Lately there have been lots of programs on Darwin’s evolution’s theory again, it seems that as more is understood about nature their campaign against creation becomes stronger while evidence against evolution is piling up. Their campaign is directed to find support of those who only have a superficial knowledge of scientific knowledge on subjects such as biology, particularly DNA. But before we go into more detail the creation/evolution issue really begins with the origin of life. So, let’s start there. We will not bother discussing the issue of time and the age of the earth and universe. Many do not realize the assumptions involved and the circular reasoning used by evolutionists in their various dating methods. But I pointed to this in other articles before So, let’s begin with the origin of life issue.
In millions of biology textbooks it states that Stanley Miller, in the 1950’s, showed that life could arise by chance. But let’s have a closer look at Miller’s famous experiment in 1953 which showed that individual amino acids (the building blocks of life) could come into existence by chance. But, it’s not enough just to have amino acids. The various amino acids that make-up life must link together in a precise sequence, just like the letters in a sentence, to form functioning protein molecules. If they’re not in the right sequence the protein molecules won’t work. And it has never been shown that various amino acids can bind together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules.
Realise that the simplest cell is made up of many millions of various protein molecules. While all odds against it, this chance can be compared with the energy of a storm going through a junk yard will assemble the space shuttle even if given billions of years, even the die-hard atheists have difficulty believing this, yet what many don’t realize is that Miller had a laboratory apparatus that shielded and protected the individual amino acids the moment they were formed, otherwise the amino acids would have very quickly disintegrated and been destroyed in the mix of random energy and forces involved in Miller’s experiment.
There is no innate chemical tendency for the various amino acids to bond with one another in a sequence. Any one amino acid can just as easily bond with any other. The only reason at all for why the various amino acids bond with one another in a precise sequence in the cells of our bodies is because they’re directed to do so by an already existing sequence of molecules found in our genetic code.
In Nature there are what scientists call right-handed and left-handed amino acids. However, life requires that all proteins be left-handed. So, not only do millions of amino acids have to be in the correct sequence, they also all have to be left-handed. If a right-handed amino acid gets mixed in then the protein molecules won’t function. There won’t be any life!
Similarly, the nucleic acids in DNA and RNA must be in a precise sequence. The sugar molecules that make-up the various nucleic acids in DNA and RNA must be right-handed. If a nucleic acid with a left-handed sugar molecule gets into the mix then nothing will work.
If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate in the open environment. Especially without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell membrane. And even having a complete cell doesn’t necessarily mean there will be life. After all, even a dead cell is complete shortly after it dies.
Information, whether it be information in the genetic code, on a computer software program, on a type-written page, on a hand-written page, in radio signals, in the electrical signals flowing through a telephone line, anything where there is sequential arrangement of matter or energy conveying instructions, messages, codes, such phenomenon does not happen and cannot happen by chance.
Many people who easily believe in Darwinian macro-evolution theory do not understand what genes really are. They are information. DNA is information! Those who do understand and still believe in macro-evolutionary theory should know better or have been so brainwashed so as not to think critically about the theory or they wish to believe in the theory in spite of evidence to the contrary for personal motives and reasons. Even Chaos theory shows that only a minimal level of order will ever be possible by chance.
Of course, once there is a complete and living cell then the genetic code and other biological mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells. The question is how could life have arisen naturally when there was no directing mechanism at all in Nature.
Due to such programs shown on BBC, many in society have come to believe that natural selection will solve all of evolution’s problems. Natural selection cannot produce anything. It can only “select” from what is produced. Furthermore, natural selection operates only once there is life and not before.
Evolutionists believe that random mutations in the genetic code, caused by environmental forces such as radiation, will produce over time increasingly more complex genes for natural selection to use so that life can evolve from simpler species to more complex ones. There is no evidence that chance mutations can or will provide increasingly more complex genes for natural selection to act upon so that evolution would be possible from simpler species to more complex ones. It’s like saying that the random changes caused by an earthquake will increase the complexity of houses and buildings!
Natural selection is not an active force. It is a passive process in Nature. Only those variations that have survival value will be “selected” or be preserved. Once a variation has survival value then, of course, it’s not by chance that it is “selected”. But, natural selection, itself, does not produce or design those biological variations.
The term “natural selection” is simply a figure of speech. Nature does not do any active or conscious selecting. It is an entirely passive process. “Natural selection” is just another way of saying “natural survival”. If a biological change occurs that helps a species to survive then that species, obviously, will survive (i.e. be “selected”). Natural selection can only “select” from biological variations that are possible and which have survival value.
Natural selection is just another tern for survival of the fittest. But, survival of the fittest is exactly what makes Darwinian macro-evolution impossible. How can a partially evolved species be fit for survival? A partially evolved trait or organ that is not completely one or the other will be a liability to a species, not a survival asset.
The only evolution in nature that is observable and can be called science is micro evolution, which is variations within biological kinds such as varieties of dogs, cats, horses and cows. Macro evolution, or variations across kinds, is not science but faith. The genes exist in all species for micro evolution but not for macro evolution, and, as stated already, there is no scientific evidence that random genetic mutations caused by natural forces such as radiation can or will generate entirely new genes for entirely new traits for natural selection to act upon.
Genetic similarities between species are no proof of common biological ancestry because it cannot be proved that these similarities are due to a common biological ancestry via chance mutations. What if the similarities between species are due to a common designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes? Only genetic similarities within a biological kind can be used as proof of relationship.
It is not rational to believe that genes can come into existence by accident or chance. Just ask any genetic engineer! Thus, it is far more logical to believe that genetic similarities between species are due to a common designer rather than common chance evolutionary ancestry.
In the midst of arguments over evolution and intelligent design, it is amazing how many in society, including the very educated, believe that scientists had already created life in the laboratory. No such thing has ever happened. All that scientists have done is genetically engineer already existing forms of life in the laboratory, and by doing this scientists have been able to produce new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter.
Even if scientists ever do produce life from non-living matter it will only be through intelligent design or planning so it still wouldn’t help support any theory of life originating by chance or evolution. Even artificial, or synthetic life, is a creation by scientists, through intelligent design, of a DNA code built from “scratch” which is then inserted into an already existing living cell.
There simply is no scientific basis for believing life could have arisen by chance processes even if given the right environmental conditions to sustain life.
The best little article ever written refuting the origin of life by chance is “A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible” by scientist and biochemist Dr. Duane T. Gish. Dr. Gish presents “simple” but profound scientific barriers to evolution of life which aren’t mentioned or covered in any high school biology textbook or in college textbooks for that matter.
There were no human witnesses to the origin of life, and no physical geological evidence of its origin exists. Speaking of the origin of a hypothetical self-replicating molecule and its structure, Pross has recently admitted that “The simple answer is we do not know, and we may never know”. Later, concerning the question of the origin of such a molecule, Pross said, “. . . one might facetiously rephrase the question as follows: given an effectively unknown reaction mixture, under effectively unknown reaction conditions, reacting to give unknown products by unknown mechanisms, could a particular product with a specific characteristic . . . have been included amongst the reaction products?”
That pretty well summarizes the extent of the progress evolutionists have made toward establishing a mechanistic, atheistic scenario for the origin of life after more than half a century of physical, chemical, and geological research. It is possible, however, to derive facts that establish beyond doubt that an evolutionary origin of life on this planet would have been impossible. The origin of life could only have resulted from the action of an intelligent agent external to and independent of the natural universe. There is sufficient space here to describe only a few of the insuperable barriers to an evolutionary origin of life:
1 The absence of the required atmosphere
Our present atmosphere consists of 78% nitrogen (N2), 21% molecular oxygen (O2), and 1% of other gases, such as carbon dioxide CO2), argon (Ar), and water vapor H2O). An atmosphere containing free oxygen would be fatal to all origin of life schemes. While oxygen is necessary for life, free oxygen would oxidize and thus destroy all organic molecules required for the origin of life. Thus, in spite of much evidence that the earth has always had a significant quantity of free oxygen in the atmosphere, evolutionists persist in declaring that there was no oxygen in the earth’s early atmosphere. However, this would also be fatal to an evolutionary origin of life. If there were no oxygen there would be no protective layer of ozone surrounding the earth. Ozone is produced by radiation from the sun on the oxygen in the atmosphere, converting the diatomic oxygen(O2) we breathe to triatomic oxygen O3), which is ozone. Thus if there were no oxygen there would be no ozone. The deadly destructive ultraviolet light from the sun would pour down on the surface of the earth unimpeded, destroying those organic molecules required for life, reducing them to simple gases, such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water. Thus, evolutionists face an irresolvable dilemma: in the presence of oxygen, life could not evolve; without oxygen, thus no ozone, life could not evolve or exist.
2 All forms of raw energy are destructive
The energy available on a hypothetical primitive Earth would consist primarily of radiation from the sun, with some energy from electrical discharges (lightning), and minor sources of energy from radioactive decay and heat. The problem for evolution is that the rates of destruction of biological molecules by all sources of raw energy vastly exceed their rates of formation by such energy. The only reason Stanley Miller succeeded in obtaining a small amount of products in his experiment was the fact that he employed a trap to isolate his products from the energy source. Here evolutionists face two problems. First, there could be no trap available on a primitive Earth. Second, a trap by itself would be fatal to any evolutionary scenario, for once the products are isolated in the trap, no further evolutionary progress is possible, because no energy is available. In his comments on Miller’s experiment, D. E. Hull stated that “These short lives for decomposition in the atmosphere or ocean clearly preclude the possibility of accumulating useful concentrations of organic compounds over eons of time. . . . The physical chemist guided by the proved principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics, cannot offer any encouragement to the biochemist, who needs an ocean full of organic compounds to form even lifeless coacervates.”
3 An evolutionary scenario for the origin of life would result in an incredible clutter
Let us suppose that, as evolutionists suggest, there actually was some way for organic, biologically important molecules to have formed in a significant quantity on a primitive Earth. An indescribable mess would have been the result. In addition to the 20 different amino acids found in proteins today, hundreds of other kinds of amino acids would have been produced. In addition to deoxyribose and ribose, the five-carbon sugars found in DNA and RNA today, a variety of other five-carbon sugars, four-carbon, six-carbon, and seven-carbon sugars would have been produced. In addition to the five purines and pyrimidines found in DNA and RNA today, a great variety of other purines and pyrimidines would exist. Further, of vital significance, the amino acids in proteins today are exclusively left-handed, but all amino acids on the primitive Earth would be 50% left-handed and 50% right-handed. The sugars in DNA and RNA today are exclusively right-handed, but, if they did exist, sugars on a primitive Earth would have been 50% right-handed and 50% left-handed. If just one right-handed amino acid is in a protein, or just one left-handed sugar is found in a DNA or RNA, all biological activity is destroyed. There would be no mechanism available on a primitive Earth to select the correct form. This fact alone destroys evolution. Evolutionists have been wrestling with this dilemma since it was first recognized, and there is no solution in sight. All these many varieties would compete with one another, and a great variety of other organic molecules, including aldehydes, ketones, acids, amines, lipids, carbohydrates, etc. would exist. If evolutionists really claim to simulate plausible primitive Earth conditions, why don’t they place their reactants in a big mess like this and irradiate it with ultraviolet light, shock it with electric discharges, or heat it, and see what results? They don’t do that because they know there wouldn’t be the remotest possibility that anything useful for their evolutionary scenario would result. Rather, they carefully select just the starting materials they want to produce amino acids or sugars or purines or whatever, and, furthermore, they employ implausible experimental conditions that would not exist on a primitive Earth. They then claim in textbooks and journal articles that such and such biological molecules would have been produced in abundant quantities on the early earth.
4 Micromolecules do not spontaneously combine to form macromolecules
It is said that DNA is the secret of life. DNA is not the secret of life. Life is the secret of DNA. Evolutionists persistently claim that the initial stage in the origin of life was the origin of a self-replicating DNA or RNA molecule. There is no such thing as a self-replicating molecule, and no such molecule could ever exist. The formation of a molecule requires the input of a highly selected type of energy and the steady input of the building blocks required to form it. To produce a protein, the building blocks are amino acids. For DNA and RNA these building blocks are nucleotides, which are composed of purines, pyrimidines, sugars, and phosphoric acid. If amino acids are dissolved in water they do not spontaneously join together to make a protein. That would require an input of energy. If proteins are dissolved in water the chemical bonds between the amino acids slowly break apart, releasing energy (the protein is said to hydrolyze). The same is true of DNA and RNA. To form a protein in a laboratory the chemist, after dissolving the required amino acids in a solvent, adds a chemical that contains high energy bonds (referred to as a peptide reagent). The energy from this chemical is transferred to the amino acids. This provides the necessary energy to form the chemical bonds between the amino acids and releases H and OH to form H2O (water). This only happens in a chemistry laboratory or in the cells of living organisms. It could never have taken place in a primitive ocean or anywhere on a primitive Earth. Who or what would be there to provide a steady input of the appropriate energy? Destructive raw energy would not work. Who or what would be there to provide a steady supply of the appropriate building blocks rather than just junk? In speaking of a self-replicating DNA molecule, evolutionists are reaching for a pie in the sky.
5 DNA could not survive without repair mechanisms
DNA, as is true of messenger-RNA, transfer-RNA, and ribosomal-RNA, is destroyed by a variety of agents, including ultraviolet light, reactive oxygen species, alkylating agents, and water. A recent article reported that there are 130 known human DNA repair genes and that more will be found. The authors stated that “Genome |DNA| instability caused by the great variety of DNA-damaging agents would be an overwhelming problem for cells and organisms if it were not for DNA repair emphasis. Note that even water is one of the agents that damages DNA! If DNA somehow evolved on the earth it would be dissolved in water. Thus water and many chemical agents dissolved in it, along with ultraviolet light would destroy DNA much faster than it could be produced by the wildest imaginary process. If it were not for DNA repair genes, the article effectively states, DNA could not survive even in the protective environment of a cell! How then could DNA survive when subjected to brutal attack by all the chemical and other DNA-damaging agents that would exist on the hypothetical primitive Earth of the evolutionists?
What are the cellular agents that are necessary for DNA repair and survival? DNA genes! Thus, DNA is necessary for the survival of DNA! But it would have been impossible for DNA repair genes to evolve before ordinary DNA evolved and it would have been impossible for ordinary DNA to evolve before DNA repair genes had evolved. Here we see another impossible barrier for evolution. Furthermore, it is ridiculous to imagine that DNA repair genes could have evolved even if a cell existed. DNA genes encode the sequences of the hundreds of amino acids that constitute the proteins that are the actual agents that are involved in DNA repair.
The code in the DNA is translated into a messenger RNA (mRNA). The mRNA must then move to and be incorporated into a ribosome (which is made up of three different ribosomal RNAs and 55 different protein molecules). Each amino acid must be coupled to a transfer RNA specific for that amino acid, and the coupling requires a protein enzyme specific for that amino acid and transfer-RNA. Responding to the code on the messenger RNA and utilizing the codes on transfer RNA’s, the appropriate amino acids, attached to the transfer RNAs, are attached to the growing protein chain in the order prescribed by the code of the messenger RNA. Many enzymes are required along with appropriate energy. This is only a brief introduction to the incredible complexity of life that is found even in a bacterium.
“Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the Lord hath wrought this?” (Job 12:9)
A compilation of articles.
Moshiya van den Broek