Good day to all, and a beautiful day it is.

When your doctor told you, you had CLL, did he also tell you that it was the “good cancer” to have, and did you go home and be happy. Did your spouse heave a huge sigh of relief and quit worrying forever more?  Did your kids lose that scared look and go about their happy days of childhood? Did you buy that line, yourself? If you did, you are made of sterner stuff.  Or you have your head stuck in the sand or some place else. If you were told that, I hope you smelled a rat right away. How can an “incurable cancer” be a “good cancer”?  This kabuki dance of switching from “Watch & Wait” when nothing much happens to life threatening emergencies that leave you breathless with anxiety – how does one cope with that kind of mind-bending transition?

When I was told by my Oncologist/Hematologist, that I had SLL/CLL, he said, “John, you have SLL/CLL, and there is no cure for it.” At first I thought, wow, that’s cold, but as time passed, I found myself appreciating the truthfulness of his statement. Since then I have found him to be open, honest, and caring. He knew what the future of SLL/CLL is for those who have it, so he never sugar-coated it. He explained to me, that it is slow-growing, and we would watch it with blood tests, and when the time came, that it was moving faster, we would attack it. Sounds good to me.

A while back Mayo Clinic conducted a CLL patient survey, in cooperation with CLL Topics. It was a massive survey (thanks to their dedicated and pro-active members). Results of that survey were sliced and diced and published as a series of articles.

Quality of life in chronic lymphocytic leukemia: an international survey of 1482 patients.

Although a diagnosis of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) can have a profound effect on the quality of life (QOL), few studies have objectively measured the QOL of CLL patients or compared it to the general population. We conducted an international, web-based survey of patients with CLL using standardized instruments with published population norms to evaluate fatigue and QOL. Co-morbid health conditions were assessed using the Charlson Co-Morbidity Index. Between June and October 2006, 1482 patients with CLL responded to the survey. The physical, social/family, functional, and overall QOL scores of CLL patients were similar to or better than published population norms. In contrast, the emotional well-being scores of CLL patients were dramatically lower than that of both the general population and patients with other types of cancer. QOL scores were lower among individuals with advanced stage disease. Factors associated with lower overall QOL on multivariate analysis included older age, greater fatigue, severity of co-morbid health conditions, and current treatment. CLL has a profound impact on QOL at all disease stages. The effects of CLL on QOL appear to differ from that of other malignancies with a more marked impact on emotional QOL. Research identifying efficacious psycho-oncologic support interventions for patients with CLL is needed.

So for all of you out there in CLL land, if you thought you were alone in feeling blue, here is your proof that you are in the majority.  CLL patients suffer from loss of emotional well-being and this is worse than compared to patients with other types of cancer!  I doubt anyone did a similar study about CLL spouses and caregivers, but I am willing to bet a fistful of dollars to a single krispy kreme glazed donut that spouses and caregivers get depressed too. I walk in your shoes, but fight those earges of sadness, worry, despair. They come, but try not to let them control your life. Someone else does, trust Him, and live daily with hope, joy, and trust.

Now on to Chemical evolution:

Abiogenesis is the theory that under the proper conditions life can arise spontaneously from non-living molecules. One of the most widely cited studies used to support this conclusion is the famous Miller–Urey  experiment. Surveys of textbooks find that the Miller–Urey study is the major (or only) research cited to prove abiogenesis. Although widely heralded for decades by the popular press as ‘proving’ that life originated on the early earth entirely under natural conditions, we now realize the experiment actually provided compelling evidence for the opposite conclusion. It is now recognized that this set of experiments has done more to show that abiogenesis on Earth is not possible than to indicate how it could be possible. This paper reviews some of the many problems with this research, which attempted to demonstrate a feasible method of abiogenesis on the early earth.

Abiogenesis was once commonly called ‘chemical evolution’,  but evolutionists today try to distance evolutionary theory from the origin of life. This is one reason that most evolutionary propagandists now call it ‘abiogenesis’. Chemical evolution is actually part of the ‘General Theory of Evolution’,  defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form’.

Darwin recognized how critical the abiogenesis problem was for his theory. He even conceded that all existing terrestrial life must have descended from some primitive life-form that was originally called into life ‘by the Creator’. But to admit, as Darwin did, the possibility of one or a few creations is to open the door to the possibility of many others! If God made one type of life, He also could have made many thousands of different types. Darwin evidently regretted this concession later and also speculated that life could have originated in some ‘warm little pond’ on the ancient earth.

The famous experiment conducted by Stanley Miller-Urey in 1953 is often quoted as proof of this. Yet the results of such experiments show nothing of the sort. These experiments, designed as they are by intelligent humans, show that under certain conditions, certain organic compounds can be formed from inorganic compounds.

In fact, what the intelligent scientists are actually saying is, “If I can just synthesize life in the laboratory, then I will have proven that no intelligence was necessary to form life in the beginning.” Where in fact it took intelligent scientists, who were trying to prove they could make life in a test tube. Their experiments are simply trying to prove the opposite—that an intelligence is required to create life.

However when we look carefully at Miller’s experiment, we will see that what he did fails to address the evolution of life. He took a mixture of gases (ammonia, hydrogen, methane, and water vapor) and he passed an electric current through them. He did this in order to reproduce the effect of lightning passing through a mixture of gases that he thought might have composed the earth’s atmosphere millions of years ago. As a result, he produced a mixture of amino acids. Because amino acids are the building blocks of proteins and proteins are considered to be the building blocks of living systems, Miller’s experiment was hailed as proof that life had evolved by chance on the earth millions of years ago.

But as time went by, more and more objections came to light for such a conclusion.

  • There is no proof that the earth ever had an atmosphere composed of the gases used by Miller in his experiment.
  • The next problem is that in Miller’s experiment he was careful to make sure there was no oxygen present. If oxygen was present, then the amino acids would not form. However, if oxygen was absent from the earth, then there would be no ozone layer, and if there was no ozone layer the ultraviolet radiation would penetrate the atmosphere and would destroy the amino acids as soon as they were formed. So the dilemma facing the evolutionist can be summed up this way: amino acids would not form in an atmosphere with oxygen and amino acids would be destroyed in an atmosphere without oxygen.
  • The next problem concerns the so-called handedness of the amino acids. Because of the way that carbon atoms join up with other atoms, amino acids exist in two forms—the right-handed form and the left-handed form. Just as your right hand and left hand are identical in all respects except for their handedness, so the two forms of amino acids are identical except for their handedness. In all living systems only left-handed amino acids are found. Yet Miller’s experiment produced a mixture of right-handed and left-handed amino acids in identical proportions. As only the left-handed ones are used in living systems, this mixture is useless for the evolution of living systems.
  • Another major problem for the chemical evolutionist is the origin of the information that is found in living systems. There are various claims about the amount of information that is found in the human genome, but it can be conservatively estimated as being equivalent to a few thousand books, each several hundred pages long. Where did this information come from? Chance does not generate information. This observation caused the late Professor Sir Fred Hoyle and his colleague, Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe of Cardiff University, to conclude that the evolutionist is asking us to believe that a tornado can pass through a junk yard and assemble a jumbo jet.

When confronted with this evidence, and even more now, supporters of abiogenesis argue that science must be naturalistic, and we have no choice but to tell the best story we have, even if it is not a complete or even accurate story. Although widely heralded by the popular press for decades as ‘proof’ that life originated on the early earth entirely by natural conditions, the Miller–Urey experiments have actually provided compelling evidence for exactly the opposite conclusion. This set of experiments—more than almost any other carried out by modern science—has done much more to show that abiogenesis is not possible on Earth than to indicate how it could be possible.

The only explanation for the existence of living systems is that they must have been created.

Advertisements