based specialized cells — There are exceptions to every rule of course, and in this case the most obvious two are the red blood cells of animals
and the sieve tube elements of plants, which, though living, have no nucleus and no DNA, normally these cells to do not live very long.
http://www.earthlife.net/cells.html
11 Virus — Viruses are not living things. Viruses are complicated assemblies of molecules, including proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, and carbohydrates,
but on their own they can do nothing until they enter a living cell. Without cells, viruses would not be able to multiply. Therefore, viruses are not living
things. When a virus encounters a cell, a series of chemical reactions occur that lead to the production of new viruses. These steps are completely passive,
that is, they are predefined by the nature of the molecules that comprise the virus particle. Viruses don’t actually ‘do’ anything. Often scientists and non-
scientists alike ascribe actions to viruses such as employing, displaying, destroying, evading, exploiting, and so on. These terms are incorrect because
viruses are passive, completely at the mercy of their environment. http://www.virology.ws/2004/06/09/are-viruses-living/
12 Does a DNA-less cellular organism exist on Earth — Department of Applied Life Science, Sojo University, Ikeda, Kumamoto city, Japan: All the self-
reproducing cellular organisms so far examined have DNA as the genome. However, a DNA-less organism carrying an RNA genome is suggested by the
fact that many RNA viruses exist and the widespread view that an RNA world existed before the present DNA world. Such a possibility is most plausible in
the microbial world where biological diversity is enormous and most organisms have not been identified. We have developed experimental methodology to
search DNA-less microorganisms, which is based on cultivation with drugs that inhibit replication or expression of DNA, detection of DNA in colonies
with a fluorescent dye and double staining for DNA and RNA at a cellular level. These methods have been applied for about 100 microbial samples from
various waters including hot springs, soils including deep sea sediments, and organisms. We found many colonies and cells which apparently looked DNA-
less and examined them further. So far, all such colonies that reformed colonies on isolation were identified to be DNA-positive. However, considering the
difficulty in cultivation, we think it possible for DNA-less microorganisms to live around us. We believe that our ideas and results will be of interest and
useful to discover one in the future. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22093146
13 Life — A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow,
metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce. There is no consensus regarding the answer to the question as to when does life begin. Does it begin
at the time of fertilization or the time before or after that? The origin of life is also contestable. Despite of the irresolute answer for questions about life, the
basic characteristics of a living thing are as follows: with an organized structure performing a specific function; with an ability to sustain existence, e.g. by
nourishment; with an ability to respond to stimuli or to its environment; capable of adapting; with an ability to germinate or reproduce.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Life
14 Life — A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow,
metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce. There is no consensus regarding the answer to the question as to when does life begin. Does it begin
at the time of fertilization or the time before or after that? The origin of life is also contestable. Despite of the irresolute answer for questions about life, the
basic characteristics of a living thing are as follows: with an organized structure performing a specific function; with an ability to sustain existence, e.g. by
nourishment; with an ability to respond to stimuli or to its environment; capable of adapting; with an ability to germinate or reproduce.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Life
15 Evolution's Fundamentally Errant Flaw — https://www.scribd.com/document/321394608/Evolution-s-Fundamentally-Errant-Flaw-by-Marvin-Thomas-
Cox-Flynn
16 Via Intelligent Design by Marvin Thomas Cox-Flynn: https://www.scribd.com/document/332058040/Via-Intelligent-Design-by-M-T-C-Flynn