Testing of Wells’ and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) main arguments and their quantifying evidence of the rebuttal to Wells’ book, so I could compare the credibility of both arguments.  

Additionally, I will use evidence from what I call “honest brokers” that have unearthed empirical scientific evidence from other fields not related to the NCSE or cited in Wells’ book to test both arguments to settle the issue.

Standards for analyzing the evidence:

“Empirical observational evidence” is evidence that can be observed, mathematically, quantified, and replicated, versus “theories” (scientifically plausible, but not mathematically quantifiable non observable), versus “hypothesizes” (reasonably educated guess, with anecdotic proof only), versus “dogma” (utterly disproven scientifically, meaning it could not have happened). 

Primary question; did Earth’s primordial atmosphere have sufficient oxygen to have NOT allowed chemical evolution to occur rendering Miller-Urey chemical evolution a myth?      

Facts not in dispute:

Both Wells’ and the NCSE agree. An abundantly oxygenated atmosphere would have prohibited any chemical evolution.  Both agree that life on earth began around 3.8 billion years ago and consider that time period as when a primordial/primitive atmosphere would have existed.       

Both Wells and the NCSE agree. An oxygenated rich environment would disallow the Miller-Urey to have occurred in the Precambrian atmosphere. No disagreement.

Wells’ argument:

Wells alleges the Miller-Urey experiment was impossible to have occurred and that chemical evolution is a myth and is actually dogma.

NCSE’s argument:  

The NCSE takes the position that the Precambrian 3.8 billion years ago was absent oxygen, therefore allowing the Miller-Urey chemical evolution to have occurred.

The NCSE says in its critique:

“Nearly all of the papers he (Wells) cites deal with oxygen levels after 3.0 billion years ago. They are irrelevant, as chemical data suggest that life arose 3.8 billion years ago (Chang, 1994; Orgel, 1998b), well before there was enough free oxygen in the earth's atmosphere to prevent Miller-Urey-type chemical synthesis.”

“In truth, nearly all researchers who work on the early atmosphere hold that oxygen was essentially absent during the period in which life originated (Copley, 2001) and therefore oxygen could not have played a role in preventing chemical synthesis. This conclusion is based on many sources of data, not "dogma." 

Note: In Wells’ book (chapter 2 page-16) Wells cites a study from 1975 of “red bed” sea rocks from 2 BY ago indicated an abundance of oxygen for that time period. Wells’ uses this study to bolster his case that Darwinist have ignored trending evidence as early as 1975 of the possibility that the primordial earth was not oxygen reduced. Wells never asserts this as empirical evidence.   

The NCSE omits Well’s evidence in its rebuttal of Harvard study presented at a 1982 Origins of Life conference (Chapter 2 page-18) that Wells’ cites as empirical evidence that proved the Miller-Urey experiment was a myth. The Harvard study abstract says; “It is suggested that from the time of the earliest dated rocks at 3.7 b.y. ago, Earth had an oxygenic atmosphere.”  http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982Geo....10..141C

NCSE’s cited rebuttal sources in this paragraph:    

Chang, 1994: The planetary setting of prebiotic evolution. This is book. Chang is a coauthor. No studies found to quantify the UCSE argument. This is the best I could find. Not for sure this is the Chang UCSE if referring to.  

Orgel, 1998b: “The origin of life--a review of facts and speculations.”

Pubmed abstract: “Three popular hypotheses attempt to explain the origin of prebiotic molecules: synthesis in a reducing atmosphere, input in meteorites and synthesis on metal sulfides in deep-sea vents. It is not possible to decide which is correct. It is also unclear whether the RNA world was the first biological world or whether some simpler world preceded it.”  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9868373

Copley, 2001 “Novel protein domains and repeats in Drosophila melanogaster: insights into structure, function, and evolution.”  ¹MRC Functional Genetics Unit, Department of Human Anatomy and Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3QX, UK.  

Pubmed abstract: “Sequence database searching methods such as BLAST, are invaluable for predicting molecular function on the basis of sequence similarities among single regions of proteins. Searches of whole databases however, are not optimized to detect multiple homologous regions within a single polypeptide. Here we have used the prospero algorithm to perform self-comparisons of all predicted Drosophila melanogaster gene products. Predicted repeats, and their homologs from all species, were analyzed further to detect hitherto unappreciated evolutionary relationships. Results included the identification of novel tandem repeats in the human X-linked retinitis pigmentosa type-2 gene product, repeated segments in cystinosin, associated with a defect in cystine transport, and 'nested' homologous domains in dysferlin, whose gene is mutated in limb girdle muscular dystrophy. Novel signaling domain families were found that may regulate the microtubule-based cytoskeleton and ubiquitin-mediated proteolysis, respectively. Two families of glycosyl hydrolases were shown to contain internal repetitions that hint at their evolution via a piecemeal, modular approach. In addition, three examples of fruit fly genes were detected with tandem exons that appear to have arisen via internal duplication. These findings demonstrate how completely sequenced genomes can be exploited to further understand the relationships between molecular structure, function, and evolution.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11731489

This study shows a “hint” of possible evolutionary characteristics of a “Drosophila melanogaster” fruit-fly and molecular evolution to show that to support the NCSE argument that all “nearly all researchers” “hold” that the early atmosphere was “absent oxygen;” “nearly all researchers who work on the early atmosphere hold that oxygen was essentially absent during the period in which life originated”  

An examination of the “honest broker” evidence:

1.     2009: Deep sea rocks point to early oxygen on earth: University Park, Pa. -- Red jasper cored from layers 3.46 billion years old suggests that not only did the oceans contain abundant oxygen then, but that the atmosphere was as oxygen rich as it is today, according to geologists. http://news.psu.edu/.../deep-sea-rocks-point-early-oxygen..

2.     2014: Atomic Absorption Spectrometry by the University of Mexico City indicates the magna flows volcanized from near the Earth’s mantle shows the same water vapor oxygenic content as the current atmosphere proving that primordial volcanic activity was equally oxygenated as Earth’s current atmosphere. http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/26275.pdf 

The summary and critique of the NCSE’s argument these paragraphs:

1.     The NCSE misrepresents Wells’ failure to include data from more than 3 billion years ago in his book.

2.     The NCSE omits the empirical evidence cited by Wells in the Harvard rock study from 3.8 billion years ago.

3.     The NCSE cites three studies to support their argument. Two of the argument (Chang 1994, Copley, 2001) have nothing to do with the origins of life and primordial atmospheric conditions. The only supporting evidence (Orgel, 1998b) that generally applies to the primordial atmospheric conditions concludes that there are three “hypothesis” and it is “unknown” how or what sequence the origins of life began.

The honest broker empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports Well’s argument completely defeats the best hypothesis arguments presented by the NCSE.

There is overwhelming empirical evidence that supports Wells’ argument that the primordial atmosphere was fully oxygenated. The NCSE assertion that the primordial atmosphere was oxygen reduced is not supported by any empirical evidence. Given that Wells’ statement that the NCSE is teaching dogma by teaching Miller-Urey as an evolutionary fact is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence.

The NCSE makes the argument that Wells failed to provide evidence of other possible origins of life scenarios.

“Wells also fails to cite the scientific literature on other terrestrial conditions under which organic compounds could have formed. These non-atmospheric sources include the synthesis of organic compounds in a reducing ocean (e.g., Chang, 1994), at hydrothermal vents (e.g., Andersson, 1999; Ogata et al., 2000), and in volcanic aquifers (Washington, 2000).”

Note: Wells addresses origins of life terrestrial and volcanism elements (chapter 2 page 14-15) and the possible influence of interstellar dust clouds and volcanism influence as a possible factor in explaining a reduced oxygen environment. Wells also acknowledges that Urey had assumed that the primordial atmosphere had the same composition as interstellar clouds as baseline elements for his experiment.

Well’s terrestrial argument sources:

Wells’ cites a study in 1966 by geochemists Abelson and Holland that showed that the primordial atmosphere was inconsistent with the composition of interstellar dust clouds and volcanism water vapor pointed to Earth being abundantly oxygenated in the primordial era. (1966 Chemical Events on Primitive Earth) http://www.pnas.org/content/55/6/1365.full.pdf  

NCSE cited sources:

Chang, 1994: The planetary setting of prebiotic evolution. This is book. No specific studies found to quantify argument. 

Anderssion 1999; Unable locate specific source or study. Tried “Anderson 1999” same result. 

Ogata et al., 2000: “The origin of life--a review of facts and speculations.” See details above.

The honest broker science defeats the NCSE argument of “non-atmospheric” “sources” as of chemical evolution origins of life also.  

Reduced ocean argument: refuted by a 2004 3.8 Billion year old sea rocks study at Penn State (details noted above) says the primordial ocean was oxygenated.  http://news.psu.edu/.../deep-sea-rocks-point-early-oxygen. See above previously discussed details of this study.

Hydrothermal vents argument refuted by two recent studies:

2004 study indicates chemical evolution at volcanic hydrothermal vents fail at all levels because decomposing plant life generated by the heat inhibits any protein development.   

Yoshimori Takano et.al 2004: Amino acids in the 308°C deep-sea hydrothermal system of the Suiyo Seamount, Izu-Bonin Arc, Pacific Ocean

Abstract: Deep-sea hydrothermal systems are of significant interest as a new scientific frontier in a number of fields. This report analyzes data obtained in ocean-drilling surveys at submarine hydrothermal vents on the Suiyo Seamount in the Izu-Bonin Arc, Pacific Ocean. These surveys obtained direct data regarding subjacent extreme environments under extreme conditions of 308°C and greater than 14 MPa. Evaluation of the vertical distribution and stereochemistry of amino acids in such a vigorous hydrothermal system leads to a model of deep-sea subterranean chemistry and biology that describes a lack of evidence of abiotically synthesized amino acids. Large enantiomeric excesses of L-form amino acids supported the existence of a vigorous subjacent microbial oasis in a hydrothermal system. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X0300699X

2001 Department of Geosciences, State University of New York-Stony Brook concluded that chemical evolution fails in real Earth conditions. 

Nitrogen reduction under hydrothermal vent conditions: implications for the prebiotic synthesis of C-H-O-N compounds.

ABSTRACT Dinitrogen is reduced in dilute hydrogen sulfide (H2S) solutions to ammonium at 120 degrees C. Experiments with dissolved dinitrogen (partial pressure 50 bar) in a 12 x 10(-3) mol/L H2S(aq) solution yield approximately 10(-5) mol/L NH4+ within 2-7 days. These yields are consistent with the equilibrium NH4+ concentration fo r the N-S-H system under these conditions. The formation of ammonium is catalyzed by the presence of freshly precipitated iron monosulfide. These results indicate that dinitrogen can be reduced at moderate temperatures in hydrothermal vent systems. Abiotic nitrogen reduction could have taken place within primordial hydrothermal vents, supplying some ammonia for the synthesis of C-H-O-N compounds via abiotic processes. The yield of ammonia via dinitrogen reduction by hydrogen sulfide, however, is so low that it is doubtful this process could have produced enough ammonia to sustain prebiotic hydrothermal synthesis of C-H-O-N compounds in or around vent systems. Nitrogen reduction under hydrothermal vent conditions: implications for the prebiotic synthesis of C-H-O-N compounds. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/11004531_Nitrogen_reduction_under_hydrothermal_vent_conditions_implications_for_the_prebiotic_synthesis_of_C-H-O-N_compounds

The NCSE’s arguments are categorically refuted by empirical evidence at every corner. Wells is right, the empirical scientific evidence concludes that the Miller-Urey is a myth and a failed relic of science. This is why Miller himself continued over his lifetime redoing the experiment to try to achieve chemical synthesis and never was in real earth conditions. Teaching myths is teaching dogma. Wells’ arguments are consistent with modern science. The NCSE are not.

After an honest comparison of the two arguments the NCSE statement about Wells being “misleading and inaccurate.” is epically hypocritical and demonstrably false. Unequivocally, the evidence says the opposite is true.

“October 8, 2000 “Discovery Institute fellow Jonathan Wells is a major purveyor of misleading, inaccurate, and incorrect statements about evolution. His book Icons of Evolution (2000) is notorious for its distortions and false claims about evolution.”

The NCSE Darwinist are perpetrating a perpetual deception on the public by insisting on keeping the Miller-Urey “prebiotic soup” myth alive. It’s obvious, the NCSE has no problem misstating the facts to purvey their arguments to keep Miller-Urey intact. I was very shocked at the ineptness, lack of quantifiable evidence, overt omissions of falsifiable evidence, and dishonesty of the NCSE’s arguments brought against Wells.

As David Berlinski says; “A hundred years of fraudulent drawings (Haeckel's Embryos) suggesting embryological affinities that don’t exist; that’s just what I would expect if biologist were struggling to maintain a position of power in a secular-democratic society.”  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6ElA0--JNg

The NCSE seems to have ignored modern trending science for the last 30 years against the growing implausibility of chemical evolution. The biggest problem facing chemical evolution (Darwinist) advocates is that other disciplines in science don’t reduce their findings into a constricted Neo-Darwinian confinement paradigm, as most of the bio-science disciplines do.

This is why you see a marked contradiction from life-sciences and physical-sciences disciplines in the origins of life studies. Moreover, any non-Darwinian oriented origin of life research is basically banned from the peer-review process, which is corrupt and illustrates that Darwinian evolution cannot wistand   .  

The peer-review process today is best stated by David Berlinski; “The idea that science is a uniquely self-critical institution is of course preposterous. Scientist are no more self-critical than anyone else. They hate to be criticized and they don’t criticize each other.”  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6ElA0--JNg

The Darwinian fruit-fly paradox and artificial evolution (Copley 2001):

The fruit-fly lab experiments demonstrate that without an intelligence design (ID) imputes provided by the researcher’s own intelligence the fruit-fly morphologies do not happen. In fact if you really balance the Copley experiment against competing Darwinian and ID theories the necessity of an ID concept is a more powerful argument than the reverse evolution that occurred in this experiment.    

No one can point to a single observable in the raw morphological mutation of any specie to another? Why? Because there never has been one detected by scientist either in the lab or wild. It’s a myth and a false extrapolation. In the lab small mutations are possible within specie and the results. But they do not result is a more complex better adapted specie.   

The best evidence Neo-Darwinists can point too, is lab experiments involving the fruit fly. Only  within the lab environment, and whereas DNA is manipulated by researchers (which researchers are essentially acting as intelligent designers) result in a two-winged fruit fly as a “hint” of morphological evolution sequencing (Copley 2001). A “hint” is a long way from fact.

The fact is that the two-winged fruit flies created in the lab cannot fly or mate and has no muscles to the second set of wings, let alone survive in the wild.

Moreover, the fruit fly argument is also completely inconsistent with the Darwinian principle of natural selection (survival of the fittest). Darwinian Theory argues a specie through means of DNA processes are supposed to show beneficial morphologies that help the specie to better adapt to its environment, thus becoming more complex and stronger. The fruit fly example shows Darwinian evolution in reverse, the fruit fly becomes less adapted and weaker to its environment. 

Interestingly enough, the National Academy of the Sciences seems to think a “hint” is sufficient to teach this to biology students as an example of macro-evolution evolution as being a fact. This is simply a misrepresentation of the facts. Macro-evolution has never been observed and is only assumed. 

Darwin himself also uses a similar example of dog breeders in his books and their ability to make changes within specie. True this is observable and repeatable. But inasmuch, he also makes great argument for intelligent design by including a source if intelligence (the breeder) as being needed to direct the morphology to a better breed.  

The four catastrophic defeaters to Darwinian macro-evolution and why I consider it a myth.

1.     Macro evolution has never been observed.

2.     There are no credible transitional fossil record.

3.     Life could have not started from non-life matter.

4.     Evolution violates the 2^nd law of thermodynamics (law of decay).