ORIGIN OF LIFE

An explanation of what is needed for abiogenesis (or biopoiesis) 3

The origin of life: a critique of current scientific models ..9
Why the MillerUrey research argues against abiogenesis .16
15 loopholes in the evolutionary theory of the origin of life: Summary 21

WHAT ARE SOME BASICS PROBLEMS WITH THE NATURALISTIC ORIGIN OF LIFE

Life from life or not? ...22

Tinned sardinesclue to the origin of life? ..24
The fish in the bathtub .25
Lifes irreducible structurePart 1: autopoiesis ..25

WHAT ARE SOME SCIENTIFIC PROBLEMS WITH THE IDEA THAT LIFE AROSE DUE TO CHEMICAL EVOLUTION?

Origin of life: the chirality problem .30

Origin of life and the homochirality problem: is magnetochiral dichroism the solution? ..33

Origin of life: the polymerization problem 34

Origin of life: instability of building blocks .35

Self-replicating enzymes? ...37

Hydrothermal origin of life? 38

World record enzymes .39

Is RNA self-replication evidence for evolution? 40

Natural selection cannot explain the origin of life 41

DID LIVE ORIGINATE IN OUTER SPACE?

Did life come to Earth from outer space? . 42

Alien visitors to Earth? .44
Nucleic acid bases in Murchison meteorite? 45
Panspermia theory burned to a crisp: bacteria couldnt survive on meteorite 46
Extrasolar planets with organic materials .47
Sugars from space? Do they prove evolution? .47
Moon microbes? ...48
Life on Mars? .49
Designed by aliens? ..50

COULD DNA AND THE GENETIC CODE EVOLVE BY CHANCE?

DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess? .51

Decoding and editing designs: double-sieve enzymes ..54

Mans achievements vs amazing living computer technology 55

New DNA repair enzyme discovered 56

Dazzling design in miniature: DNA information storage .56

What is irreducible complexity and how does it pose a problem for evolution? ...57

Irreducible complexity:some candid admissions byevolutionists ..59

Design in living organisms (motors: ATP synthase) ...62

Did cells acquire organelles such as mitochondria by gobbling up other cells? 63

World record enzymes .63

How do the laws of statistics and probability describe the evolutionary claim that life came about by chance? ...64

Monkey madness .67

Huff and Bluff 67

How Simple Can Life Be? ... 68

DAILY

Abiogenesis? .68
Life at the extremes .70
Secular biology class confirms design .. 72
Hawking claims that life can form by chance ...73
Earliest multicellular life? .74

WAS LIFE REALLY CREATED IN TEST TUBE?

Was life really created in a test tube? ...76

Evolution of multicellularity: what is required? .78
Origin of oxygen more complex than imagined ...79

Life in a test-tube ..80

Who wants to be a millionaire? ..81

Origin of life
An explanation of what is needed for abiogenesis (or biopoiesis)
by Don Batten
Introduction
How did life begin? The origin of life is a vexing problem for those who insist that life arose through purely natural processes.
The naturalistic origin of life is also known as abiogenesis or sometimes chemical evolution.Some evolutionists try to claim
that the origin of life is not a part of evolution. However, probably every evolutionary biology textbook has a section on the
origin of life in the chapters on evolution. The University of California, Berkeley, has the origin of life included in their
Evolution 101 course, in a section titled From Soup to Cellsthe Origin of Life. 1 High-profile defenders of all-thingsevolutionary, such as P.Z. Myers and Nick Matzke, agree that
the origin of life is part of evolution, as does Richard Dawkins. 2A
Table of Contents
well-known evolutionist of the past, G.A. Kerkut, did make a
distinction between the General Theory of Evolution (GTE),
Introduction
which included the origin of life, and the Special Theory of
Evolution (STE) that only dealt with the diversification of life (the
supposed topic of Darwins 1859 book).3It is only recently that
Getting all the right ingredients
some defenders of evolution have tried to divorce the origin of
Amino acids
life from consideration. Its probably because the hope of finding
Sugars
an answer is rapidly fading, as one scientific discovery after
The components of DNA and RNA
another of sophisticated machinery in even the simplest living
Lipids
cells makes the problem of a naturalistic origin ever more
Handedness (chirality)
difficult.So, what do we need to get life? We can break the
problem of the origin of life into a number of topics in an attempt
to explain to non-scientists what is involved (although it still
might be mind-stretching).
How did life begin? Explaining the origin of life by solely physical
and chemical processes is proving to be extremely difficult.What
is it that we have to obtain to produce a livingcell? A living cell is
capable of acquiring all the resources it needs from its
What are the minimum requirements for a cell to live?
surroundings and reproducing itself. The first cell had to be freeliving; that is, it could not depend on other cells for its survival
because other cells did
Polymer formation (polymerisation)
not exist. Parasites
cannot be a model for
The origin of life is a matter of programming, not just
first life because they
chemistry
need existing cells to
survive. This also rules
out virusesand the like
Life also needs error-correcting systems
as the precursors to life
as they must have
Origin of life scenarios
living cells that they can
parasitize to reproduce
themselves. Prions, misshaped proteins that cause disease,
Probability calculations for the origin of life
have nothing to do with the origin of life because they can only
replicate by causing proteins manufactured by a cell to become
Conclusion
misshaped.The first things needed are the right ingredients. Its
bit like baking a cake; you cant make a banana cake if you have
no bananas or flour.
Getting all the right ingredients
Right here there is a major problem for chemical soup approaches to the origin of life: all the components have to be
present in the same location for a living cell to have any possibility of being assembled. But necessary components of life
have carbonyl (>C=O) chemical groups that react destructively with amino acids
and other amino (NH2) compounds. Such carbonyl-containing molecules include
sugars,4 which also form the backbone of DNA and RNA. Living cells have ways of
keeping them apart and protecting them to prevent such cross-reactions, or can
repair the damage when it occurs, but a chemical soup has no such facility.Cells
are incredibly complex arrangements of simpler chemicals. I am not going to cover
every chemical that a first cell would need; it would take a book and some to cover
it. I am just going to highlight some of the basic components that have to be
present for any origin of life scenario.
a. Amino acids
Living things are loaded with proteins; linear strings of amino acids. Enzymes are
special proteins that help chemical reactions to happen (catalysts). For example,

the enzyme amylase is secreted in our saliva and causes starch molecules from rice, bread, potatoes, etc., to break up into
smaller molecules, which can be then be broken down to their constituent glucose molecules. We cant absorb starch, but
we are able to absorb glucose and use it to power our bodies.Some reactions necessary for life go so slowly without
enzymes that they would effectively never produce enough product to be useful, even given billions of years. 5Other proteins
form muscles, bone, skin, hair and all manner of the structural parts of cells and bodies. Humans can produce well over
100,000 proteins (possibly millions; nobody really knows exactly how many), whereas a typical bacterium can produce one
or two thousand different ones.
Figure 1. Leucine, the most common amino acid, which is a specific arrangement of atoms of carbon (C), hydrogen (H),
oxygen (O), and nitrogen (N).
Proteins are made up of 20 different amino acids (some microbes have an extra one or two). Amino acids are not simple
chemicals and they are not easy to make in the right way without enzymes (which are themselves composed of amino
acids); see Figure 1.
The 1953 MillerUrey experiment, which almost every biology textbook still presents, managed to make some amino acids
without enzymes. It is often portrayed as explaining the origin of life, but that is either very ignorant or very deceitful.
Although tiny amounts of some of the right amino acids were made, the conditions set up for the experiment could never
have occurred on Earth; for example, any oxygen in the atmosphere in the flask would have prevented anything from
forming. Furthermore, some of the wrong types of amino acids were produced, as well as other chemicals that would crossreact, preventing anything useful forming.The amino acids required for functional proteins could never have been made by
anything like this experiment in nature. 6 When Stanley Miller repeated the experiment in 1983 with a slightly more realistic
mixture of gases, he only got trace amounts of glycine, the simplest of the 20 amino acids needed. 7The origin of the correct
mix of amino acids remains an unsolved problem (and see another major problem under
handedness below).
Figure 2. Glucose, linear form.
b. Sugars
Some sugars can be made just from chemistry without enzymes (which are only made by
cells, remember). However, mechanisms for making sugars without enzymes need an
alkaline environment, which is incompatible with the needs for amino acid synthesis.The
chemical reaction that is proposed for the formation of sugars needs the absence of
nitrogenous compounds, such as amino acids, because these react with the formaldehyde,
the intermediate products, and the sugars, to produce non-biological chemicals.Ribose, the
sugar that forms the backbone of RNA, and in modified form DNA, an essential part of all
living cells, is especially problematic. It is an unstable sugar (it has a short half-life, or breaks
down quickly) in the real world at near-neutral pH (neither acid nor alkaline).8
c. The components of DNA and RNA
How can we get the nucleotides that are the chemical letters of DNA and RNA without the
help of enzymes from a living cell? The chemical reactions require formaldehyde (H2C=O) to
react with hydrogen cyanide (HCN). However, formaldehyde and cyanide (especially) are
deadly poisons. They would destroy critically important proteins that might have formed!
Figure 3. Cytosine, one of the simpler of the five nucleotides that make up DNA and RNA. In
this form of chemical diagram, each unlabelled bend in the ring has a carbon atom at the bend.
Cytosine (Figure 3), one of the five essential nucleotide bases of DNA and RNA, is very difficult
to make in any realistic pre-biotic scenario and is also very unstable. 7DNA and RNA also have
backbones of alternating sugars and phosphate groups. The problems with sugars are
discussed above. Phosphates would be precipitated by the abundant calcium ions in sea water
or cling strongly onto the surfaces of clay particles. Either scenario would prevent phosphate
from being used to make DNA.
d. Lipids
Lipids (fats) are essential for the formation of a cell membrane that contains the cell contents,
as well as for other cell functions. The cell membrane, comprised of several different complex
lipids, is an essential part of a free-living cell that can reproduce itself.Lipids have much higher
energy density than sugars or amino acids, so their formation in any chemical soup is a
problem for origin of life scenarios (high energy compounds are thermodynamically much less
likely to form than lower energy compounds).The fatty acids that are the primary component of all cell membranes have
been very difficult to produce, even assuming the absence of oxygen
(a reducing atmosphere). Even if such molecules were produced, ions
such as magnesium and calcium, which are themselves necessary for
life and have two charges per atom (++, i.e. divalent), would combine
with the fatty acids, and precipitate them, making them
unavailable.9 This process likewise hinders soap (essentially a fatty
acid salt) from being useful for washing in hard waterthe same
precipitation reaction forms the scum.
Figure 4. A potassium transport channel. The red and blue lines show
the position of the lipid membrane and the ribbons represent the
transporter, which comprises a number of proteins (different colours).
To give some idea of the complexity, each loop in each of the spirals is
about 4 amino acids.
Some popularisers of abiogenesis like to draw diagrams showing a
simple hollow sphere of lipid (a vesicle) that can form under certain
conditions in a test-tube. However, such a membrane could never
lead to a living cell because the cell needs to get things through the
cell membrane, in both directions. Such transport into and out of the
cell entails very complex protein-lipid complexes known as transport
channels, which operate like electro-mechanical pumps. They are
specific to the various chemicals that must pass into and out of the cell
(a pump that is designed to move water will not necessarily be suitable
for pumping oil). Many of these pumps use energy compounds such as
ATP to actively drive the movement against the natural gradient. Even

when movement is with the gradient, from high to low concentration, it is still facilitated by carrier proteins.The cell
membrane also enables a cell to maintain a stable pH, necessary for enzyme activity, and favourable concentrations of
various minerals (such as not too much sodium). This requires transport channels (pumps) that specifically move hydrogen
ions (protons) under the control of the cell. These pumps are highly selective. 10Transport across membranes is so important
that 2030% of all genes in most genomes encode membrane proteins. 11 The smallest known genome of a free-living
organism, that of the parasite Mycoplasma genitalium, codes for 26 transporters12amongst its 482 protein-coding genes.A
pure lipid membrane would not allow even the passive movement of the positively-charged ions of mineral nutrients such
as calcium, potassium, magnesium, iron, manganese, etc., or the negatively-charged ions such asphosphate, sulfate, etc.,
into the cell, and they are all essential for life. A pure-lipid membrane would repel such charged ions, which dissolve in
water, not lipid. Indeed, a simple fat membrane would prevent the movement of water itself (try mixing a lipid like olive oil
with water)!
Membrane transporters would appear to be essential for a viable living cell.
In the 1920s the idea that life began with soapy bubbles (fat globules) was popular (Oparins coacervate hypothesis) but
this pre-dated any knowledge of what life entailed in terms of DNA and protein synthesis, or what membranes have to do.
The ideas were nave in the extreme, but they still get an airing today in YouTube videos showing bubbles of lipid, even
dividing, as if this were relevant to explaining the origin of life (see: Self-made cells? Of course not!).
Figure 5. The chirality of typical amino acids. R represents the carbon-hydrogen side-chain of the amino acid, which varies
in length. R=CH3 makes alanine, for example.
e. Handedness (chirality)
Amino acids, sugars, and many other biochemicals,
being 3-dimensional, can usually be in two forms that
are mirror images of one another; like your right and left
hand are mirror images of each other. This is called
handedness or chirality (Figure 5).Now living things are
based on biochemicals that are pure in terms of their
chirality (homochiral): left-handed amino acids and righthanded sugars, for example. Heres the rub: chemistry
without enzymes (like the MillerUrey experiment),
when it does anything, produces mixtures of amino
acids that are both right-and left-handed. It is likewise
with the chemical synthesis of sugars (with the formate
reaction, for example).13Origin-of-life researchers have
battled with this problem and all sorts of potential
solutions have been suggested but the problem remains
unsolved.14 Even getting 99% purity, which would
require some totally artificial, unlikely mechanism for
nature to create, doesnt cut it. Life needs 100% pure left-handed amino acids. The reason for this is that placing a righthanded amino acid in a protein in place of a left-handed one results in the protein having a different 3-dimensional shape.
None can be tolerated to get the type of proteins needed for life.
What are the minimum requirements for a cell to live?
A minimal free-living cell that can manufacture its components using chemicals and energy obtained from its surrounding
environment and reproduce itself must have:A cell membrane. This separates the cell from the environment. It must be
capable of maintaining a different chemical environment inside the cell compared to outside (as above). Without this, lifes
chemical processes are not possible.A way of storing the information or specifications that instructs a cell how to make
another cell and how to operate moment by moment. The only known means of doing this is DNA and any proposals for it to
be something else (such as RNA) have not been shown to be viableand then there has still to be a way of changing from
the other system to DNA, which is the basis of all known life. 15A way of reading the information in (2) to make the cells
components and also control the amount produced and the timing of production. The major components are proteins, which
are strings (polymers) of hundreds to thousands of some 20 different amino acids. The only known (or even conceivable)
way of making the cells proteins from the DNA specifications involves over 100 proteins and other complex co-factors.
Involved are
nano-machines such as RNA polymerase (smallest known type has ~4,500 amino acids),
gyrases, which twist/untwist the DNA spiral to enable it to be read (again these are very large proteins),
ribosomes, sub-cellular factories where proteins are manufactured, and
at least 20 transfer-RNA molecules; these select the right amino acid to be placed in the order specified on the DNA (all cells
that we know of have at least 61 because most amino acids are specified by more than one DNA three-letter code). The
transfer-RNAs have sophisticated mechanisms for making sure the right amino acid is selected according to the DNA code.
There are also mechanisms to make sure that the proteins made are folded three-dimensionally in the correct way that
involvechaperones to protect the proteins from mis-folding, plus chaperonin folding machines in which the proteins are
helped to fold correctly). All cells have these.
Whew! And thats just the basics.
A greatly simplified animation of protein synthesis, which includes the action of RNA polymerase, ribosomes, transfer-RNAs,
chaperonins, and chaperones. All living cells have this system of protein synthesis.A means of manufacturing the cells
biochemical needs from the simpler chemicals in the environment. This includes a way of makingATP, the universal energy
currency of life. All living cells today have ATP synthase, a phenomenally complex and efficient electric rotary motor to make
ATP (or in reverse to create electric currents that drive other reactions and movement both inside and outside the cell).A
means of copying the information and passing it on to offspring (reproduction). A recent simulation of one cell division of the
simplest known free-living bacterium (which only has 525 genes) required 128 desktop computers working together for 10
hours.16This gives some indication of what needs to happen for the first living cell to live.An interesting project began some
years ago to ascertain what could be the minimal cell that could operate in a free-living manner; that is, not dependent on
another living organism. However, it did have available a nutrient-rich medium that provided a wealth of complex organic
compounds such that the cell did not have to synthesize many of its needed biochemicals. This minimal cell is now known to
need over 400 protein and RNA components, 17 and of course that means that its DNA needs to be loaded up with the
specifications for making these. That is, the DNA needs to have over 400 genes. We will come back to this later.
Polymer formation (polymerisation)
Life is not just composed of amino acids or sugars but it is loaded with polymers, which are strings, or chains, of simpler
compounds joined together. A polysaccharide is a polymer of sugars. A protein is a polymer of amino acids and DNA and

RNA are polymers of nucleotides. Polysaccharides are the simplest, where the links in the chain are normally the same
sugar compound, such as glucose (making starch in plants or glycogen in animals). Proteins are much more complex, being
chains of amino acids where each link in the chain can be one of 20 different amino acids. And there are four different links
in DNA and RNA.Now water is an essential ingredient of living cells; typical bacteria are about 75% water. Being the
universal solvent, water is a necessary carrier for the various components of cells; it is the milieu in which it all happens.
The origin of life is a matter of programming, not just chemistry.
Here is a huge problem for origin-of-life scenarios: when amino acids are joined together, for example, a water molecule is
released. This means that in the presence of water, the reaction is pushed in the wrong direction, backwards; that is,
proteins will fall apart, not build, unless the water is actively removed. A cell overcomes this by protecting the reaction site
from water (inside ribosomes) and providing energy to drive this and the polymer formation. Thus, the formation of proteins
of more than a few amino acids is a huge problem for all origin-of-life scenarios (and adding more time does not solve the
problem; they just fall apart more).Polymer formation also requires that the ingredients (monomers) that are joined together
are bi-functional.That simply means that the amino acids for making proteins (or sugars for making polysaccharides) have at
least two active sites that will allow another amino acid (or sugar) to be joined to each end. A protein-forming amino acid will
have at least one amino group (-NH2) and one carboxyl group (-COOH), with the amino group of one amino acid joining to
the carboxyl group of another, thus growing the chain. A compound with only one active site (mono-functional) would
terminate the formation of the chain. The problem for origin-of-life scenarios is that any proposed chemical reactions that
produce some amino acids also produce mono-functional ones that terminate protein formation.18Nucleic acids such as DNA
and RNA are based on a sugar-polymer backbone. Again, the presence of some sugars that are mono-functional would
terminate the formation of these and the presence of water also drives this reaction in the wrong direction as well (to fall
apart).
The origin of life is a matter of programming, not just chemistry
The above information would be sufficient to eliminate notions of the
naturalistic origin of life, but we have not covered the most important
problem, which is the origin of the programming. Life is not based just
on polymers but polymers with specific arrangements of the subunits;
specific arrangements of amino acids to make functional
proteins/enzymes and specific arrangements of nucleic acid bases to
make functional DNA and RNA.As astrobiologist Paul Davies, now
director of the Beyond Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science at
Arizona State University, said,To explain how life began we need to
understand how its unique management of information came
about.The way life manages information involves a logical structure
that differs fundamentally from mere complex chemistry. Therefore
chemistry alone will not explain lifes origin, any more than a study of
silicon, copper and plastic will explain how a computer can execute a
program.19Davies clarity on this point ought not to be a surprise to his
fellow evolutionists, given his similarly plain-speaking public utterances
for well over a decade previously. E.g. It is the software of the living cell
that is the real mystery, not the hardware. 20 And: How did stupid atoms
spontaneously write their own software? Nobody knows .17
Any attempt to explain the origin of life without explaining the origin of
the information processing system and the information recorded on the DNA of a living cell is avoiding the issue. We just
have to look at the simplest free-living cell possible to see how the origin of the information is an insoluble problem for
scenarios that rely on physics and chemistry (that is, no intelligent design allowed).Sir Karl Popper, one of the most
prominent philosophers of science of the 20 th century, realized that,What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a
disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the
synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But the machinery by which the cell (at least the nonprimitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which
are themselves coded in the DNA [ed: we now know that over 100 macromolecular components are needed]. Thus the code
can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious
circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.Thus we may be faced with the
possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all
attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics.21
Origin of the DNA code
The coded DNA information storage system as described by Popper cannot arise from chemistry, but demands an intelligent
cause.22 If we think of other coding systems, such as the Morse code or a written alphabetical language, where symbols
were invented to represent the sounds of speech, such coded systems only arise from intelligence. It is an arbitrary
convention that a is usually pronounced as in cat in English; nothing about the shape of the letter indicates how it should
be pronounced. Likewise, there is just no conceivable possibility of explaining the DNA coding system from the laws of
physics and chemistry because there is no physical or chemical relationship between the code and what is
coded.Furthermore, if the origin of any DNA code were not a big enough problem, the DNA code turns out to be, of the many
millions possible, at or very close to a global optimum for error minimization: the best of all possible codes. 23 This error
minimization in the code is possible because there are potentially 64 codons 24 for 20 amino acids, so that nearly all amino
acids have more than one codon (a few common amino acids, such as leucine, have six).25 These multiple codons are
sometimes called redundant, often taken to mean extra to needed or superfluous. However, the extra codons are
optimized such that the most likely single-letter mistakes (mutations) in the coding are more likely not to change the amino
acid, or at least to change it to a chemically similar one (thus being less disruptive to the structure of the protein
manufactured).The extra codons are also involved in sophisticated control of the amount of protein synthesized, through
translation level control. This control system operates in bacteria and higher organisms. 26There is no way that a coding
system can develop in successive stages to be optimized. If a workable coding system did come into existence, no change
in the code can occur because the code and the decoding system (reading machinery) have to change at the same time, an
incredibly improbable likelihood. So the optimized code cannot be explained except as another incredible fluke of nature,
right at the supposed beginning of life.
Not just a coding system, but information
Not only does the origin of the coded information storing system need to be explained, the information or specifications for
proteins, etc., stored on the DNA has also to be explained. Revisiting the simplest cell, derived by knocking out genes from a

viable free-living microbe to see which ones were essential, this minimal cell needs over 400 protein and RNA components.
Specifications for all these have to be encoded on the DNA, otherwise this hypothetical cell cannot manufacture them or
reproduce itself to make another cell. It would take a large book to print this information coded in the four letters of the
DNA.As per the Paul Davies analogy, the problem is similar to a computer program. How do we explain the existence of a
program? There is first the programming language (Python, Fortran, C++, Basic, Java, etc.) but then there is the actual set
of instructions written in that language. The DNA problem is likewise two-fold; the origin of the programming language and
the origin of the program.Proposals for something simpler that evolved into this simplest cell need to demonstrate the route
from their hypothetical simpler start to the first living cell. Enthusiasts for abiogenesis often appeal to billions of years as a
hand-waving approach to solving the problems, but this provides no mechanism. Reactions that are going in the wrong
direction are not going to reverse and go in the correct direction by adding more time.
Life also needs error-correcting systems
Molecular biology has revealed that cells are phenomenally complex and sophisticated, even the simplest ones. The
information, as stated, is stored on the DNA. However, DNA is a very unstable molecule. One report says:There is a general
belief that DNA is rock solidextremely stable, says Brandt Eichman, associate professor of biological sciences at
Vanderbilt, who directed the project. Actually DNA is highly reactive. On a good day about one million bases in the DNA in a
human cell are damaged.27Therefore all cells must have systems for correcting faults that develop in the structure of the
DNA or in the coded information. Without these error-correcting systems, the number of errors in the DNA sequence
accumulate and result in the demise of the cell (error catastrophe). This feature of all living cells adds yet
another impossible to origin of life scenarios.Any information that happened to arise on a theoretical DNA molecule in a
primordial soup would have to be reproduced accurately or the information would be lost due to copying errors and chemical
damage. Without an already functioning repair mechanism, the information would be degraded quickly. However, the
instructions to build this repair machinery are encoded on the very molecule it repairs, another vicious circle for origin of life
scenarios.28When scientists discovered bacteria that live in extreme conditions, such as around hydrothermal vents in the
sea, they were heralded as primitive life because some origin-of-life researchers had proposed that life might have started
in such places. However, these extremophiles, as they have been called (liking extremes), have quite sophisticated errorcorrecting systems for their DNA. For example,Deinococcus radiodurans is a bacterium that can withstand extreme doses of
ionizing radiation that would kill you or me, or other bacteria. It does sustain DNA damage where the DNA is fractured into
many pieces. However, about 60 genes are activated to repair the breaks and reconstruct the genome in the hours following
the damage.29Hydrothermal vents are hot, inhospitable places and the DNA of microbes that live there is continually being
damaged, such that the microbes must have sophisticated error-protecting and correcting systems to survive. They are not
at all simple and do not provide any sort of viable model for explaining the origin of life. 30Moreover, all bacteria, not just the
extremophiles, must have sophisticated error-correcting systems that involve many genes, and when the error correction is
inactivated by mutations the bacteria become non-viable. This provides yet another problem for the origin of life.
Origin of life scenarios
Did life originate in a warm pond (as speculated by Darwin), near a deep sea vent, on clay particles, or
somehow/somewhere else? The number of scenarios proposed, with no winner, suggests that they all have major
deficiencies.A major problem with warm pond and deep sea vent ideas is the presence of water, which prevents many of the
reactions needed; to get polymers, for example. Furthermore, the heat in deep sea vents would speed up the breakdown of
any lucky chemical formation.Because of these problems with the presence of water, physical chemist and origin-of-life
researcher, Graham Cairns-Smith proposed that clay surfaces were involved in facilitating some of the needed reactions.
However, experiments in warm volcanic ponds have shown that clay particles bind amino acids, DNA and phosphate,
essential components of life, so strongly that the clay prevents any necessary reactions from occurring. 31The origin of a
whole cell including the DNA, proteins and RNA needed for it to reproduce will never happen by an accident in a chemical
soup, as demonstrated above. So advocates of abiogenesis have tried to imagine scenarios whereby life began with simpler
requirements and then progressed to life as we know it today.
Proteins first?
Most effort has gone into a proteins first approach, whereby proteins supposedly formed first and the DNA sequences to
make the needed proteins and the RNAs necessary to make proteins from the sequences of DNA came later. However,
other than the problem of getting the correct set of optically pure amino acids and the problem of polymerisation to make the
protein chains of amino acids, few proteins can act as templates to make copies of themselves. 32 Also, a fundamental
problem is that there is no mechanism for creating the DNA sequence for a protein from the protein itself, as pointed out by
information theorist Hubert Yockey.33
RNA first?
In the 1980s, some RNA molecules were discovered that have the ability to catalyse some chemical reactions; these were
dubbed ribozymes (from ribonucleic acid enzymes). This finding stimulated a lot of excitement and so a lot of effort has
gone into RNA-first scenarios, or the RNA world. At least there are enzymes that can generate DNA code from RNA code;
that is, if you could get the RNA you might be able to imagine a scenario for getting the DNA. However, the enzyme
complexes that can make a DNA copy of an RNA sequence are phenomenally complex and themselves would never arise
by natural processes. And there are many other seemingly insurmountable problems with the RNA-first scenarios, 19 of
which have been enumerated by Cairns-Smith.34 Furthermore, RNA is much less stable than DNA, which itself is very
unstable, as documented above.The multiplicity of scenarios proposed reinforces the conclusion that researchers really
have little idea how life could have made itself. There is no viable hypothesis as to how life could start off simpler and, stepwise, progress to become an actual living cell. Neo-Darwinism (mutations and natural selection) is often invoked to try to
climb mount impossible but this cannot help, even hypothetically, until there is a
viable self-reproducing entity, aka a cell, the minimum requirements for which I set
out earlier (What are the minimum requirements for a cell to live?).
Life from outer space?
Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the DNA double helix structure, is a well-known
proponent of life from space.35 He proposed that aliens sent life to earth, known as
directed panspermia. Another form of this idea, simply panspermia, is that life
arose somewhere else in the universe and came to earth as microbes on meteorites
or comets; Earth was seeded with life in this manner. Either version of panspermia
effectively puts the matter beyond the reach of science. About the only element of
panspermia that is testable is the ability of microbes to survive riding on/in a
meteorite to earth. And this has been tested and found wanting; microbes dont
survive.36A lot of the impetus for the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence (SETI)
and extra-solar planets comes from a desire to find evidence that life might have

formed out there. But even allowing the whole universe as a laboratory does not solve the problem; life would never form,
as the following section reinforces.
Wikimedia commons/Booyabazooka
Probability calculations for the origin of life
Many attempts have been made to calculate the probability of the formation of life from chemicals, but all of them involve
making simplifying assumptions that make the origin of life even possible (i.e. probability > 0).Mathematician Sir Fred Hoyle
stated in various ways the extreme improbability of life forming, or even getting a single functional biopolymer such as a
protein. Hoyle said, Now imagine 1050 blind persons [ed: standing shoulder to shoulder, they would more than fill our entire
planetary system] each with a scrambled Rubik cube and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at
the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling of just one of the many biopolymers on which life
depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in
a primordial soup here on earth is evidently nonsense of a high order. Life must plainly be a cosmic phenomenon. 37Indeed,
we can calculate the probability of getting just one small protein of 150 amino acids in length, assuming that only the correct
amino acids are present, and assuming that they will join together in the right manner (polymerize). The number of possible
arrangements of 150 amino acids, given 20 different ones, is (20) 150. Or the probability of getting it right with one try is about
1 in 10195. Lest someone protest that not every amino acid has to be in the exact order, this is only a small protein, and only
one of several hundred proteins needed, many of which are much larger, and the DNA sequence has to arise as well,
seriously compounding the problem. Indeed there are proteins that will not function at all with even a small alteration to their
sequence.38At that time Hoyle argued that life must therefore have come from outer space. Later he realized that even given
the universe as a laboratory, life would not form anywhere by the unguided (non-intelligent) processes of physics and
chemistry:The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 naughts after it It is
big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor any
other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful
intelligence.39Does a figure of 1 in 10 40,000 make the origin of life somewhere in the universe impossible without purposeful
intelligence? Can we say that?The total number of events (or elementary logical operations) that could have occurred in
the universe since the supposed big bang (13.7 billion years) has been calculated at no more than 10 120 by MIT researcher
Seth Lloyd.40 This sets an upper limit on the number of experiments that are theoretically possible. This limit means that an
event with a probability of 1 in 1040,000 would never happen. Not even our one small protein of 150 amino acids would
form.However, biophysicist Harold Morowitz41 came up with a much lower probability of 1 in 10 10,000,000,000. This was the
chance of a minimalist bacterium being assembled from a broth of all the basic building blocks (e.g. theoretically obtained by
heating a brew of living bacteria to kill them and break them down to their basic constituents).As an atheist, Morowitz argued
that therefore life was not a result of chance and posited that there must be some property of available energy that drives
the formation of entities that can use it (aka life). This sounds much like the idea of Gaia, which attributes pantheistic
mystical properties to the universe.More recently the atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel proposed something similar to
account for the origin of life and mind. 42Anything but believe in a supernatural designer, it would appear.The different
probabilities calculated arise from the difficulty of calculating such probabilities and the differing assumptions that are made.
If we make calculations using assumptions that are most favourable to abiogenesis and the result is still ridiculously
improbable, then it is a more powerful argument than using more realistic assumptions that result in an even more
improbable result for the materialist (because the materialist can try to argue against some of the assumptions with the latter
approach).However, all calculations of the probability of the chemical origin of life make unrealistic assumptions in favour of
it happening, otherwise the probability would be zero. For example, Morowitzs broth of all the ingredients of a living cell
cannot exist because the chemical components will react with each other in ways that will render them unavailable for
forming the complex polymers of a living cell, as explained above.High profile information theorist Hubert Yockey (UC
Berkeley) realized this problem:
The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine
is in probability. The extremely small probabilities calculated in this chapter are not discouraging to true believers
[however] A practical person must conclude that life didnt happen by chance. 43Note that in his calculations, Yockey
generously granted that the raw materials were available in a primeval soup. But in the previous chapter of his book, Yockey
showed that a primeval soup could never have existed, so belief in it is an act of faith. He later concluded, the primeval
soup paradigm is self-deception based on the ideology of its champions.44
More admissions
Note that Yockey is not the only high-profile academic to speak plainly on this issue:
Anyone who tells you that he or she knows how life started on earth some 3.4 billion years ago is a fool or a knave. Nobody
knows.Professor Stuart Kauffman, origin of life researcher, University of Calgary, Canada. 45we must concede that
there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of
wishful speculations. Franklin M. Harold, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Colorado State
University.46Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organised themselves into the first living
cell.Professor Paul Davies, then at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.47The novelty and complexity of the cell is so
far beyond anything inanimate in the world today that we are left baffled by how it was achieved. Kirschner, M.W.
(professor and chair, department of systems biology, Harvard Medical School, USA.), and Gerhart, J.C. (professor in the
Graduate School, University of California, USA).48Conclusion: The scientific problem of the origin of life can be
characterized as the problem of finding the chemical mechanism that led all the way from the inception of the first
autocatalytic reproduction cycle to the last common ancestor. All present theories fall far short of this task. While we still do
not understand this mechanism, we now have a grasp of the magnitude of the problem. 49The biggest gap in evolutionary
theory remains the origin of life itself the gap between such a collection of molecules [amino acids and RNA] and even the
most primitive cell remains enormous.Chris Wills, professor of biology at the University of California, USA. 50Even the
doctrinaire materialist Richard Dawkins admitted to Ben Stein (Expelled, the movie documentary) that no one knows how life
began:Richard Dawkins: We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of lifeit was the origin of the
first self-replicating molecule.
Ben Stein: How did that happen?
Richard Dawkins: Ive told you, we dont know.

Ben Stein: So you have no idea how it started?

Richard Dawkins: No, nor has anybody. 51We will
never know how life first appeared. However, the
study of the appearance of life is a mature, wellestablished field of scientific inquiry. As in other areas
of evolutionary biology, answers to questions on the
origin and nature of the first life forms can only be
regarded as inquiring and explanatory rather than
definitive and conclusive.52 [emphasis added]
Conclusion
Life did not arise by physics and chemistry without
intelligence. The intelligence needed to create life,
even the simplest life, is far greater than that of
humans; we are still scratching around trying to
understand fully how the simplest life forms work.
There is much yet to be learned of even the simplest
bacterium. Indeed, as we learn more the problem of
the origin of life gets more difficult; a solution does not get nearer, it gets further away. But the real problem is this: the origin
of life screams at us that there is a super-intelligent designer of life and that is just not acceptable to the secular mind of
today.
The origin of life: a critique of current scientific models
by Aw Swee-Eng
Profound advances in the fields of molecular biology in recent years have enabled the elucidation of cell structure and
function in detail previously unimaginable. The unexpected levels of complexity revealed at the molecular level have further
strained the concept of the random assembly of a self-replicating system. At the same time, the recent discovery of fossil
algae and stromatolites (primitive colonies of cyanobacteria) from as early as the Precambrian, have reduced the time for
development of the first cell as much as tenfold. Together with implications of this for the oxidative state of the primitive
atmosphere, these developments will force researchers to rethink many fundamental ideas pertaining to current models of
the origin of life on Earth. The evidence for the nature of the primitive atmosphere is examined and the possibility of
ribonucleic acid (RNA) as the first self-replicating molecule is evaluated. The focus is then on DNA, proteins and the first
cells.
The early atmosphere
The nature of the atmosphere under which life arose is of great interest. The high oxygen content of the Earths atmosphere
is unique among the planets of the Solar System and could have been tied up with the composition of the core and its crust.
It has to be said that none of the hypotheses of core formation of the Earth survives quantitative scrutiny. The gross features
of mantle geochemistry, such as its redox state (FeO) and its ironsulphur systems, apparently do not agree with
experimental data.1,2 There are outstanding questions relating to the formation and recycling of the Archaean crust.3
Figure 1. Simplified apparatus for abiotic synthesis of organic compounds
as performed originally by Miller and Urey. By varying the mixture of
gases, including using volcanic gases of today, experimenters have been
able to produce many types of organic compounds.Interesting organic
molecules such as sugars and amino acids can be formed from laboratory
atmospheres of different proportions of CO2, H2O, N2, NH3, H2, CH4, H2S
and CO. This happens only in the absence of free O2. Oxygen is highly
reactive, breaking chemical bonds by removing electrons from them. A
reducing gas (H2, CH4 or CO) is therefore thought to be essential for the
successful synthesis of prebiotic organic molecules.It has been generally
accepted that at about 1.5 Ga [Giga annum = billion years ago] the oxygen
content
of
the
air
rose
at
least
15-fold.
(Note
that
evolutionary/uniformitarian ages are only used here for arguments sake.)
Before this, the oxygen had been reduced by Fe(II) in sea water and
deposited in enormous bands as oxides or hydroxides on the shallow sea
floors. The source of the ferrous iron was hydrothermal vents in the
company of reducing gases such as hydrogen sulphide (H 2S).In 1993
Widdel and his team cultured non-sulphur bacteria from marine and
freshwater muds. These anoxygenic, photosynthetic bacteria use ferrous
iron as the electron donor to drive CO2 fixation. It was a signal discovery
that oxygen-independent biological iron oxidation was possible before the
evolution of oxygen-releasing photosynthesis. Quantitative calculations
support the possibility of generating such massive iron oxide deposits
dating from Archaean and Early Proterozoic times, 3.51.8 Ga.4In 1992
Han and Runnegar made a discovery which impinged on discussions of
oxygen evolution during the Precambrian. To everyones surprise they
reported the spiral algal fossil Grypania within banded iron formations
(BIFs) in Michigan, USA. Algae require oxygen, so their existence at this
juncture shows banded iron formations do not necessarily indicate global
anoxic conditions.5Indeed, as early as 1980 two reports appeared on the discovery of stromatolites in the 3.43.5 Ga
Warrawoona Group sediments from the Pilbara Block, Australia. 6,7 Similar remains were also discovered in Zimbabwe 8 and
South Africa.9It is fair to conclude that the Earths early atmosphere before 3.5 Ga could have significant quantities of
oxygen. This should discourage the sort of hypothesising on abiotic monomer and polymer syntheses so often assumed to
have occurred in Archaean times. Robert Riding says that the Grypania discovery could spell the end of BIF-dominated
models of oxygen build-up in the early atmosphere The cat really will be put among the pigeons, however, if [further]
fossil discoveries extend the eukaryote record back much beyond 2200 million years ago, into what is still widely perceived
to have been an essentially anaerobic world.10
Scenarios for prebiology

A number of revised textbooks on molecular biology came out in 19941995 which, while conveying the standard arguments
for origin-of-life hypotheses, are cautious in their affirmation. Rightly so, because advances in the field have uncovered
exquisite details of intracellular processes. These challenge superficial explanations that their origin and subsequent
refinement were fed by randomness. After mentioning the famous simulation by Miller and Urey of prebiotic synthesis of
organic compounds (Figure 1), Voet and Voet handle the riddle of the formation of biological monomers with a caveat. They
write:Keep in mind, however, that there are valid scientific objections to this scenario as well as to the several others that
have been seriously entertained so that we are far from certain as to how life arose. 11The text of Molecular Cell Biology in
its second edition was well indexed on the evolution of cells, describing the Miller experiment in detail. 12The third edition has
dropped the chapter on evolution of cells found in the second edition.13 Similarly, Stryers fourth edition of his textbook on
biochemistry makes no mention of the abiotic synthesis of organic molecules.14Doubt has arisen because recent
investigations indicate the earths atmosphere was never as reducing as Urey and Miller presumed. I suspect that many
organic compounds generated in past studies would have been produced even in an atmosphere containing less hydrogen,
methane and ammonia. Still, it seems prudent to consider other mechanisms for the accumulation of the constituents of
proteins and nucleic acids in the prebiotic soup.For instance, the amino acids and nitrogen-containing bases needed for life
on the earth might have been delivered by
interstellar dust, meteorites and comets.15
Figure 2. Optical activity and chirality.
Ordinary light consists of waves vibrating in all
possible directions perpendicular to its path.
Certain substances will selectively transmit
light waves vibrating only in a specific plane
plane polarised light. Most compounds
isolated from natural sources are able to
rotate the plane of polarised light a
characteristic number of degrees for any
specific substance. The significance of this
phenomenon to molecular biology and the
origin of life is that stereoisomers, molecules
of identical but mirror image structure,
possess such optical activity. For example,
in the case of the stereoisomers of the amino
acid alanine shown above, L-alanine will
rotate the plane of polarised light in the
opposite direction to Dalanine. Why biological
systems utilise exclusively levorotatory (lefthanded) amino acids and dextrorotatory (righthanded) sugars remains unfathomable.
Mixtures of organic compounds synthesised in
Urey-Miller type experiments always consist of racemic (equal amounts of left-and right-handed) mixtures.In his essay on
the origin of life on Earth, Orgel quotes the experiments of Miller, and of Juan Or who used the Miller model to produce
adenine with hydrogen cyanide and ammonia.16 His conclusions overall are:Since then, workers have subjected many
different mixtures of simple gases to various energy sources. The results of these experiments can be summarized neatly.
Under sufficiently reducing conditions, amino acids form easily. Conversely, under oxidizing conditions, they do not arise at
all or do so only in small amounts.Saturns giant moon, Titan, has an atmosphere composed mainly of molecular nitrogen
and up to 10 per cent methane. Carl Sagan and Bishun Khare of Cornell University simulated the pressure and composition
of Titans atmosphere and irradiated the gases with charged particles. A dark solid was formed, which on dissolving in water
yielded amino acids and traces of nucleotide bases, polycyclic hydrocarbons and many other compounds. It was then
assumed that from this wonderful brew life would have originated. 17 In the text Molecular Biology of the Cell the authors
note that experimentalists are beguiled by the surprisingly easy manner in which organic molecules form. 18 Little store is
laid for such crucial points as the lability of the organic products, or their reactivity among themselves to form mixed
polymers. Indeed, the problem of spontaneously producing a simple homochiral compound, say, l-alanine, from racemic
reaction systems has not been solved (see Figure 2).Classical mechanisms generally rely on chance for the selection of lamino and d-sugars by self-replicating systems. Mason has put forward the tantalising speculation that a weak nuclear
interaction will stabilise the l-amino acids and their polypeptides over their d-forms. This electroweak advantage is
considered too weak to affect the outcome of biochemical evolution. An imaginary flow reactor of a kilometre in diameter and
four metres deep would be needed to autocatalyse a change of 10 2 to 103 moles of one isomer over 10,000 years if the
temperature is kept at ambient. Admittedly a good thought experiment but it will find no popular primitive Earth
scenarios.19The discovery of hydrothermal vents at oceanic ridge crests has spawned several origin-of-life hypotheses. It
seemed an attractive suggestion that, given the dissolved gases issuing from the vents, with hydrothermal mixing there
would emerge peptides, nucleotides and even protocells of some sort. Miller and Bada, however, dispute the
plausibility.This proposal, however, is based on a number of misunderstandings concerning the organic chemistry involved.
An example is the suggestion that organic compounds were destroyed on the surface of the early Earth by the impact of
asteroids and comets, but at the same time assuming that organic syntheses can occur in hydrothermal vents. The high
temperatures in the vents would not allow synthesis of organic compounds, but would decompose them, unless the
exposure time at vent temperatures was short. Even if the essential organic molecules were available in the hot
hydrothermal waters, the subsequent steps of polymerization and the conversion of these polymers into the first organisms
would not occur as the vent waters were quenched to the colder temperatures of the primitive oceans.20
Time-span for prebiology

A pillar of prebiological evolution has been the long period of time supposedly available for the emergence of protocells
whose development in turn profoundly altered the climate of the planet and its geology. For an estimated age of the Earth of
4.6 Ga this seemed initially to pose no problem. However, the discovery of stromatolites in Western Australia 21,22 and in
South Africa23,24 upset the timetable severely. The finding of algal filaments dated at only slightly more than 1 Ga younger
than the Earth itself restricted the time required for the evolution of the living cell. Pari passu the list of processes thought to
occur abiotically has been shrinking.25,26 Even the origin of the huge banded iron formations of the Archaean can now be
attributed to microorganisms,27 and Raup and Valentine have suggested that bolide impacts have, at intervals of 10 5 to
107 years, periodically erased more than one origin of life.28According to this scenario, ten or more extinct bioclades could
have preceded the Cambrian. A bioclade is a group of life forms descended from a single event of life origin. 4.2 Ga has
been given as the date of the oldest rocks, which is ostensibly consistent with the cooling and degassing of an active molten
Earth that is said to be 4.6 Ga old. 29 According to the isotopic carbon record in sedimentary rocks, 3.8 Ga would date the
origin of life.30Fred Hoyle, the Cambridge astronomer and physicist, made some sobering calculations on the origin of the
cell.31 The probability of forming the 2,000 or so enzymes needed by a cell lies in the realm of 1 in 10 40,000. This makes the
conceptual leap from even the most complex soup to the simplest cell in the time available (that is, about 500 Ma) so
dramatic that it requires some suspension of rationality in order to accept it. Small wonder that latterly it is being touted that
life may have taken far less time to appear.Carl Sagan has opined:If 100 million years is
enough for the origin of life on the earth, could 1,000 years be enough for it (to appear) on
Titan?32
A ribonucleic acid (RNA) world
RNA is a linear polymer of ribonucleotides, usually single stranded. Each ribonucleotide
monomer contains the sugar ribose linked with a phosphate group and one of four bases:
adenine, guanine, cytosine or uracil. RNA appears in both prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells as
messenger RNA (mRNA), transfer RNA (tRNA) and ribosomal RNA (rRNA) which are
involved in protein synthesis with DNA the source of information. Some viruses however
contain genomes of RNA. The nuclei of eukaryotic cells carry two other types of RNA;
heterogeneous nuclear RNA (hnRNA or pre-mRNA) and small nuclear RNA (snRNA).In
recent literature there is much excitement over the discovery that there are RNAs that can
catalyse specific biochemical reactions. These are the ribozymes, that is, RNA with enzymatic
functions.33 RNA can do this surprising feat by folding its linear chains to appropriate
secondary and tertiary structures thereby conferring domain type catalytic structures as
seen in protein enzymes.
Figure 3. The molecular structures of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and ribonucleic acid
(RNA) are built using the nitrogenous bases adenine and guanine (purines), and thymine,
cytosine and uracil (pyrimidines), which are the letters of the genetic code.
That RNA can act as a template and also now exhibits catalytic activity fuelled hypotheses for
the evolution of an RNA world. 34 In this scenario RNA is the primary polymer of life that
replicates itself. DNA and proteins were later refinements. So the first genes were short
strands of RNA that reproduced themselves, perhaps on clay surfaces. This conjecture is
strengthened by the fact that in cells today there are segments of some eukaryotic pre-rRNAs
which can cleave themselves off and join the two cut ends together to reform the mature
rRNA. In 1982 Thomas Cech and his colleagues at the University of Colorado discovered this
can take place in the absence of protein in the ciliated protozoan Tetrahymena
thermophila.35 Just as remarkable are the small nuclear RNAs (snRNAs), which complex with
protein to form small nuclear ribonucleoproteins (snRNPs; pronounced snurps). Particles
called spliceosomes convert pre-mRNA to mRNA.36 Other ribozymes include the
hammerhead variety and RNAse P, which generates the 5 ' ends of tRNAs. The former are
found in certain plant viruses. Origin-of-life theories see prebiotic significance in these
vestigial post-translational mechanisms.Though attractive, there are several serious
objections to the notion that life began with RNA:Pentose sugars, constituents of RNA and
DNA, can be synthesised in the formose reaction, given the presence of formaldehyde
(HCHO). The products are a melange of sugars of various carbon lengths which are optically
left- and right-handed (d and l). With few exceptions sugars found in biological systems are of
the d type; for instance, -d-ribose of RNA, which is always produced in small quantities
abiotically.Hydrocyanic acid (HCN) undergoes polymerisation to form diaminomaleonitrile
which is on the pathway to producing adenine, hypoxanthine, guanine, xanthine and
diaminopurine. These are purines: there is difficulty in producing pyrimidines (cytosine,
thymine and uracil) in comparable quantities37,38 (see Figure 3).Neither preformed purines nor
pyrimidines have been successfully linked to ribose by organic chemists. An attempt to make
purine nucleosides resulted in a dizzying array of related compounds. 39 This is expected if
sugars and bases were randomly coupled. The prebiotic production of numerous isomers and
closely related molecules hinders the likelihood of forming desirable mononucleosides.
Furthermore, unless ribose and the purine bases form nucleosides rapidly they would be
degraded quite quickly.
Purine and Pyrimidine Nucleotide Biosynthesis
Purine ribonucleotides (for example, AMP, GMP) are synthesised from scratch by living systems in ways not remotely
connected with the laboratory models. The purine ring system is built up stepwise from an intermediate 5'-phosphoribosyl-1pyrophosphate (PRPP) to a larger molecule inosine monophosphate (IMP). This involves a pathway comprising 11
reactions.The biosynthesis of pyrimidines is less complex, but again the process is elegantly dissimilar to the in
vitro chemistry, with some of the enzymes on the pathway exercising regulatory functions.The purine and pyrimidine
biosynthetic pathways are finely tuned, and defects such as enzyme deficiencies, their mutant forms or loss of feedback
inhibition, cause diseases in man.Suppose that we already have mononucleosidespurines (or pyrimidines) linked to
ribose. Heating these in a mixture of urea, ammonium chloride and hydrated calcium phosphate has been shown to produce
mono-, di- and cyclic phosphates of the mononucleoside. The subsequent chemistry would yield a rich (or untidy, depending
on how it is viewed) racemic mixture of d- and l-oligonucleotides in all sorts of combinations and permutations. Internal
cyclisation reactions would destroy much of these oligonucleotides. 40Suppose further that we have a parent strand of RNA in
a chirally-mixed pool of activated monoribonucleotides. By base-pairing, the strand correctly aligns on itself the incoming
monomeric units in matching sequence. Phosphodiester bonds are spontaneously forged. The chief obstacles to efficient

and faithful copying appear to be threefold. 41d-mononucleotides and l-mononucleotides hinder each others polymerisation
on an RNA template.Short chains of nucleotides tend to fold back on themselves to form double helical Watson-Crick
segments.Newly formed strands separate with difficulty from their parent RNA strands. The process grinds to a halt.Using
activated monomersboth nucleotides and amino acidsFerris and his co-workers could form oligomers up to 55
monomers long on mineral surfaces. Such surfaces bind monomers of one charge (negative in these experiments) and
strength of binding increases with chain length. Desorption then becomes impossible. 42Joyce sums up the difficulties of
conjuring up a hypothetical RNA world in these words.The most reasonable interpretation is that life did not start with RNA
The transition to an RNA world, like the origins of life in general, is fraught with uncertainty and is plagued by a lack of
relevant experimental data. Researchers into the origins of life have grown accustomed to the level of frustration in these
problems It is time to go beyond talking about an RNA world and begin to put the evolution of RNA in the context of the
chemistry that came before it and the biology that followed. 43These sentiments are shared by Orgel, a long-time, wellknown prebiotic chemist. In 1994 he wrote:The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. As we have
seen, investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favour of each of them is fragmentary at best. The full
details of how the RNA world, and life, emerged may not be revealed in the near future.44As we have seen, the intuition that
an RNA world preceded DNA and protein is based on some features found in modern cells. But it appears to be contradicted
by the available experimental evidence. In fact, the extra hydroxyl of ribose renders it more reactive than deoxyribose and,
in principle, makes the more stable DNA a more likely progenitor.
Key points
The presumed rise of oxygen levels in a primitive reducing atmosphere formerly attributed to the evolution of photosynthesis
can be explained by oxygen-independent biological iron oxidation.
Recent investigations indicate that the Earths atmosphere was never as reducing as previously thought.
Recent discovery of fossil stromatolites and algae from the Precambrian has reduced the time for evolution of the first cell
ten-fold.The atmosphere of 3.5 billion years ago could have contained significant quantities of oxygen.
Under oxidising conditions, the formation of organic compounds and their polymerisation do not occur.
Biological homochirality of sugars and amino acids remains an enigma.Hypotheses of ribonucleic acids (RNAs) as the initial
self-replicating molecule have serious unresolved difficulties.Extrapolating results of in vitro synthesis of purines and
pyrimidines should take into account that biosynthesis utilises different reaction pathways.
Other Options
Attention switched to other molecules that can carry information and replicate themselves. In 1991 a team of Danish
chemists led by Egholm strung the four familiar bases of nucleic acids along a peptide (polyamide) backbone forming a
peptide nucleic acid (PNA).45,46 Unfortunately, PNAs bind natural DNA and RNA tightly (about 50 to 100 times stronger than
the natural polymers bind among themselves) so that it is difficult to envisage their being a prebiotic replicating system. So
strong is their affinity for DNA that they would disrupt nucleotide duplexes unless they were removed from an evolving RNA
milieu. Their base-specificity for natural nucleic acids of oligomers of 10 units or more, and consequently their fidelity in
copying RNA or DNA, is uncertain. This militates against the co-evolution of multiple genetic systems, a suggestion raised
by Bhler and his coworkers. 47 Using an unusual activated monomer, guanosine 5-phosphoro (2-methyl) imidazolide, they
formed 3'-5'-linked oligomers with PNA as template. In fact, because of problems of cyclisation the activated dimer rather
than the monomer was used. No oligomers of more than 10 were formed, and there was present in the complex mixture
short oligomers with unnatural 2'-5'-phosphodiester bonds, pyrophosphate linked oligomers and possibly cyclic oligomers.
The DNA story
Like RNA, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a linear polymer of nucleotides. Each nucleotide consists of a pentose sugar, a
nitrogenous base and a phosphate group. The sugarphosphate linkages form an external backbone with the bases sticking
in and hydrogen-bonding with complementary bases of the opposite sugarphosphate backbone, zipper-fashion, producing
the famous double helix structure of DNA. The helix can take on alternate forms in which it twists to alter the compactness of
its spiral and bends to change its overall shape. The packing of DNA in a microscopically visible chromosome represents a
10,000-fold shortening of its actual length. Little is known of the structure of DNA in the natural state within the cell. Clearly it
is dynamic, and by assuming different forms DNA controls various biological processes such as replication, transcription and
recombination. This is a fruitful area for research.
The Synthesis of -d-Ribose
The abiotic origin of DNA is beset with problems similar to those seen with RNA. 48 The synthesis of deoxyribose forms the
nub. We have already mentioned the difficult synthesis of even small amounts of -d-ribose for the in vitro production of
RNA. Furthermore, we might have expected deoxyribonucleotides to be biosynthesised de novo from deoxyribose
precursors. In real life, however, DNA components (the deoxyribonucleotides dADP, dCDP, dGDP and dUDP) are
synthesised from their corresponding ribonucleotides by the reduction of the C2'position. The enzymes that do this are
named ribonucleotide reductases. There are three main classes of reductases. All replace the 2'-OH group of ribose via
some elegant free radical mechanisms.49,50 The class III anaerobic Escherichia coli reductase is thought to be the most
closely related to the common reductase ancestor from which the three main classes are presumed to have evolved. It has
been proposed that the pristine reductase enzyme, similar to present-day class III enzymes, arose before the advent of
photosynthesis and therefore before the appearance of oxygen.Now the E. coli class III enzyme mentioned above can be
induced by culturing the bacteria under anaerobic conditions. This enzyme is an Fe-S protein that in its active form contains
an oxygen-sensitive glycyl free radical.51 This poses a conundrum: the survival and continual evolution of an oxygensensitive enzyme when oxygen appeared. On the other hand, the class I reductases require oxygen for free radical
generation. Surely they could not have evolved and operated in the anaerobic first cell in an oxygen-free
environment.52 Moreover, one of the most remarkable aspects of this E. coli ribonucleotide class I reductase is its ability to
maintain its highly reactive free radical state for a long period. Interestingly, this is achieved in vivo by internally generated
oxygen. Four proteins have to be in place:
Flavin oxidoreductase, which releases superoxide ion (O2),
Superoxide dismutase, to rapidly convert this destructive radical to H2O2 and O2,
A catalase, to disproportionate H2O2 to H2O and O2, and
A fourth protein, thioredoxin, that functions as a reductant.
The oxygen oxidises Fe II and a deeply buried tyrosyl residue (Tyr122). Herein lies a difficulty. The reductases are complex
protein reaction centres acting in tandem on each other and on the 2 '-OH group of ribose. These must all have coevolved before DNA and along with RNA. Could this be seriously contemplated for a metabolically naive RNA
progenote?
The origins of deoxyribose and of DNA therefore remain unsolved mysteries.

Even if the DNA molecule were assembled abiotically, there is the instability and decay of the polymer by hydrolysis of the
glycosyl bonds and the hydrolytic deamination of the bases.53 Each human cell turns over 2,00010,000 DNA purine bases
every day owing to hydrolytic depurination and subsequent repair. Genetic information can be stored stably only because a
battery of DNA repair enzymes scan the DNA and replace the damaged nucleotides. Without these enzymes it would be
inconceivable how primitive cells kept abreast of the constant high-level damage by the environment and by endogenous
reactions. If unrepaired, cell death would result. Indeed, the spontaneous errors resulting from intrinsic DNA instability are
usually many times more dangerous than chance injuries from environmental causes. 54 The enzymes of the DNA repair
system are a marvel in themselves and have been rightfully recognised as such. 55Reports of the culture of Bacillus
sphaericus from spores preserved in amber for over 25 million years does not tally with what is known of the physicochemical properties of DNA.56
Several DNA Paradoxes
The total amount of DNA in the haploid genome is its C-value. Intuitively we would expect that there should be a relationship
between the complexity of an organism and the amount of its DNA. The failure to consistently correlate the total amount of
DNA in a genome with the genetic and morphological complexity of the organism is called the C-value paradox. 57 This
paradox manifests itself in three ways.Many plant species have from two to ten times more DNA per cell than the human
cell. Among the vertebrates with the greatest amount of DNA are the amphibians. Salamander cells contain 10100 times
more DNA than mammalian cells. It is hard to make sense of the existence of such major redundancies in organisms
evolutionarily less complex than man.There is also considerable intragroup variation in DNA content where morphology
does not vary much. For example, the broad bean contains about three to four times as much DNA per cell as the kidney
bean. Variations of up to 100 times are found among insects and among amphibians. In other words, cellular DNA content
does not correlate with phylogeny.Large stretches of DNA in the genome, say, of humans, appear to have no demonstrable
function. This will be discussed later.
Introns and exons
Once the genes of unrelated cells were studied it became clear that the molecular genetics of higher organisms are different
from those of bacteria. The principles uncovered in prokaryotes cannot simply be applied to eukaryotes. For one thing, the
precursor RNA found in the nucleus, called heterogeneous nuclear RNA (hnRNA), was far greater in amount than the mRNA
that emerged from the nucleus into the cytoplasm. It was discovered that the linear hnRNA molecule contained excess RNA
which was cut out, and the mRNA was then constructed from splicing together the in-between pieces. An editing process
had taken place.58 The logical inference from this finding was that the genomic DNA from which the hnRNA was transcribed
must be similarly constructed. The notion of the co-linear relationship between a segment of DNA and the protein for which it
codes is not true, at least for higher organisms.The word intron was used to describe such a noncoding region of a
structural gene. They separate the exons, which encode the amino acids of the protein. 59 For instance, the human -globin
gene comprises, in linear sequence, three exons separated by two introns within a total length of 1,600 nucleotides. Introns
are abundant in higher eukaryotes, uncommon in lower eukaryotes, and rare in prokaryotic structural genes. Variations in
the length of the genes are primarily determined by the lengths of the introns. Since the discovery of introns/exons the
intricate processes of nuclear mRNA splicing have been elegantly elucidated. Among these are the remarkable self-splicing
introns60 and the equally revolutionary finding that individual nucleotides can be inserted into RNA after transcription altering
them remarkably.61 The inevitable questions emerged. What role does having genes in pieces serve? How have such
interrupted genes evolved over time?One hypothesis points out that exons usually encode for a part of the protein that
folds to form a domain. What constitutes a domain has been a matter of controversy. By dispersing individual exons of a
protein among introns it is reasoned that breaking DNA and rejoining and recombining different exons is that much easier.
This process of shuffling exons/domains is presumed to have created new proteins with multi-domain structures. This is
thought to be a more efficient way for a cell to create proteins rather than through random DNA mutations. Here is a means
of duplicating, modifying, assembling and reassembling units with modular functions into larger structures. According to this
hypothesis this is the reason why introns have survived through time. Several queries may be raised. First, exon shuffling as
a device to speed up evolution is logically tied up with a subsidiary assumption that possessing similar domains qualifies
proteins for biochemical kinship, which is to say, these proteins are alleged to bear the marks of descent from a common
ancestral protein.62 But the construction of phylogenetic trees relies on unstable molecular clocks and other genetic
mechanisms largely unknown63 and, as discussed below, should be approached with caution.Biochemical kinship aside,
would not domains exercising similar function be structurally alike such as we see between, say, the catalytic domains of the
two serine proteases chymotrypsin and tissue plasminogen activator?Second, RNA splicing is an accurate and complex
procedure comparable in complexity to protein synthesis and initiation of transcription. It is carried out by a 50S to 60S
ribonucleoprotein made up of small nuclear ribonucleoproteins (snRNPs) as well as other proteins. Just as the ribosome is
built up in the process of translation, the spliceosome components assemble in an orderly manner on the intron to be
spliced before the initial cleavage of the 5 ' splice site. The splicing must be carried out precisely, joining the 5 ' end of the
preceding exon to the 3'end of that following. A frameshift of even one nucleotide would change the resulting mRNA
message. The inescapable conclusion is that these interlocking components must have evolved together, as an imperfect
splicing mechanism is worse than none.Third, were the original protein-coding units seamless, that is, uninterrupted by
introns? And were the introns bits of selfish DNA that later insinuated themselves into the hosts structural genes? What
purpose then the subsequent evolution of a multi-step complicated splicing machinery to remove the introns? 6469 Would not
simply eliminating the introns make better sense for selective advantage?Fourth, and most importantly, transport of mRNA
from the nucleus to the cytoplasm is coupled to splicing and does not occur until all the splicing is complete. How does
the RNA enter the cytoplasm for translation during the evolution of the splicing mechanism? This would have disrupted
protein synthesis and would be powerfully selected against.7072 Why is splicing in all its variants so rampant today?The
problem would arise too were introns abundant in cells without nuclear membranesthe prokaryotes. Mattick wrote:If
introns were introduced into a procaryotic cells genes, there would be no opportunity to remove them before protein is
made, and the result would be nonsense non-functional proteins.73This is essentially correct because spliceosomes would
be needed for their removal, but again begs the question on the viability of the transitional phases.The relationships
between exons and protein domains remain to be worked out. Where introns came from and how they were integrated into
the genome is a mystery to evolutionists.74
Those overlapping codes
Messenger RNAs generally contain only one reading frame which is dictated by the position of the initiation codon. This
correct reading frame translates the nucleotide code into a functional protein. Starting at an AUG codon, translation
continues in triplets to a termination codon. The starting point can be altered by a mutation, usually resulting from insertion
or deletion of a single nucleotide to give an alternate reading frame. A frameshift error results in the synthesis of a
polypeptide that does not resemble the normal product. Typically, it will be inactive and, because stop codons are abundant
in the alternative frames, shorter than the native protein.Some organisms store information in their DNA in the form of

overlapping codes. The overlapping codes are still triplet but have different initiation points. In other words, the same stretch
of DNA carries the information for producing two proteins of entirely different amino acid sequence. This discovery is truly
startling, because the possibility that genes might overlap in different reading frames imposes severe evolutionary
constraints. A favourable mutation in one frame must be favourable in the other. A termination codon in the second frame
would be fatal to the organism as a whole. So the two overlapping genes have to evolve in parallel. Yockey considered the
problem from the point of view of information theory applied to biology, itself a venture fraught with caveats. 75 In his opinion
information theory shows that transcription from two or even three reading frames in a DNA or RNA sequence is possible,
provided the total informational content to be transcribed does not exceed the full informational capacity of the DNA or RNA
sequence. This interesting bit of information is a necessary but not a sufficient explanation for the origin of overlapping
codes. The packing of information for synthesising additional essential proteins through weaving such information into a preexisting nucleotide sequence is little short of miraculous, assuming that chance is the author.Most of the known examples of
such programmed frameshifts occur in viral genes. 76,77 The notorious hepatitis B virus has four open reading frames on the
long strand of its DNA to produce four different proteins. In a striking demonstration of sheer economy it turns out that each
reading frame overlaps at least one other frame. And the code for the polymerase enzyme overlaps the other three. 78 It is
true that programmed frameshifts are not common, but they have been found across a wide spectrum of organisms. Yeast
and E. coli also practise frameshifting.79,80 The mechanisms by which they work seem to involve shifty messages in the
mRNA, where the ribosomes may read four nucleotides as one amino acid and then continue reading triplets. Or it may
back up one base before reading triplets in the new frame. Shifty tRNAs are also implicated.8183
The non-universal code
Even the codes universalitya strong argument for the hypothesis that life on Earth evolved only oncehas a large
number of exceptions. These are usually credited to later evolutionary developments, as the following quote from a paper
by Jukes and his colleagues shows. Commenting on the dearth of molecular studies on the more than 10 million species of
organisms now living on Earth, all of which are derived from a single pool of the ancestor, they continue: nonuniversal
codes have been discovered at a relatively high incidence. Codon UGA Trp has been found in seven Mycoplasma species
and related bacteria; at least two kinds of nonuniversal code are independently used in ciliated protozoans; the same code
change was found in two different organismic lines, ciliated protozoans, and unicellular green algae; a yeast line uses a still
different code. All nonplant mitochondria that have been examined use nonuniversal codes, which are more or less
characteristic for each line. It is remarkable that mitochondria from one species use more than two nonuniversal codons; six
in yeasts, four or five in many invertebrates, and four in vertebrates. Thus, nonuniversal codes are widely distributed in
various groups of organisms and organelles. The nonuniversal codes are not randomly produced, but are derived from
the universal code as a result of a series of nondisruptive changes. 84All this just means that hypotheses of the origin of the
genetic code based on our understanding of the nature of the DNA, its transcription and translation have to be substantially
revised.
The silent majority
It is now agreed that any theory on the origin of DNA must take into account that the genomes of multicellular organisms are
characterised by high intron content. Mattick has proposed that introns having a high sequence complexity be regarded as
informational RNA (iRNA).85 Each chromosome is increasingly being viewed as a complex informational organelle. At least
some now regard the idea that there is junk or useless DNA as untenable, 86 but the logical extensions are not usually
followed through.An unanswered question concerns the enormous amount of DNA in most eukaryotic genomes which
appears to serve no useful purpose. Introns contribute to this excess. The highly conserved nature of the sequences in
introns points to the possibility that they have served important function(s) from the time of their first appearance in their
hosts genomes. For instance, mouse and human T-cell receptor genes show 71 per cent homology over their entire 100 kb
length even though less than six per cent of that length encodes the receptor protein. 87Recent studies describe finding a
RNA regulator of gene expression originating from the introns of another mRNA. 88,89 This small RNA binds to the so-called
3' untranslated region (3'UTR) which lies at the end of each genes mRNA, once again confounding the notion of
functionless RNA.Intron-containing genes have yet another intriguing property, uncovered in 1992 by Peng and his coworkers in Boston. They introduced a new quantitative method to display correlations in the sequence of nucleotides. To
their surprise they discovered that the nucleotide sequence in intron-containing genes is correlated over remarkable ranges
of thousands of base pairs apart. Their results are based on a statistical assessment of 24 viral, bacterial, yeast and
mammalian sequences. This means that a particular nucleotide at one site would somehow influence which nucleotide
would locate at a remotely distant site. This long-range dependence indicates an intricate self-similarity that is reminiscent of
fractal dynamics.90 In addition there are hints of a language structure, akin to that seen with ordinary languages, in the
lengths of non-protein coding DNA. Their findings support the possibility that noncoding regions of DNA may carry biological
information. The two standard linguistic tests applied were those of George Zipf and Claude Shannon. The coding regions of
the genes returned negative results for both tests. 91Distinctive and previously unsuspected features of genomic DNA are
beginning to be revealed. What is surprising is the tiers of immense complexity which are buried in its structure. An analogy
will not be out of place. Viewing from a great height a road traversing the length of a continent, a being from outer space
might at first wonder what purpose such a structure could serve. Unfamiliar with the ways of man, the alien realises that the
ribbon-like structure actually links areas that are intensely bright at night, which are, of course, our cities and towns.Further
study by the alien is even more revealing. The night-bright entities seem to correlate with the lie of the land, its mountain
ranges, rivers and underground mineral resources. The alien may even be momentarily distracted by the question of
whether the link or the entities came first! What he can conclude, however, is that the structure he had examined is neither
random in design nor intention over its whole length, but serves to link entities which themselves evince design and
purpose.What is increasingly seen as the DNA story unfolds is prima facie evidence of intelligent design extending over
the whole molecule. What used to be thought of as a prodigious 95 per cent excess of repetitive and useless DNA turns out
to be an interactive regulatory network controlling gene expression in the remaining five per cent. Even the humble
trinucleotide repeat sequence CAG has been implicated in the pathogenesis of a number of serious neurological
diseases.92 This illustrates the complicity of the simplest codes in the intricate regulatory network, and puts further strain on
ideas of the codes abiotic origin. In summing up, let me quote the editor of Nature, who wrote in 1994:The problem of the
genetic code has several facets, of which the most compelling is that of why it is why it is it was natural that people
should look for an explanation, both for its own sake and because an understanding of how the code evolved must certainly
be a pointer to the origin of life itself It was already clear that the genetic code is not merely an abstraction but the
embodiment of lifes mechanisms; the consecutive triplets of nucleotides in DNA (called codons) are inherited but they also
guide the construction of proteins.So it is disappointing, but not surprising, that the origin of the genetic code is still as
obscure as the origin of life itself.93
The origin of proteins

As with the d-sugars of carbohydrates, so with the amino acids from which proteins are made. They are typically l (leftrotating) in optical activity. d-amino acids are found in bacterial products and peptide antibiotics, but they are not
incorporated into proteins via the ribosomal protein synthesising system.The almost total dominance of one chiral form in
present life forms is an enigma. Vital processes such as protein biosynthesis, ligand-receptor activity, substrate binding,
enzymatic catalysis and antigenantibody interaction depend on the present chemical-handedness. Fisun and Savin have
provided another example of monochiral utility by examining proton transfer along the hydrogen-bonded chain formed by
amino acids.94 After all, membrane proteins are structured to enable such transfers to take place as a means of regulating
proton concentrations. The amino acids they examined were l-tyrosine, l-serine and l-threonine. What would happen, they
asked, if a long sequence of such OH-bearing acids were interrupted by an unnatural d isomer? Their analyses revealed
that it suppressed transfer through the hydrogen-bonded network. The authors point out the generally disruptive effects that
deforming natural polymers with d-amino acids would have on diverse biological phenomena, such as information, charge,
energy and mass exchanges.The evolutionary explanation for left-handed amino acids is simply that a common ancestor, by
sheer coincidence, happened to have this mirror image. Well-worn explanations, such as the anisotropic effects of refracted
light, are convincing only to those who propose them. Chiral fields that could effect a critical prebiotic transition to one
chiral species have been worked out on paper.95 The trouble is that, so far, there has been no success for the apparently
simple problem of tipping the experimental scales to favour one of two isomers.The problem of chirality is crucial to the
origin of life. For Darwinian evolution involves selection, a winnowing process that separates the fit from the unfit. The fit
are then amplified to ensure a progeny. The fit are those able to do one of two things, depending on the school of thought.
The genes first school envisages primitive replicons that later surrounded themselves with metabolic cycles. 96,97 The cells
first school pictures primitive cells covered with primitive membranes engaged in a sort of metabolic exchange with the
environment. These propagated themselves by simple expansion followed by division. Genetic mechanisms of inheritance
developed gradually.98,99 Both schools founder on the unsettling and unsettled questionwhich came first, homochirality or
life?100 If one holds that homochirality came first, it is an admission that without left-handed amino acids and right-handed
sugars lifes structures and processes would have been impossible. One then has to account for the origin of homochirality.
If one assumes that life came first, then one is saying that chirality was not important to the origin of lifes structures and
processes as we now know them. One has to enter a special pleading for a vastly different metabolism in the protobiont,
ignoring, for instance, the pivotal role of polypeptide homopolymers in hydrogen-bonded networks for proton and electron
transport.101 One has also to account for the successful transition to homochirality as we have it today.The logical conclusion
from these considerations is a simple and parsimonious one, that homochirality and life came together. But evolutionary
lore forbids such a notion. It claims to explain how life began, but on the profound issue of lifes handedness there is no
selective mechanism that it can plausibly endorse.
Folding proteins
Much thought has been given to suggesting pathways as to how a polypeptide chain, freshly made, folds into its unique
shape.102 But biological systems are inherently complicated and so are their components. Today the concept that proteins
can self-assemble has been modified to incorporate the astonishing part played by accessory proteins called chaperones,
first identified in E. coli.103107 Chaperones are found in all types of cells and in every cellular compartment. They bind to
target proteins to facilitate proper folding, prevent or reverse improper associations, and protect their accidental degradation.
Of special interest is a subset of chaperones called chaperonins. They are large, barrel-shaped, polymeric proteins present
in bacteria, mitochondria, chloroplasts and eukaryotes. They enfold protein chains in a cavity, a protected micro-environment
to allow their guest molecules opportunity to fold correctly. Chaperones utilise the energy of ATP hydrolysis to bind and
release their charges. They are also involved in many macromolecular assembly processes, including the assembly of
nucleosomes, protein transport in bacteria, assembly of bacterial pili, binding of transcription factors, and ribosome
assembly in eukaryotes. A subset of molecular chaperones has even been implicated in signal transduction. This follows
upon the discovery that steroid hormone receptors, which are cytoplasmic proteins, combine not only with their respective
hormones, but also require chaperones in order to form functioning recycling complexes. 108 Such structural arrangements
must be highly conserved, seeing that these chaperones are found in similar macromolecular complexes in organisms as
diverse as mammals and yeasts. 109 This is supposed to attest to their great antiquity (if evolution is true), because properly
folded proteins are absolutely essential for a cells viability.Lodish and his co-authors express their opinion:Folding of
proteins in vitro is inefficient; only a minority undergo complete folding within a few minutes. Clearly, proteins must fold
correctly and efficiently in vivo, otherwise cells would waste much energy in the synthesis of non-functional proteins and in
the degradation of misfolded and unfolded proteins. 110How did cellular proteins avoid being tied up into kinks individually
and aggregates corporately before chaperones came on the scene? If chaperones help other proteins fold, what mechanism
helps chaperones to fold? And chaperones are themselves complex proteins. A well-studied chaperonin, Cpn60, has a
unique structure, consisting of fourteen identical subunits of a 60 kDa protein arranged in two stacked rings of seven. 111,112 It
interacts with another conserved protein chaperonin Cpn10, itself a complex of seven subunits.113 The answers to these
questions would indeed be illuminating.
The ancient cells
Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes
The existence of chaperones influences the endosymbiont hypothesis of the origin of eukaryotes. This hypothesis proposes
that chloroplasts and mitochondria began as free-living aerobic prokaryote ancestors which were engulfed by, and formed, a
mutually advantageous relationship with an ancient large anaerobic prokaryote with a nucleus. 114,115 These endosymbionts
became the organelles mentioned, which then apparently lost many of their own genes to the nuclei of their hosts. Now, the
timeframe of oxygen levels in the primitive Earth is extremely controversial in the face of conflicting palaeobiological
evidence.116 Nevertheless, how a stable relationship between ingested aerobic invaders and an anaerobic, or aerotolerant,
host was possible, and why some genes and not others should be transferred to the hosts nucleus is not clear.An idea of
how many genes were lost to the host nucleus may be gleaned from the fact that the cytosol synthesises for the
mitochondria the following proteins: ribosomal proteins, DNA replication enzymes, aminoacyl-tRNA synthases, RNA
polymerase, soluble enzymes of the citric acid cycle and so on. 117 It is clear that, since proteins are made at two separate
sites, nuclear-coded proteins must be imported into mitochondria and chloroplasts. This is not made easy by the fact that
imported proteins have to cross subcompartments to get into both organelles as the organelles possess double membranes:
two subcompartments in the case of mitochondria, three for chloroplasts because of the thylakoid membrane.Here is where
chaperones are needed to bind the polypeptide chains just as they emerge through special pores into the mitochondrial
matrix. Assistance with protein folding is given by yet other chaperones near at hand. 118 A similar process operates in the
importing of proteins into the chloroplast. As plant cells have both chloroplasts and mitochondria, two different kinds of signal
peptides are also required to send proteins to the correct addresses.119 The very complicated transport arrangements
described force us to query how they arose and what selective advantages there could be for original endosymbionts to
share genomes with the nucleus of the host cell. As if this is not difficult enough, a further logical and logistical problem is

created by the fact that all of the host cells fatty acids and a number of amino acids are made by enzymes in the chloroplast
stroma. We have now a transfer in reverse.120
The most ancient cell
We are running ahead somewhat because endosymbiosis could only take place when cells with well-developed metabolism
were in existence. These were the three prokaryotic linesthe Archaebacteria, the Eubacteria and those nuclei-bearing
prokaryotes destined to initiate the eukaryotic line by acquiring organelles. 121,122 Antedating these three in time was their
hypothetical universal ancestor, at the very root of the phylogenetic treean anaerobic prokaryote shrouded in mystery,
barely surviving on the simplest molecules diffusing in from the surroundings. How simple was its metabolism? A recent
textbook suggests that it must be glycolysis.If metabolic pathways evolved by the sequential addition of new enzymatic
reactions to existing ones, the most ancient reactions should, like the oldest rings in a tree trunk, be closest to the center of
the metabolic tree, where the most fundamental of the basic molecular building blocks are synthesized. This position in
metabolism is firmly occupied by the chemical processes that involve sugar phosphates, among which the most central of all
is probably the sequence of reactions known as glycolysis, by which glucose can be degraded in the absence of oxygen
(that is, anaerobically). The oldest metabolic pathways would have had to be anaerobic because there was no free oxygen
in the atmosphere of the primitive earth.123It is extremely unlikely that the earliest cell was such a heterotroph feeding on
organic compounds such as acids and sugars. Many strictly anaerobic bacteria today break down glucose through the
Entner-Doudoroff pathway. This pathway comprises more than six enzymes acting in sequence and is therefore rather
advanced for the rudimentary first cell.If the specific qualities of the ancestor are to reflect the geothermal environment it
occupied it should be a thermophilic autotroph, that is, a heat-tolerant cell subsisting on the simplest compounds. It happens
that the Archaebacteria of today inhabit environments of extreme heat or salinity or acidity. They can utilise (fix) CO 2,
although not by the Calvin cycle, as in most photosynthetic organisms. Indeed, current belief is that the closest to a
prototype of the earliest cell are those Archaebacteria that are completely anaerobic, with inorganic electron acceptors, and
which use H2 and CO2 as sole reductant and carbon source, respectively.124 These cells called chemolithotrophs are (were)
able to extract energy and synthesise their cellular constituents from simple molecules such as SO 4 2 , S2, H2 and CO2. For
most anaerobic Archaebacteria, CO2 can be used as the sole carbon source for growth, and acetyl-CoA is the central
biosynthetic intermediate or building block for other molecules. The formation of acetyl-CoA requires two molecules of
CO2 , a nickel enzyme complex and other cofactors. Furthermore, pyruvate obtained from the breakdown of glucose is
converted to acetyl-CoA by a thiamine-pyrophosphate (TPP) enzyme called pyruvate oxidoreductase. 125The recruitment of
coenzymes such as TPP so early in evolution is puzzling. Recently, Keefe and his colleagues attempted the successful
synthesis of pantetheine, a precursor to coenzyme A, presuming the abundance of the precursor molecules on the primitive
Earth. Heating pantetheine with ATP or ADP failed to produce the dephosphocoenzyme A. 126,127 All things considered, a
chemolithotroph, whether ancient or modern, is anything but simple for the kinds of enzymes and metabolic pathways it
possesses.
Key points
How deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) sequence integrity could have been maintained in the absence of the many enzymes
which continually scan and replace missing, incorrect and damaged nucleotides has not been satisfactorily explained.The
amount of DNA in species does not correlate consistently with organism complexity.Exon shuffling creates problems in
molecular phylogeny.The numerous components involved in RNA splicing must have all appeared simultaneously to be
advantageous because a partially complete mechanism would function detrimentally.Introns introduced into a prokaryotic
cells genes would have no opportunity to be removed before protein is made, resulting in nonsense nonfunctional
proteins.The weaving of information coding for one polypeptide into an existing nucleotide sequence coding for another
imposes severe evolutionary constraints.The universality of the genetic codea strong argument that all organisms are
derived from a single ancestorin fact has many exceptions. Intron sequences correlate over remarkable ranges of
thousands of base pairs, strongly suggesting they are functional.It has not been explained how proteins could have managed
to fold correctly in the absence of chaperonesthemselves complex proteins.In hypotheses involving the incorporation of a
prokaryote to account for organelles such as mitochondria, it is not clear how a stable relationship between anaerobic
invaders and an aerobic or aerotolerant host was possible or why some genes and not others should be transferred to the
hosts nucleus.Current attempts to root the phylogenetic tree of life are based on relatively simple and therefore unrealistic
models of evolution.Accidental assembly of a self-replicating molecule now has so many qualifications that its scientific
integrity is questionable.
Reprise
Evolution is biology as a historical science.128 Evolutionists seek to unravel the tangled strands of hypothetical ancient life
forms assumed to have developed over billions of years. In so doing they hope to learn the secret of that most profound of
scientific enigmas, namely, the origin of life.The driving forces for the enterprise are two: the fossil record of cellular
structures, and the reasonable inference that nucleotide and protein molecular changes over time should enable their
ancestral lineages to be traced.Of the first, there is the hard evidence for the presence of Precambrian stromatolites. This
indicates that cells identical to modern cyanobacteria were thriving at 3.5 Ga. 129132 This and the discovery of the algal
fossil Grypania133 support the most ancient dates for the origin of fully-developed cells and have skewed the current opinion
on the oxygen content of the primitive atmosphere towards higher values.134 Strong support also comes from the studies of
Schidlowski on the fractionation of the carbon isotopes in the waxy carbon polymers (kerogens) of Archaean sediments. In
photosynthesis, somewhat more of the lighter 12CO2 is fixed in slight preference to the heavier 13CO2 . Enrichment of 12C with
respect to 13C in kerogens extracted from 3.8 Ga rocks is evidence that photosynthetic life must have been around for
almost 4 Ga.135The time available for the origin of the cell has shrunk to one-tenth or less than has been
assumed.136,137There now seems to be little or no time for the genesis of the anaerobic first cellthe progenote of the RNA
world.138Turning now to rooting the phylogenetic tree of life, investigators in the field have voiced concern over attempts to
do this and plead for greater understanding of phylogenetic methods. Only recently, Hillis and Huelsenbeck caution that
current phylogenetic implementations of maximum likelihood are limited to relatively simple and therefore unrealistic models
of evolution.139At the same time workers in Canada and Switzerland have commented on uncertainties of trying to work out
phylogenies using both parsimony and maximum-likelihood methods. 140,141The current belief that lifes ancestral lineage is
through the Archaebacteria also faces major unsolved problems with rooting the tree, as witness the following
opinions:However, using protein phylogeny to root the tree of life is not safe; besides the possibility of lateral gene transfer,
one cannot be sure that proteins compared in an individual tree descend from a single gene in the common ancestor, or
from already duplicated genes.142Doolittle laments the fact that there is still profound disagreement among different kinds
of biologists about what a phylogenetic taxonomy is.143In conclusion, molecular biology in recent years has revealed
previously unimagined levels of sophistication in the details of subcellular organisation and function. 144149 The available

evidence from the field and the laboratory is not amicable to the theory that life began with the accidental assembly of a selfreplicating molecule. It is now accepted with so many qualifications that its scientific integrity, even as a heuristic device, is
questionable.
Why the MillerUrey research argues against abiogenesis
by Jerry Bergman
Summary
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 MillerUrey experiment. Surveys of textbooks
find that the MillerUrey 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.
Contemporary research has failed to provide a viable explanation as to how abiogenesis could have occurred on Earth. The
abiogenesis problem is now so serious that most evolutionists today tend to shun the entire field because they are uneasy
about stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they freely admit that they are
baffled because it opens the door to religious fundamentalists and their god-of-the-gaps pseudo-explanations and they
worry that a frank admission of ignorance will undermine funding.1Abiogenesis was once commonly called chemical
evolution,2 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. 3Another reason exists to exaggerate abiogenesis claimsit is an area that is critical to
proving evolutionary naturalism.4 If abiogenesis is impossible, or extremely unlikely, then so is naturalism.58Darwin
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 designer.9But to admit, as Darwin
did, the possibility of one or a few creations is to open the door to the possibility of many others! Darwin evidently regretted
this concession later and also speculated that life could have originated in some warm little pond on the ancient earth.
The warm soup theory
Although seriously challenged in recent years, the warm soup hypothesis is still the most widely held abiogenesis theory
among Darwinists. Developed most extensively by Russian atheist Alexandr Ivanovich Oparin (18941980) in his book, The
Origin of Life, a worldwide best seller first published in 1924 (the latest edition was published in 1965). 10 Oparin postulated
that life may have evolved solely through random processes in what he termed a biochemical soup that he believed once
existed in the oceans. The theory held that life evolved when organic molecules that originally rained into the primitive
oceans from the atmosphere were energized by forces such as lightning, ultraviolet light, meteorites, deep-sea hydrothermal
vents, hot springs, volcanoes, earthquakes, or electric discharges from the sun. If only the correct mix of chemicals and
energy were present, life would be produced spontaneously. Almost a half century of research and millions of dollars have
been expended to prove this ideaso far with few positive results and much negative evidence.11
What sequence?
Oparin concluded that cells evolved first, then enzymes and, last, genes. 12 Today, we recognize that genes require enzymes
in order to function, but genes are necessary to produce enzymes. Neither genes nor cells can function without many
complex structures such as ribosomes, polymerase, helicase, gyrase, single-strandbinding protein and scores of other
proteins. Dyson concluded that Oparins theory was generally accepted by biologists for half a century but that it was
popular not because there was any evidence to support it but rather because it seemed to be the only alternative to
creationism.13
The MillerUrey research
Haldane,14 Bernal,15 Calvin16 and Urey17 all published research in an attempt to support this modeleach with little, if any,
success. Then, in 1953 came what some then felt was a
critical breakthrough by Harold Urey (18931981) of the
University of Chicago and his 23-year-old graduate student,
Stanley Miller (1930). Urey came to believe that the
conclusion reached by many origin-of-life researchers that
the early atmosphere was oxidizing must have been wrong;
he argued instead that it was the opposite, namely a
reducing
atmosphere
with
large
amounts
of
methane.18Their breakthrough resulted in front-page
stories across the world that usually made the sensational
claim that they had accomplished the first step toward
creating life in a test tube. 19 Carl Sagan concluded, The
MillerUrey experiment is now recognized as the single
most significant step in convincing many scientists that life
is likely to be abundant in the cosmos.20 The experiment
even marked the beginning of a new scientific field called
prebiotic chemistry.21 It is now the most commonly cited
evidence (and often the only evidence cited) for
abiogenesis in science textbooks.22
The MillerUrey experiments involved filling a sealed glass
apparatus with the gases that Oparin had speculated were
necessary to form lifenamely methane, ammonia and
hydrogen (to mimic the conditions that they thought were in
the early atmosphere) and water vapour (to simulate the
ocean). Next, while a heating coil kept the water boiling,
they struck the gases in the flask with a high-voltage
(60,000 volts) tungsten spark-discharge device to simulate
lightning. Below this was a water-cooled condenser that
cooled and condensed the mixture, allowing it to fall into a
Millers experiment13

water trap below.23Within a few days, the water and gas mix produced a pink stain on the sides of the flask trap. As the
experiment progressed and the chemical products accumulated, the stain turned deep red, then turbid. 24 After a week, the
researchers analyzed the substances in the U-shaped water trap used to collect the reaction products. 25 The primary
substances in the gaseous phase were carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen (N 2).21 The dominant solid material was an
insoluble toxic carcinogenic mixture called tar or resin, a common product in organic reactions, including burning tobacco.
This tar was analyzed by the latest available chromatographic techniques, showing that a number of substances had been
produced. No amino acids were detected during this first attempt, so Miller modified the experiment and tried again. 20,26In
time, trace amounts of several of the simplest biologically useful amino acids were formedmostly glycine and
alanine.20 The yield of glycine was a mere 1.05%, of alanine only 0.75% and the next most common amino acid produced
amounted to only 0.026% of the totalso small as to be largely insignificant. In Millers words, The total yield was small for
the energy expended.27The side group for glycine is a lone hydrogen and for alanine, a simple methyl (CH 3) group. After
hundreds of replications and modifications using techniques similar to those employed in the original MillerUrey
experiments, scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. The
rest require much more complex synthesis conditions.
Oxygen: enemy of chemical evolution
The researchers used an oxygen-free environment mainly because the earths putative primitive atmosphere was then
widely believed not to have contained in its early stage significant amounts of oxygen. They believed this because
laboratory experiments show that chemical evolution, as accounted for by present models, would be largely inhibited by
oxygen.28 Here is one of many examples of where their a prioribelief in the fact of chemical evolution is used as proof of
one of the premises, an anoxic atmosphere. Of course, estimates of the level of O 2 in the earths early atmosphere rely
heavily on speculation. The fact is, We still dont know how an oxygen-rich atmosphere arose. 29It was believed that the
results were significant because some of the organic compounds produced were the building blocks of much more complex
life units called proteinsthe basic structure of all life.30 Although widely heralded by the press as proving that life could
have originated on the early earth under natural conditions (i.e. without intelligence), we now realize the experiment actually
provided compelling evidence for exactly the opposite conclusion. For example, without all 20 amino acids as a set, most
known protein types cannot be produced, and this critical step in abiogenesis could never have occurred.In addition, equal
quantities of both right- and left-handed organic molecules (called a racemic mixture) were consistently produced by the
MillerUrey procedure. In life, nearly all amino acids that can be used in proteins must be left-handed, and almost all
carbohydrates and polymers must be right-handed. The opposite types are not only useless but can also be toxic (even
lethal) to life.31,32
Was there a methaneammonia atmosphere?
According to many researchers today, an even more serious problem is the fact that the atmosphere of the early earth was
very different from what Miller assumed. Research has since drawn Millers hypothetical atmosphere into question, causing
many scientists to doubt the relevance of his findings. 33 The problem was stated as follows: the accepted picture of the
earths early atmosphere has changed: It was probably O2-rich with some nitrogen, a less reactive mixture than Millers, or it
might have been composed largely of carbon dioxide, which would greatly deter the development of organic compounds.34
A major source of gases was believed to be volcanoes, and since modern-day volcanoes emit CO, CO 2, N2 and water
vapour, it was considered likely that these gases were very abundant in the early atmosphere. In contrast, it is now believed
that H2, CH4 and NH3 probably were not major components of the early atmosphere. Furthermore, many scientists now
believe that the early atmosphere probably did not play a major role in the chemical reactions leading to life. 20Although the
composition of the atmosphere of the early earth is now believed to have consisted of large amounts of carbon dioxide, this
conclusion still involves much speculation. Most researchers also now believe that some O2 was present on the early earth
because it contained much water vapour, and photodissociation of water in the upper layers of the atmosphere produces
oxygen.35 Another reason is that large amounts of oxidized materials exist in the Precambrian geological strata. 36Yet another
reason to conclude free oxygen existed on the early earth is that it is widely believed that photosynthetic organisms existed
very soon after the earth had formed, something that is difficult for chemical evolutionary theories to explain. A 2004 paper
argues from uranium geochemistry that there were oxidizing conditions, thus photosynthesis, at 3.7 Ga. 37 But according to
uniformitarian dating, the earth was being bombarded by meteorites up to 3.8 Ga. So even granting evolutionary
presuppositions, this latest research shows that life existed almost as soon as the earth was able to support it, not billions
and billions of years later. Even if the oxygen were produced by photodissociation of water vapour rather than
photosynthesis, this would still be devastating for Miller-type proposals.
The dilution problem
Urey also speculated that the oceans in the ancient earth must have consisted of about a 10% solution of organic
compounds that would be very favourable for lifes origin.38 This level of organic matter would equal a concentration about
100 times higher than a modern American citys sewer water. The total amount of extant organic compounds on the earth
today could not produce even a fraction of that needed to achieve a concentration this high in the oceans.
Early hopes not realized
Modern replications of the MillerUrey experiment using a wide variety of recipes, including low levels of O 2, yield even
lower amounts of organic compound than the original experiment. 39 To solve this problem, some researchers have
speculated that small, isolated pools of water achieved the required level of concentration. The same problem remains: No
feasible method exists to account for this source. Some even speculate that submerged volcanoes and deep-sea vents
gaps in the earths crust where hot water and minerals gush into deep oceansmay have provided the initial chemical
resources.40To duplicate what might have happened in a primordial soup billions of years ago, scientists would need to mix
the chemicals currently believed to be commonly found on the early earth, expose them to likely energy sources (usually
speculated to be heat or radiation), and see what happens. No-one has performed this experiment, because we now know
that it is impossible to obtain relevant biochemical compounds by this means. The MillerUrey experiment held great hopes
for the materialists, which have now given way to pessimism:Soon after the MillerUrey experiment, many scientists
entertained the belief that the main obstacles in the problem of the origin of life would be overcome within the foreseeable
future. But as the search in this young scientific field went on and diversified, it became more and more evident that the
problem of the origin of life is far from trivial. Various fundamental problems facing workers in this search gradually emerged,
and new questions came into focus . Despite intensive research, most of these problems have remained
unsolved.Indeed, during the long history of the search into the origin of life, controversy is probably the most characteristic
attribute of this interdisciplinary field. There is hardly a model or scenario or fashion in this discipline that is not
controversial.41Some of these major problems will now be reviewed.
Functional proteins can exist only in very narrow conditions
To produce even non-functional amino acids and proteins, researchers must highly control the experiment in various ways
because the very conditions hypothesized to create amino acids also rapidly destroy proteins. Examples include thermal

denaturing of proteins by breaking apart their hydrogen bonds and disrupting the hydrophobic attraction between non-polar
side groups.42 Very few proteins remain biologically active above 50C, or below about 30C, and most require very narrow
conditions. Cooking food is a good example of using heat to denature protein, and refrigeration of using cold to slow down
biological activity. As any molecular biologist knows from daily lab work, the pH also must be strictly regulated. Too much
acid or base adversely affects the hydrogen bonding between polar R groups and also disrupts the ionic bonds formed by
the salt bridges in protein.
Cross-reactions
Miller had to deal with the fact that the common cross-reactions of biochemical reaction products cause destruction or
interfere with amino acid production. All compounds that interfere with bonding must be isolated or they will destroy the
proteins. Therefore, Miller had to remove many contaminants and impurities to obtain pure compounds that are not normally
found in life. Otherwise, his apparatus would have produced many destructive cross-reactions.This is no small problem.
Many organic compounds, such as ethanol and isopropyl alcohol, function as disinfectants by forming their own hydrogen
bonds with a protein and, as a result, disrupt the proteins hydrophobic interactions. 41 Alcohol swabs are used to clean
wounds or to prepare skin for injections because the alcohol passes through cell walls and coagulates the proteins inside
bacteria and other cells. Also, heavy metal ions such as Ag +, Pb2+ and Hg2+ must be isolated from proteins because they
disrupt the proteins disulfide bonds, causing the protein to denature. As an example, a dilute (1%) AgNO 3 solution is placed
in the eyes of newborn babies to destroy the bacteria that cause gonorrhea. Many heavy metal ions are very toxic if
ingested because they severely disrupt protein structure, especially enzymes.Another problem is that many of the other
compounds necessary for life, such as sugar, also react strongly with amino acids and affect amino acid synthesis. For
example, Miller and others had to use a sugar-free environment in their experiments. 43 Miller stopped his experiment after
just a few days, but if it had been allowed to go on, would the compounds he produced be destroyed or would they produce
more complex amino acids? Research on Murchison meteorites found that natural conditions produce compounds much like
Millers, and the result is stableindicating that further time would not produce any new products. 44The MillerUrey
experiments produced many other compounds aside from amino acids, resulting in a sticky mass that was actually further
from the building blocks of life than were the postulated original precursor chemicals. Toxic compounds produced include
cyanides, carbon monoxide, and othersactually most of the dark matter in the solution could not be identified by the
researchers in 1953.21
Undirected energy is disruptive
A critical question, How much energy was necessary? has been much debated.45 However, all forms of energy can disrupt
protein, including all of those forms postulated to be important in abiogenesis, such as UV and lightning. 46Many speculate
that ultraviolet light was the source used to create life, but UV is highly toxic to life, and is, in fact, often used to destroy life
(thus UV lights are used in hospitals to kill micro-organisms). The intensity of the destructive long wavelengths exceeds that
of the constructive short ones, and the quantum efficiency of destruction is much higher than that for construction as
well.47 This means that destruction of amino acids is four to five orders of magnitude higher than construction.In Millers UV
experiments, he used a select wavelength to produce amino acids and screened out other wavelengths because they
destroy amino acids. Yet both chemical-building and chemical-destroying light exists in sunlight. Amino acids are actually
very delicate and readily break down under natural sunlight.The MillerUrey experiment also had strategically designed
traps to remove the products from the radiation before they could be destroyed. On a primitive earth, any amino acids
formed in the atmosphere would be destroyed long before they could be removed. Even the ocean would not protect them,
because UV penetrates several metres of liquid wateryou can even sunburn under water. This indicates that the
conditions on the early earth could never have been favourable for abiogenesis.Even simple movement can cause major
protein damage: whipping cream or beating egg whites is one way of using mechanical agitation to deliberately denature
protein (the whipping stretches the polypeptide chains until the bonds break).Millers research has, for the reasons
discussed above, helped us to better understand why life could not have emerged naturally. In a summary of the famous
MillerUrey origin-of-life experiment, Horgan concluded that Millers results at first seemed to provide stunning evidence
that life could arise from what the British chemist J.B.S. Haldane had called the primordial soup. Pundits speculated that
scientists, like Mary Shelleys Dr. Frankenstein, would shortly conjure up living organisms in their laboratories and thereby
demonstrate in detail how genesis unfolded. It hasnt worked out that way. In fact, almost 40 years after his original
experiment, Miller told me that solving the riddle of the origin of life had turned out to be more difficult than he or anyone else
had envisioned.48Creating life in a test tube also turned out to be far more difficult than Miller expected. Scientists now know
that the complexity of life is far greater than Miller (or anyone else) imagined in 1953, prior to the DNA revolution. 49 We now
know that Millers much-touted experiments tell us very little about where real, functional proteins came from. Yet this
inconvenient fact is rarely mentioned when headlines blare out the news that scientists have succeeded in creating the
building blocks of life.50
Life is far more complex than Miller believed
About the same time as Darwin, T.H. Huxley proposed a simple, two-step method of chemical recombination that he thought
could explain the origin of the first living cell. Both Haeckel and Huxley thought that just as salt could be produced
spontaneously by mixing powered sodium metal and heated chlorine gas, a living cell could be produced merely by mixing
the few chemicals they believed were required. Haeckel taught that the physical basis of life is a substance he called plasm
of different types such as colourless and also red, orange, and other kinds of protoplasm that were comparable in
complexity and texture to a pot of glue or cold jelly. 51Haeckel also believed that the first single cell owed its existence to
spontaneous creation from inorganic compounds, primarily carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. 52 Once the brew was
mixed, Huxley concluded eons of time allowed spontaneous chemical reactions to produce the simple protoplasmic
substance that scientists once assumed was the essence of life.53 As late as 1928, the cell was still thought to be relatively
simple, and few scientists then questioned the belief that life commonly developed from relatively simple to relatively
complex forms. They also thought evolution was the formation of new structures and functions by combinations and
transformations of the relatively simple structures and functions of the germ cells. 54We now also realize, after a century of
research, that the eukaryote protozoa, believed in Darwins day to be as simple as a bowl of gelatin, are actually enormously
complex. A living eukaryotic cell contains many hundreds of thousands of different complex parts, including various motor
proteins. These parts must be assembled correctly to produce a living cell, the most complex machine in the universefar
more complex than a Cray supercomputer. Furthermore, molecular biology has demonstrated that the basic design of the
cell is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. In terms of their basic biochemical
design no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there
the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth. 55This finding poses
major difficulties for abiogenesis because life at the cellular level generally does not reveal a gradual increase in complexity
as it allegedly ascends the evolutionary ladder from protozoa to humans. The reason why the molecular machinery and

biochemistry of modern organisms is basically similar is that the basic biochemical requirements and constraints are the
same for all life.56
The polymerization problem
The MillerUrey experiment left many critical questions unanswered, even such basic ones as, How did the chemicals
combine to form the first molecules of living organisms? 34 Chemicals do not produce life; only complex structures such as
DNA and enzymes produce life. Also, even if the source of the amino acids and the many other compounds needed could
be explained, how these many diverse elements became aggregated in the same area and then properly assembled
themselves must still be dealt with. This problem is a major stumbling block to all abiogenesis theories because no one
has ever satisfactorily explained how the widely distributed ingredients linked up into proteins. Presumed conditions of
primordial earth would have driven the amino acids toward lonely isolation. Thats one of the strongest reasons that
Wchtershuser, Morowitz, and other hydrothermal vent theorists want to move the kitchen [that cooked life] to the ocean
floor. If the process starts down deep at discrete vents, they say, it can build amino acidsand link them upright there.33
The amino acid assembly problem is complicated by the fact that amino acids are able to bond in many locations by many
kinds of chemical bonds. To form polypeptide
chains requires restricting the links to only peptide
bonds, and only in the correct locations. All other
bonds must be prevented from being formed, no
easy task. In living cells, a complex control system
involving enzymes exists to ensure that
inappropriate bonds do not normally occur; without
this system, these inappropriate bonds would
destroy the proteins produced.
Another problem is that the strong thermodynamic
tendency is for the peptide bonds to break down in
water, not to form.57 Without high-energy
compounds such as ATP and enzymes, amino
acids do not form the many polypeptides needed
for life. Even dipeptides are difficult to form under
natural conditions, yet the average protein is
composed of around 400 amino acids.Several
recent discoveries have led some scientists to
conclude that life may have arisen in submarine
vents, where temperatures approach 350C.
Unfortunately
for
both
warm-pond
and
hydrothermal-vent theorists, the extreme heat has
To form a protein, amino acids must link together to form a peptide
proven to be a major downfall of their theories.
bond, eliminating a water molecule. But there is a far greater
This is because high temperatures would
tendency for the reverse to happen. This would be even more of a
accelerate the breakdown of amino acids, just as
problem in water.
cooking meat breaks down the bonds, causing
57
meat to become more tender. Another theory is
that abiogenesis may have been a consequence of
the self-ordering properties of biochemicals.58 Just as electrostatic forces produce highly ordered crystals of salt from
Na+ and Cl ions, so too, some Darwinists reasoned, in the same way, life may likewise self-assemble. This approach also
has failed. For example, all nucleotide base pairs have an equal affinity to the sugar phosphate backbones on each side of
the DNA molecule, and consequently, their order is not a result of bonding affinity differences but is due to informationdirected assembly. In other words, the information does not derive from the DNA chemistry, but is instead external to it (see
next section).Miller himself has recognized that Kauffmans research is not viable and, consequently, he was
unimpressed with any of the current proposals on the origin of life, referring to them as nonsense or paper chemistry. He
was so contemptuous of some hypotheses that, when I asked his opinion of them, he merely shook his head, sighed deeply,
and snickeredas if overcome by the folly of humanity. Stuart Kauffmans theory of autocatalysis fell into this category.
Running equations through a computer does not constitute an experiment, Miller sniffed. Miller acknowledged that
scientists may never know precisely where and when life emerged. Were trying to discuss a historical event, which is very
different from the usual kind of science, and so criteria and methods are very different, he remarked.59
Information content
Another major reason the MillerUrey experiments failed to support abiogenesis was that, although amino acids are the
building blocks of life, a critical key to life is the information code stored in DNA (or, as in the case of retroviruses, RNA),
depending on the sequence of nucleotides. This in turn provides the instructions for the amino acid sequences for the
proteins, the machinery of life.60,61 Michael Polanyi (18911976), former chairman of physical chemistry at the University of
Manchester (UK) who turned to philosophy, affirmed a very important pointthe information was something above the
chemical properties of the building blocks:As the arrangement of a printed page is extraneous to the chemistry of the
printed page, so is the base sequence in a DNA molecule
extraneous to the chemical forces at work in the DNA
molecule. It is this physical indeterminacy of the sequence
that produces the improbability of any particular sequence
and thereby enables it to have a meaninga meaning that
has
a
mathematically
determinate
information
content.62Paul Davies reinforced the point that obtaining
the building blocks would not explain their arrangement:
just as bricks alone dont make a house, so it takes more
than a random collection of amino acids to make life. Like
house bricks, the building blocks of life have to be
assembled in a very specific and exceedingly elaborate
way before they have the desired function.63An analogy is
written language. Natural objects in forms resembling the
English alphabet (circles, straight lines, etc.) abound in
nature, but this fact does not help to understand the origin
of information (such as that in Shakespeares plays). The
The two enantiomers of a generalized amino acid, where
R is any functional group (except H)

reason is that this task requires intelligence both to create the information (the play) and then to design and build the
machinery required to translate that information into symbols (the written text). What must be explained is the source of the
information in the text (the words and ideas), not the existence of circles and straight lines. Likewise, it is not enough to
explain the origin of the amino acids, which correspond to the letters. Rather, even if they were produced readily, the source
of the information that directs the assembly of the amino acids contained in the genome must be explained. 34Another huge
problem is that information is useless unless it can be read. But the decoding machinery is itself encoded on the DNA. The
leading philosopher of science, Karl Popper (19021994), expressed the huge problem:What makes the origin of life and of
the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is,
unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But the machinery by which the
cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty
macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus the code can not be translated except by using
certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a
model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the
origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry
and physics.64That is, the genetic information and the required reading machinery form an irreducibly complex system. So
far, it has eluded materialistic explanations.65
The chirality problem
What Sarfati66 calls a major hurdle is the origin of homochirality, the fact that all amino acid biomolecules with rare
exceptions (such as some used in bacterial cell walls) are all left-handed; and with rare exceptions, all sugars, including
those in nucleic acids, are right-handed. Those produced in a laboratory are a half left-handed and half right-handed mixture
called a racemate. Even in the laboratory, chemists use pre-existing homochirality from a biological source in order to
synthesize homochiral compounds.60 Chiral molecules are dissymmetricthey exist as mirror images of each other, just as
the right hand is a mirror image of the left hand (the word chiral comes from the Greek word for hand). The problem is lefthanded sugars and right-handed amino acids can be toxic and prevent abiogenesis. Furthermore, most all enzymes are
designed to work only with right-handed sugars and left-handed amino acids. All attempts to solve the chirality problem,
including magnetochiral dichroism, have failed.67
The legacy of the Miller experiment
A major unresolved question that involves psychology and history more than chemistry is, Why has the MillerUrey
experiment had such a strong impact on the origin-of-life field? 68 Shapiro concludes a major reason is that the experiment
seems to imply that we are on the verge of understanding how life was created without intelligence or design. In the public
mind (and in the minds of many scientists) this experiment psychologically supports abiogenesis. But the MillerUrey
results, and the many similar experiments completed since then, actually show the opposite of what the MillerUrey
experiment purported to demonstrate. Few textbooks actually analyze the results, and most uncritically accept this
experiment as proof of how the building blocks of life were produced and then imply that the only task left was to determine
how they were assembled.My review of college textbooks found that most discussed the MillerUrey experiments, some
extensively, but few texts mentioned any of the problems. Most implied that the research has conclusively shown how the
building blocks of life spontaneously generated. In part, due to the common claims in textbooks and museum exhibits, many
people assume that a good, if not excellent, case exists for the MillerUrey thesis. Davies noted that when he set out to
write a book on the origin of life, he was convinced that science was close to wrapping up the mystery of lifes origins, but
after spending a year or two researching the field, he is now of the opinion that there remains a huge gulf in our
understanding . This gulf in understanding is not merely ignorance about certain technical details, it is a major conceptual
lacuna.69The MillerUrey experiment is now an icon of evolution, presented in most all biology, zoology and evolution
textbooks as clear evidence of abiogenesis, when it actually illustrates the many difficulties of chemical evolution.22
The current status of the MillerUrey line of research
In an interview with Stanley Miller, now considered one of the most diligent and respected origin-of-life researchers in the
world, after he completed his 1953 experiment, he dedicated himself to the search for the secret of life but was also quick
to criticize what he feels is shoddy work in an effort to overcome the fact that the origin-of-life field has a reputation as a
fringe discipline, not worthy of serious pursuit.59 Miller vowed that one day scientists would discover the self-replicating
molecule that had triggered the great saga of evolution . [and] the discovery of the first genetic material [will] legitimize
Millers field. It would take off like a rocket, Miller muttered through clenched teeth. Would such a discovery be immediately
self-apparent? Miller nodded. It will be in the nature of something that will make you say, How could you have
overlooked this for so long? And everybody will be totally convinced. 59This hope has become less realistic as our
knowledge has advanced. What we have learned, especially during the past few years, makes it less likely than ever that
abiogenesis was ever possible.36,70,71 Yet the MillerUrey experiment is now the classic, best-known origin-of-life experiment,
cited in texts from high school to graduate school, in areas ranging from biology to geology and philosophy to
religion.20,22 Phillip Johnson summed up the whole MillerUrey research problem as follows:Because post-Darwinian biology
has been dominated by materialist dogma, the biologists have had to pretend that organisms are a lot simpler than they are.
Life itself must be merely chemistry. Assemble the right chemicals, and life emerges. DNA must likewise be a product of
chemistry alone. As an exhibit in the New Mexico Museum of Natural History puts it, volcanic gases plus lightning equal
DNA equals LIFE! When queried about this fable, the museum spokesman acknowledged that it was simplified but said it
was basically true.72
Conclusion
It is now recognized that the MillerUrey line of research is simply a revival of the antique notion of spontaneous generation
because it suggests that given the primordial soup, with the right combination of amino acids and nucleic acids, and
perchance a lightning bolt or two, life might in fact have begun spontaneously. The major difference is that according to
what biologists customarily called spontaneous generation, life supposedly began this way all of the time. According to the
soup suggestion, by contrast, it began this way only once in the immeasurably distant past. 73We must conclude, as Ridley
did, that the early forms of life, and how natural selection could shape them, are so obscure at the primordial stage that we
can only guess why complexity might have increased.Darwin thought about the question inconclusively. He once wrote to
the geologist Charles Lyell about a question which is very difficult to answer, viz. how at first start of life, when there were
only simplest organisms, how did any complication of organisms profit them? I can only answer that we have not facts
enough to guide any speculation on the subject. We have more facts now, but they are still inadequate, and Darwins
answer still holds.74When confronted with this evidence, 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. 4 Although widely
heralded by the popular press for decades as proof that life originated on the early earth entirely by natural conditions, the
MillerUrey experiments have actually provided compelling evidence for exactly the opposite conclusion. This set of

experimentsmore than almost any other carried out by modern sciencehas done much more to show that abiogenesis
is not possible on Earth than to indicate how it could be possible.
15 loopholes in the evolutionary theory of the origin of life: Summary
by Jonathan Sarfati
Dr Sarfati, a Ph.D. chemist, explores some of the most-cited explanations of biochemical evolution, and shows how they
point to a designer, not time and chance.There is almost universal agreement among specialists that earths primordial
atmosphere contained no methane, ammonia or hydrogen reducing gases. Rather, most evolutionists now believe it
contained carbon dioxide and nitrogen. Miller-type sparking experiments will not work with those gases in the absence of
reducing gases. See The Primitive Atmosphere.The atmosphere contained free oxygen, which would destroy organic
compounds. Oxygen would be produced by photodissociation of water vapour. Oxidized minerals such as hematite are
found as early as 3.8 billion years old, almost as old as the earliest rocks, and 300 million older than the earliest life. There is
also evidence for organisms complex enough to photosynthesize at 3.7 billion of years ago (Rosing, M.T. and Frei, R., U-rich
Archaean sea-floor sediments from Greenlandindications of >3700 Ma oxygenic photosynthesis, Earth and Planetary
Science Letters 217:237244, 2004). Also, red jasper or hematite-rich chert cored from layers allegedly 3.46 billion years old
showed that there had to be as much oxygen in the atmosphere 3.46 billion years ago as there is in todays atmosphere. To
have this amount of oxygen, the Earth must have had oxygen producing organisms like cyanobacteria actively producing it,
placing these organisms much earlier in Earths history than previously thought. (Deep-sea rocks point to early oxygen on
Earth, 24 March 2009) NB:these dates are according to the evolutionary/uniformitarian framework, which I strongly reject
on both grounds and Evidence for a Young World).Catch-22: if there was no oxygen there would be no ozone, so ultraviolet
light would destroy biochemicals. Also, the hydrogen cyanide polymerization that is alleged to lead to adenine can occur
only in the presence of oxygen (see Eastman et al., Exploring the Structure of a Hydrogen Cyanide Polymer by Electron
Spin Resonance and Scanning Force Microscopy, Scanning 2:1924, p. 20).
All energy sources that produce the biochemicals destroy them even faster! The MillerUrey experiments used strategically
designed traps to isolate the biochemicals as soon as they were formed so the sparks/UV did not destroy them. Without the
traps, even the tiny amounts obtained would not have been formed.Biochemicals would react with each other or with
inorganic chemicals. Sugars (and other carbonyl (>C=O) compounds) react destructively with amino acids (and other amino
(NH2) compounds), but both must be present for a cell to form.Without enzymes from a living cell, formaldehyde (HCHO)
reactions with hydrogen cyanide (HCN) are necessary for the formation of DNA and RNA bases, condensing agents, etc.
But HCHO and especially HCN are deadly poisons HCN was used in the Nazi gas chambers! They destroy vital proteins.
Abundant Ca2+ ions would precipitate fatty acids (necessary for cell membranes) and phosphate (necessary for such vital
compounds as DNA, RNA, ATP, etc.). Metal ions readily form complexes with amino acids, hindering them from more
important reactions.No geological evidence has been found anywhere on earth for the alleged primordial soup.
See Primeval soup failed paradigmDepolymerisation is much faster than polymerisation. Water is a poor medium for
condensation polymerisation. Polymers will hydrolyse in water over geological time. Condensing agents (water absorbing
chemicals) require acid conditions and they could not accumulate in water. Heating to evaporate water tends to destroy
some vital amino acids, racemise all the amino acids, and requires geologically unrealistic conditions. Besides, heating
amino acids with other gunk produced by Miller experiments would destroy them. See Origin of Life: The Polymerization
Problem.Polymerisation requires bifunctional molecules (can combine with two others), and is stopped by a small fraction
of unifunctionalmolecules (can combine with only one other, thus blocking one end of the growing chain). Miller experiments
produce five times moreunifunctional molecules than bifunctional molecules. See Origin of Life: The Polymerization
Problem.Sugars are destroyed quickly after the reaction (formose) which is supposed to have formed them. Also, the
alkaline conditions needed to form sugars are incompatible with acid conditions required to form polypeptides with
condensing agents. See The RNA World: A Critique.Long time periods do not help the evolutionary theory if biochemicals
are destroyed faster than they are formed (cf. points 4, 7, & 9).Not all of the necessary building blocks are formed; e.g.
ribose and cytosine are hard to form and are very unstable. See Origin of life: Instability of building blocks.Life requires
homochiral polymers (all the same handedness) proteins have only left-handed amino acids, while DNA and RNA have
only right-handed sugars. Miller experiments produce racemates equal mixtures of left and right handed molecules. A
small fraction of wrong handed molecules terminates RNA replication, shortens polypeptides, and ruins enzymes.
See Origin of Life: The Chirality Problem and Homochirality an unsolved problem (quote).Life requires catalysts which are
specific for a single type of molecule. This requires specific amino acid sequences, which have extremely low probabilities
(~10650 for all the enzymes required). Prebiotic polymerisation simulations yield random sequences, not functional proteins
or enzymes. See Proteins and Casket Draws, Could monkeys type the 23rd Psalm? and Cheating with Chance.The origin of
coding system of proteins on DNA is an enigma. So is the origin of the message encoded, which is extraneous to the
chemistry, as a printed message is to ink molecules. Code translation apparatus and replicating machinery
are themselves encoded avicious circle. A code cannot self-organize. See Self-Replicating Enzymes?The origin of
machines requires design, not random energy. E.g: the Nobel prize-winner Merrifield designed an automatic protein
synthesiser. Each amino acid added to the polymer requires 90 steps. The amino acid sequence is determined by a
program. A living cell is like a self-replicating Merrifield machine.
WHAT ARE SOME BASICS PROBLEMS WITH THE NATURALISTIC ORIGIN OF LIFE
Life from life or not?
by David Demick
Once Darwin, in 1859, advanced the idea (not really new, even then) that God was not needed to explain the diversity of life
on Earth, the next question was Where did life come from, if not from God? Darwin was too cautious to overtly promote the
spontaneous origin of life in his Origin of Species. But this implication of his evolutionary theory was clearly understood by
his followers, particularly Thomas Huxley. In 1870, Huxley, known as Darwins bulldog for his aggressive and successful
efforts to promote Darwinism, boldly proclaimed the ability of life to come from non-life.Again, this was not a new idea. Until
very near that time, it was generally believed that life not only could come from non-living matter, but that this was occurring
under our noses all the time. Ancient Greek philosophers had preached this error of spontaneous generation and it had set
in mens minds like concrete. One could see fish and frogs coming from pond slime, and flies from rotting meat. True, the
fine cellular structure of living things was beginning to be widely observed through the microscope, but without the intricacies
of modern biochemistry and molecular biology, cells just looked like tiny gooey blobs. So it was easy to believe that
microscopic cellular life could spring up from non-living sludge.However, Louis Pasteur was in the very process of proving
that spontaneous generation of cellular life was even more illusory than the flat earth. So Huxley had to change the name of
the process, and push it into the remote past, in order to keep it credible. He changed the name to abiogenesis

(see aside below), cleverly evading the fact that it was no longer observable: if it were given to me to look beyond the
abyss of geologically recorded time to the still more remote period when the Earth was passing through physical and
chemical conditions which it can no more see again than a man can recall his infancey [sic], I should expect to be a witness
of the evolution of living protoplasm from non-living matter. 1However, current scientific literature continues on the path
Huxley laid down, building on the Greek thought before himthat life arose in the past from a primordial soup, and evolved
to its present state of complexity over billions of years.There is much speculation about life arising in many places in the
universe in an on-going fashion. But what does scientific observation and experiment tell us? We never see evidence for
anything like a primordial soup, nor any life arising spontaneously. We only see living things reproducing after their own
kinds (with variation, even speciation possible within each kind).Nowadays most scientists and teachers take a somewhat
schizophrenic approach. They deny spontaneous generation, recognizing Pasteurs proofs against it. At the same time they
say life arose spontaneously in the past, when we werent around to observe or measure the process.To appreciate the
immensity of this, consider the times around 1860. The microscopic world of the cell was just beginning to be understood.
Single-celled organisms had been recognized for some time, but the fact that all living things are made of reproducing cells
was just vaguely being recognized. The role of microorganisms in causing disease was not yet understood. Their role in
fermentation was just being elucidated, and was the subject of Pasteurs now-famous experiments.
Pasteurs proofs
Fermentation had been studied before Pasteur, by such eminent scientists as Lavoisier, Gay-Lussac, and Schwann. The
prevailing view then was that fermentation was a peculiar type of chemical reaction inherent to non-living organic residues.
However, Pasteur performed many experiments with fermentable materials in specially sealed flasks. When the flasks were
sufficiently heated, they would no longer ferment. But if the seal was broken, they would.Thus, the agent of fermentation
was living, and could be killed by heat. Moreover, this agent was unable to regenerate itself from its constituents. Pasteur
used a microscope to see the microorganisms responsible for fermentation, and showed that they can be air-borne. He
concluded correctly that spontaneous generation, even of microbes, is a fallacious concept, without experimental
justification. He showed that the failure of earlier scientistseven great namesto reach this conclusion was due to their
failure to control outside contamination of their flasks.
Establishment fights back
The proponents of spontaneous generation thought they had a large body of experimental data (now known to be faulty and
misinterpreted) to support them. This old school, led by eminent French botanist/zoologist Flix Pouchet, opposed Pasteur
vigorously for years. An interesting summary of these disputes is given in Nordenskilds 1926 book:In a series of
investigations he [Pouchet] tried to prove that the micro-organisms arising upon fermentation and putrefaction are
spontaneously generated . In the view of such a theory Pasteurs fermentation experiments were, of course, pure
irrational nonsense, and thus began a lengthy controversy between these two experimental scientists . The two
antagonists were allowed to carry out their experiments before the French Academy of Science, and Pasteur succeeded at
once in convincing some of its foremost members . Pouchet likewise had his supporters, and especially among the
scientifically educated and the half-educated public he gained many adherents who regarded spontaneous
generation as a philosophic necessity, indispensible for a natural-scientific explanation of the origin of life, which
Pasteur, faithful Catholic that he was, naturally felt himself compelled to explain dogmatically. Thus argument opposed
argument, and party faced party. In these circumstances the solution of the problem would never have become
possible had not Pasteur been able to put his ideas into practice on a large scale. Pasteurs views on the origin of
the micro-organisms received splendid practical confirmation as a result of the development of modern medicine; antiseptics
and asepsis during surgery, disinfection, and the treatment of infectious disease. Owing to these facts, which found fresh
confirmation daily, spontaneous generation has entirely ceased to exist as a possibility to be reckoned with in
modern biology, nor does it come into serious question when we have to explain actual phenomena. 2 (Emphases
added).Pasteurs scientific legacy is immense. He is rightly honoured as one of the greatest biologists of all time. The
spontaneous origin of life would have long ago become a disproved myth of the past, if not for supposedly objective
scientists clinging tenaciously to the dogma of naturalistic evolutionism.
Another blow
In the late 1850s, spontaneous generation of cellular life was also being discredited on another front of biological research,
even while Darwin was about to bring it back in a different form. Rudolf Virchow is one of the greatest names in the history
of medicine. He has been called the father of pathology, and even the father of modern medicine. His work helped
transform medical thinking, taking it from two millennia of stagnation in ancient Greek dogma and putting it on a sound
scientific basis. However, his insistence on sound reasoning from observable facts made him no friend to the evolutionary
ideas which sprang up in his time.Virchows main contribution to medicine was to deal the deathblow to the ancient Greek
system of humoral medicine, started by Hippocrates and greatly embellished in the succeeding two thousand years. This
system held that disease was caused by imbalance of the basic humours (fluids) of the bodyblood, phlegm, yellow bile,
and black bile. In the early 1800s, new discoveries using the microscope were incorporated into this old theory. Carl von
Rokitansky, the great Viennese pathologist, who probably did more autopsies that any other man in history, noted the
microscopic cellular nature of tumours discovered at autopsy. He held that these cellular masses were products of humoral
imbalance, and that cells could form from unbalanced humours just as crystals could grow in a supersaturated chemical
solution. Note the obvious similarity of this idea to general spontaneous generation. However, Virchow, with his strict
insistence on observational verification, soon realized that tumour cells arise from pre-existing body cells.
The Monera fallacy
Huxleys eagerness to prove his new idea of abiogenesis provides a somewhat comic episode in the history of biology,
conveniently forgotten because of its embarrassment to evolutionists. In the 1860s, hard on the heels of the release of
Darwins book, there was much speculation centred on the primordial slime from which life first arose. Ernst Haeckel, a
very influential German zoology professor, had even invented a whole family of creatures to fill the gap between non-living
slime and one-celled organisms. Drawings and descriptions of these so-called Monera, ill-defined blobs of protoplasm
without a nucleus, seemed convincing.3 After no such creatures were found on land, the sea bottom was considered as their
possible hiding place. Accordingly, British ships began sampling sea floor sediment. In 1868, one such set of samples
contained slimy blobs that generated much excitement among evolutionists. Huxley declared that these were samples of the
real thing, and even gave them a taxonomic nameBathybius haeckeli. However, a few years later, Bathybius was quietly
withdrawn from the spotlight. The reason? In the words of the Duke of Argyll, a member of the Royal Society and a
contemporary opponent of Darwin and Huxley:One day on board the "Challenger", an accident revealed the mystery. One
of Mr. Murrays assistants poured a large quantity of spirits of wine into a bottle containing some pure seawater, when
lo! the wonderful protoplasm "Bathybius" appeared. It was the chemical precipitate of the sulphate of lime produced by
the mixture of alcohol and seawater. On this announcement "Bathybius" disappeared from science a ridiculous
error and a ridiculous credulity were the direct results of theoretical preconceptions. Bathybius was accepted

because it was in harmony with Darwins speculations. 4 (Emphases added.)This episode highlights the double
standards of those who portray creationism as a fanatical anti-scientific religion, and evolution as dispassionate, objective
science. Evolutionists have, on the whole, always had a strong bias and religious dimension in their quest to explain the
universe without a designer to make it.5 Despite the spectacular failure of all experiments to demonstrate abiogenesis, they
have spread this unproven doctrine far and wide.Thousands of experiments, and all of the recently gained knowledge of
molecular biology and genetics, have only served to strengthen the most fundamental law of biology, laid down by Virchow
over a century ago: omni cellules e cellules (all cells come from other cells), also known as the Law of Biogenesis. Life only
comes from life.
Some flaws of major evolutionary origin-of-life theories1
Dat
Proponent Model
Problems(some)
e
192 Oparin, A.I. Life evolved in aA purely physical attraction, nothing like the
4
primordial
soupcomplexity of a real cell. Require special
via coacervates conditions to form, and are very unstable.
192 Haldane,
Hot dilute soup Heat helps break down large molecules.
8 J.B.S.
195 Miller,
S.L.Sparking gases toThe gases were the wrong type to have
3 and
Urey,produce
aminoexisted on Earth, the energy sources would
H.C.
acids
have destroyed most of the product, and
what was left would have been very dilute
and contaminated.
196 Fox, S.W.
Proteinoid
Pure amino acids and geologically unrealistic
5
microspheres thatconditions required. The reproduction is just
supposedly
like a soap bubble dividing, and nothing like
reproduce
likethe complex mechanism of cell division.
cells
196 Woese, C. Self-reproducing RNA and its components are very unstable,
7
RNA
and some components are extremely
improbable components of any primordial
soup.
197 CairnsSelf-reproducing Invented out of despair over established
4 Smith, A.G. clays
views and a need to preserve materialism.
Total lack of evidence that clay defect
patterns can reproduce or act so specifically.
198 Wchtershu Surface catalysisNo proof that amino acids can form, or that
8 ser, G.
on pyrites
more than a handful could join together.
See also Q&A page on Origin of Life.
The handedness of life a huge barrier.
The building blocks of proteins come in left-handed or right-handed forms, as the illustration shows. Living things can only
use left-handed ones. If a protein being assembled by the cell were to use even one right-handed building block, it would
destroy the function of the end product.
DNA and RNA also use pure right-handed sugarsa single left-handed one would destroy the double helix and make it
impossible to transmit or reproduce information. But any such substances produced by nature always form in a 50-50
mixture; it takes special, intelligent effort to separate the two forms into pure aggregates of each. This is a source of great
vexation for evolutionists, who have tried all manner of ingenious ways of circumventing the issuewithout success.1
Sarfati, J., The origin of life: the chirality problem, CEN Technical Journal12(3):281-284, 1998.
Creation of life in a test-tube: would it violate Pasteurs law that life only comes from life?
Hardly. As a creationist, Pasteur1 believed that life comes only from lifeor from pre-existing intelligence. His wellestablished law concerns the observation that, left to themselves, matter plus chance plus the laws of physics and chemistry
cannot produce living things. Creative manipulation by intelligent beings would obviously not count. So far, there has not
been a single observed exception to the Law of Biogenesis, so it truly stands as a scientific law. Nevertheless, billions of
schoolchildren who are taught this law are also taught that once upon a time, perhaps in a galaxy far, far away, there was
an exception, and possibly many more.
Which genesis bio- or abio- ?
Definitions from The World Book Dictionary, Doubleday and Co., 1985.)
Biogenesis
The theory that living things can be produced only by other living things.
The genesis or production of living things from other living things.
The history of the evolution of living organisms. [(coined in 1870 by Thomas Huxley) < bio (life) + genesis]
Abiogenesis
The supposed transformation of inanimate matter into living matter; spontaneous generation [(coined in 1870 by
Thomas Huxley) < a (without) + bio (life) + genesis]. (Often also called chemical evolution Ed.)
Obviously, both propositions cant be right (back to main).
Tinned sardinesclue to the origin of life?
by Gordon Howard
Tinned sardinesI just love em! Sardines in tomato
sauce (ketchup) on fresh, warm toastthe thought
makes my mouth water.
Even opening the tin is exciting. What if, one day, one of
the sardines begins to flop around, anxious to get back
in the sea? But these sardines are dead. Maybe,

instead, there could be just a little bit of green fuzz that has come to life on my sardines. Wouldnt that be a blast! Well, no. I
think I would be rushing to the shop for my money back, and sending a letter of complaint to the manufacturer: Your
sterilization techniques arent working. My sardines are contaminated with life.We could be hopeful about something coming
to life in my sardine tin, because those who say life began by itself tell us less educated persons that life could have begun
in a primordial soup with only about 10% pre-biotic matter. Now my tin of sardines has almost 100% pre-biotic matter
(well, post-biotic matter, since theyre dead), but I never see any signs of life.Surely, if life can begin by itself, it should
happen in a sardine tin. Not only is there all thats needed by way of the building blocks for proteins, DNA, and all that stuff,
but also these are already organized into cells, and all the paraphernalia of living things, all packaged and ready to go.
Seems to me a better deal than the wild conditions in a swirling ocean, or even in Charles Darwins warm little pond, with
nothing but chemicals floating around. 1Why doesnt it happen? Evolutionists keep telling us that things keep going on the
same for millions of yearsthat natural processes are all that causes anything. If that is true, life should be popping up
afresh all around us. But it doesnt.So youd think they would realize by now: life only comes from life. This experiment (does
life arise in sardine tins?) has been conducted millions of times a day for a hundred years or morewith absolutely no
evidence of life. Its time to give up! Evolutionists talk about a primordial soup that got it going, but surely tomato soup
would be better, even though it uses dead tomatoesat least they were alive. Now, Ive never seen a primordial, and Ive
never come across a recipe for primordial soup, but Im sure theres less chance of a primordial jumping out of primordial
soup than there is of a tomato growing out of tomato soup.And it doesnt seem to matter how long we leave the sardines (or
the soup) in the tins. A million years or so would only allow the good stuff in the tin to deteriorate, so its chances of producing
life would only get worse.2 The same surely would have happened millions of years ago.
The fish in the bathtub
by Royal Truman
One weekend I got into a discussion with a very talented physical chemist, a former colleague, on the topic of creation and
evolution. I kept noticing that his comments with respect to evolution were inconsistent with basic concepts the two of us
would deal with routinely in chemistry.I thought I could focus the issues more clearly by asking him: If he were to fill his
bathtub with water and come back in a million years, would he expect to find a fish swimming there?Naturally, I expected the
answer to be no, since we know that water molecules dont get converted into organic molecules, and so on. I was hoping
to systematically go through with him what kind of assumptions would be necessary for that fish to be produced under
natural and unguided conditions.He told me confidently that, no, he would not find a fish there, even after a million years. I
was getting my second question ready, about a fish in a swimming pool out in the sunlight, when he then added, but in a
billion years there might be a fish there.I couldnt believe my ears. As I pressed him about the things required, such as the
formation of optically active biomolecules, information encoding and decoding and DNA, male/female reproduction, and so
on,1 his answer was adamant: With enough time everything is possible.I pointed out the obvious flaw in this reasoning.
After a short period of time, the water in this bathtub has reached thermal equilibrium. Any other molecules dissolved in the
water quickly arrive at a random steady state, and there is no difference in the distribution after a thousand yearsfar less if
everything has been sitting there for a billion years. In fact, I claimed, if any abnormal structures or organization were to
result by the strangest coincidence, the chances were better during the initial turbulence of water gushing out of the tap. The
chances of structures far from thermodynamic equilibrium (as are all life forms) arising by chance can only decrease with
time.This magical claim that given enough time anything is possible, that even the most complex organisms could arise by
chance if we were to wait long enough, is not what an engineer or physical scientist observes in the real world. Here are
some examples:In a closed room at a constant temperature, it is statistically possible that all the oxygen molecules could
accumulate, by sheer chance, up in one corner long enough for everyone to suffocate. Shall we argue that if we wait long
enough in a room, we will eventually observe this? Actually, no. Gas molecules bump into each other randomly, and
continue moving until the next collision. Because they travel, on average, longest in a straight line in the direction where
there are the fewest molecules, they thus spread themselves out ever more evenly with time until a steady state is reached.
In fact, if the individual gases which together make up air had been pumped into the room, the chances of observing all the
oxygen clumped in one corner are better within a short period of time, but the probability will steadily decrease as random
effects lead to the most probable state, which is the most randomized or disordered one.Most footballs are not perfectly
airtight. After some time they will have lost some pressure. It is not sensible to argue that with time anything is possible, that
eventually the ball will start to reinflate itself. Even though any individual air molecule could, by chance, enter the ball from
without, the probability of collisions within the ball is much greater than the collisions per unit area outside the ball. So the
overwhelming probability is that more molecules will leak out than in. Thus, the more time that passes, the more certain it is
that the ball will deflate, not spontaneously reinflate.A cherry seed can sprout and create a tree able to produce many such
seeds. Could such a seed arise by waiting long enough? A collection of chemicals lacking a protective shell and the internal
machinery and programmed information to grow has a decreasing chance of producing a functional seed as time goes on:
the component chemicals will decompose, or be washed away by rain, or disintegrate in ultraviolet light.On this basis it
seems amazing that atheists would expect to find life on other planets. Life is decidedly not a natural phenomenon which
automatically results given the right conditions. What if life was discovered on other planets, and it could be shown that this
was not life which had originated from Earth somehow? 2 Even though this would seem exceedingly strange from a young
age viewpoint, to me it would be further proof, if not absolute proof, of a designer. Something as incredibly, hopelessly
complex as living forms requires the most fantastic leaps of imagination to think it could appear by chance just once; to
contemplate it happening by chance twice should be regarded as beyond rational discussion.3Furthermore, the ecosystems
needed to support life are incredibly complex and finely balanced. It is not only unreasonable to believe that they could arise
by chance, but also totally unreasonable to think that they could survive for millions of years. The longer the time period, the
greater the chance of something going amiss, such as: an unstoppable disease spreading; a killer meteor hitting the Earth;
massive climate changes; bad mutations accumulating; major imbalances in food supply or nutrient ratios. The possibilities
are almost endless about what could go wrong, given the high degree of interdependence of the systems in the living world.
The claim that, with time, anything is possible, including the creation and perpetuation of life, is not based on any scientific
principle. Rather, the opposite is true: complex and improbable structures of any kind tend to disintegrate over time.
Lifes irreducible structurePart 1: autopoiesis
by Alex Williams

The commonly cited case for intelligent design appeals to: (a) the irreducible complexity of (b) some aspects of life. But
complex arguments invite complex refutations (valid or otherwise), and the claim that only someaspects of life are irreducibly
complex implies that others are not, and so the average person remains unconvinced. Here I use another principle
autopoiesis (self-making)to show that all aspects of life lie beyond the reach of naturalistic explanations. Autopoiesis
provides a compelling case for intelligent design in three stages: (i) autopoiesis is universal in all living things, which makes
it a pre-requisite for life, not an end
product of natural selection; (ii) the
inversely-causal,
information-driven,
structured hierarchy of autopoiesis is not
reducible to the laws of physics and
chemistry; and (iii) there is an
unbridgeable abyss between the dirty,
mass-action chemistry of the natural
environmental and the perfectly-pure,
single-molecule
precision
of
biochemistry. Naturalistic objections to
these propositions are considered in
Part II of this article.
Snowflake photos by Kenneth G.
Libbrecht.
Figure
1. Reducible
structure.
Snowflakes (left) occur in hexagonal
shapes because water crystallizes into ice in a hexagonal pattern (right). Snowflake structure can therefore be reduced to
(explained in terms of) ice crystal structure. Crystal formation is spontaneous in a cooling environment. The energetic
vapour molecules are locked into solid bonds with the release of heat to the environment, thus increasing overall entropy in
accord with the second law of thermodynamics.The commonly cited case for intelligent design (ID) goes as follows: some
biological systems are so complex that they can only function when all of their components are present, so that the system
could not have evolved from a simpler assemblage that did not contain the full machinery. 1 This definition is what
biochemist Michael Behe calledirreducible complexity in his popular book Darwins Black Box2 where he pointed to
examples such as the blood-clotting cascade and the proton-driven molecular motor in the bacterial flagellum. However,
because Behe appealed to complexity, many equally complex rebuttals have been put forward, 3 and because he claimed
that only some of the aspects of life were irreducibly complex, he thereby implied that the majority of living structure was
open to naturalistic explanation. As a result of these two factors, the concept of intelligent design remains controversial and
unproven in popular understanding.In this article, I shall argue that all aspects of life point to intelligent design, based on
what European polymath Professor Michael Polanyi FRS, in his 1968 article in Science called Lifes Irreducible
Structure.4 Polanyi argued that living organisms have a machine-like structure that cannot be explained by (or reduced to)
the physics and chemistry of the molecules of which they consist. This concept is simpler, and broader in its application,
than Behes concept of irreducible complexity, and it applies to all of life, not just to some of it.
The nature and origin of biological design
Biologists universally admire the wonder of the beautiful designs evident in living organisms, and they often recoil in
revulsion at the horrible designs exhibited by parasites and predators in ensuring the survival of themselves and their
species. But to a Darwinist, these are only apparent designsthe end result of millions of years of tinkering by mutation
and fine tuning by natural selection. They do not point to a cosmic Designer, only to a long and blind process of survival of
the fittest.5 For a Darwinist, the same must also apply to the origin of lifeit must be an emergent property of matter. An
emergent property of a system is some special arrangement that is not usually observed, but may arise through natural
causes under the right environmental conditions. For example, the vortex of a tornado is an emergent property of
atmospheric movements and temperature gradients. Accordingly, evolutionists seek endlessly for those special
environmental conditions that may have launched the first round of carbon-based macromolecules 6 on their long journey
towards life. Should they ever find those unique environmental conditions, they would then be able to explain life in terms of
physics and chemistry. That is, life could then be reduced to the known laws of physics, chemistry and environmental
conditions.However, Polanyi argued that the form and function of the various parts of living organisms cannot be reduced to
(or explained in terms of) the laws of physics and chemistry, and so life exhibits irreducible structure. He did not speculate
on the origin of life, arguing only that scientists should be willing to recognize the impossible when they see it:The
recognition of certain basic impossibilities has laid the foundations of some major principles of physics and chemistry;
similarly, recognition of the impossibility of understanding living things in terms of physics and chemistry, far from setting
limits to our understanding of life, will guide it in the right direction.7
Reducible and irreducible structures
To understand Polanyis concept of irreducible structure, we must first look at reducible structure. The snowflakes in figure 1
illustrate reducible structure.Meteorologists have recognized about eighty different basic snowflake shapes, and subtle
variations on these themes add to the mix to produce a virtually infinite variety of actual shapes. Yet they all arise from just
one kind of moleculewater. How is this possible?
Figure 2. Irreducible structure. The silver
coins (left) have properties of flatness,
roundness and impressions on faces and
rims, that cannot be explained in terms of the
crystalline state of silver (close packed cubes)
or its natural occurrence as native silver
(right).When water freezes, its crystals take
the form of a hexagonal prism. Crystals then
grow by joining prism to prism. The elaborate
branching patterns of snowflakes arise from
the statistical fact that a molecule of water
vapour in the air is most likely to join up to its
nearest surface. Any protruding bump will thus tend to grow more quickly than the surrounding crystal area because it will be
the nearest surface to the most vapour molecules.8 There are six bumps (corners) on a hexagonal prism, so growth will
occur most rapidly from these, producing the observed six-armed pattern.Snowflakes have a reducible structure because
you can produce them with a little bit of vapour or with a lot. They can be large or small. Any one water molecule is as good

as any other water molecule in forming them. Nothing goes wrong if you add or subtract one or more water molecules from
them. You can build them up one step at a time, using any and every available water molecule. The patterns can thus all be
explained by (reduced to) the physics and chemistry of water and the atmospheric conditions.
Figure 3. Common irreducibly structured machine
components: lever (A), cogwheel (B) and coiled spring (C).
All are made of metal, but their detailed structure and
function cannot be reduced to (explained by) the
properties of the metal they are made of.To now
understand irreducible structure,
consider
a
silver
coin.Silver is found naturally in copper, lead, zinc, nickel
and gold oresand rarely, in an almost pure form called
native silver. Figure 2 shows the back and front of two
vintage silver coins, together with a nugget of the rare
native form of silver. The crystal structure of solid silver
consists of closely packed cubes. The main body of the
native silver nugget has the familiar lustre of the pure
metal, and it has taken on a shape that reflects the
available space when it was precipitated from groundwater
solution. The black encrustations are very fine crystals of
silver that continued to grow when the rate of deposition
diminished after the main load of silver had been
deposited out of solution.Unlike the case of the beautifully structured snowflakes, there is no natural process here that could
turn the closely packed cubes of solid silver into round, flat discs with images of men, animals and writing on them. Adding
more or less silver cannot produce the roundness, flatness and image-bearing properties of the coins, and looking for
special environmental conditions would be futile because we recognize that the patterns are man-made. The coin structure
is therefore irreducible to the physics and chemistry of silver, and was clearly imposed upon the silver by some intelligent
external agent (in this case, humans).Whatever the explanation, however, the irreducibility of the coin structure to the
properties of its component silver constitutes what I shall call a Polanyi impossibility. That is, Polanyi identified this kind of
irreducibility as a naturalistic impossibility, and argued that it should be recognized as such by the scientific community, so I
am simply attaching his name to the principle.Polanyi pointed to the machine-like structures that exist in living organisms.
Figure 3 gives three examples of common machine components: a lever, a cogwheel and a coiled spring. Just as the
structure and function of these common machine components cannot be explained in terms of the metal they are made of,
so the structure and function of the parallel components in life cannot be reduced to the properties of the carbon, hydrogen,
oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, sulphur and trace elements that they are made of. There are endless examples of such
irreducible structures in living systems, but they all work under a unifying principle called autopoiesis.
Autopoiesis defined
Autopoiesis literally means self-making (from the Greek auto for self, and the verb poi meaning I make or I do) and it
refers to the unique ability of a living organism to continually repair and maintain itselfultimately to the point of reproducing
itselfusing energy and raw materials from its environment. In contrast, an allopoietic system (from the Greek allo for other)
such as a car factory, uses energy and raw materials to produce an organized structure (a car) which is
something other than itself (a factory). 9Autopoiesis is a unique and amazing property of lifethere is nothing else like it in
the known universe. It is made up of a hierarchy of irreducibly structured levels. These include: (i) components with perfectly
pure composition, (ii) components with highly specific structure, (iii) components that are functionally integrated, (iv)
comprehensively regulated information-driven processes, and (v) inversely-causal meta-informational strategies for
individual and species survival (these terms will be explained shortly). Each level is built upon, but cannot be explained in
terms of, the level below it. And between the base level (perfectly pure composition) and the natural environment, there is an
unbridgeable abyss. The enormously complex details are still beyond our current knowledge and understanding, but I will
illustrate the main points using an analogy with a vacuum cleaner.
A vacuum cleaner analogy
My mother was excited when my father bought our first electric vacuum cleaner in 1953. It consisted of a motor and
housing, exhaust fan, dust bag, and a flexible hose with various end pieces. Our current machine uses a cyclone filter and
follows me around on two wheels rather than on sliders as did my mothers original one. My next version might be the small
robotic machine that runs around the room all by itself until its battery runs out. If I could afford it, perhaps I might buy the
more expensive version that automatically senses battery run-down and returns to its induction housing for battery recharge.
Notice the hierarchy of control systems here. The original machine required an operator and some physical effort to pull the
machine in the required direction. The transition to two wheels allows the machine to trail behind the operator with little
effort, and the cyclone filter eliminates the messy dust bag. The next transition to on-board robotic control requires no effort
at all by the operator, except to initiate the action to begin with and to take the machine back to the power source for
recharge when it has run down. And the next transition to automatic sensing of power run-down and return-to-base control
mechanism requires no effort at all by the operator once the initial program is set up to tell the machine when to do its work.
If we now continue this analogy to reach the living condition of autopoiesis, the next step would be to install an on-board
power generation system that could use various organic, chemical or light sources from the environment as raw material.
Next, install a sensory and information processing system that could determine the state of both the external and internal
environments (the dirtiness of the floor and the condition of the vacuum cleaner) and make decisions about where to expend
effort and how to avoid hazards, but within the operating range of the available resources. Then, finally, the pice de
rsistance, to install a meta-information (information about information) facility with the ability to automatically maintain and
repair the life system, including the almost miraculous ability to reproduce itselfautopoiesis.Notice that each level of
structure within the autopoietic hierarchy depends upon the level below it, but it cannot be explained in terms of that lower
level. For example, the transition from out-sourced to on-board power generation depends upon there being an electric
motor to run. An electric vacuum cleaner could sit in the cupboard forever without being able to rid itself of its dependence
upon an outside source of powerit must be imposed from the level above, for it cannot come from the level below.
Likewise, autopoiesis is useless if there is no vacuum cleaner to repair, maintain and reproduce. A vacuum cleaner without
autopoietic capability could sit in the cupboard forever without ever attaining to the autopoietic stageit must be imposed
from the level above, as it cannot come from the level below.The autopoietic hierarchy is therefore structured in such a way
that any kind of naturalistic transition from one level to a higher level would constitute a Polanyi impossibility. That is, the
structure at level i is dependent upon the structure at level i-1 but cannot be explained by the structure at that level. So the
structure at level i must have been imposed from level i or above.

The naturalistic abyss

Most origin-of-life researchers agree (at least in the more revealing parts of their writings) 10 that there is no naturalistic
experimental evidence directly demonstrating a pathway from non-life to life. They continue their research, however,
believing that it is just a matter of time before we discover that pathway. But by using the vacuum cleaner analogy, we can
give a solid demonstration that the problem is a Polanyi impossibility right at the foundationlife is separated from non-life
by an unbridgeable abyss.
Dirty, mass-action environmental chemistry
The simple structure of the early vacuum cleaner is not simple at all. It is made of high-purity materials (aluminium, plastic,
fabric, copper wire, steel plates etc) that are specifically structured for the job in hand and functionally integrated to achieve
the designed task of sucking up dirt from the floor. Surprisingly, the dirt that it sucks up contains largely the same materials
that the vacuum cleaner itself is made ofaluminium, iron and copper in the mineral grains of dirt, fabric fibres in the dust,
and organic compounds in the varied debris of everyday home life. However, it is the difference in form and function of these
otherwise similar materials that distinguishes the vacuum cleaner from the dirt on the floor. In the same way, it is the
amazing form and function of life in a cell that separates it from the non-life in its environment.Naturalistic chemistry is
invariably dirty chemistry while life uses only perfectly-pure chemistry. I have chosen the word dirty chemistry not in order
to denigrate origin-of-life research, but because it is the term used by Nobel Prize winner Professor Christian de Duve, a
leading atheist researcher in this field.11 Raw materials in the environment, such as air, water and soil, are invariably
mixtures of many different chemicals. In dirty chemistry experiments, contaminants are always present and cause annoying
side reactions that spoil the hoped-for outcomes. As a result, researchers often tend to fudge the outcome by using
artificially purified reagents. But even when given pure reagents to start with, naturalistic experiments typically produce what
a recent evolutionist reviewer variously called muck, goo and gunk 12which is actually toxic sludge. Even our best
industrial chemical processes can only produce reagent purities in the order of 99.99%. To produce 100% purity in the
laboratory requires very highly specialized equipment that can sort out single molecules from one another.Another crucial
difference between environmental chemistry and life is that chemical reactions in a test tube follow the Law of Mass
Action.13Large numbers of molecules are involved, and the rate of a reaction, together with its final outcome, can be
predicted by assuming that each molecule behaves independently and each of the reactants has the same probability of
interacting. In contrast, cells metabolize their reactants with single-molecule precision, and they control the rate and
outcome of reactions, using enzymes and nano-scale-structured pathways, so that the result of a biochemical reaction can
be totally different to that predicted by the Law of Mass Action.
The autopoietic hierarchy
Perfectly-pure, single-molecule-specific bio-chemistry
The vacuum cleaner analogy breaks down before we get anywhere near life because the chemical composition of its
components is nowhere near pure enough for life. The materials suitable for use in a vacuum cleaner can tolerate several
percent of impurities and still produce adequate performance, but nothing less than 100% purity will work in the molecular
machinery of the cell.One of the most famous examples is homochirality. Many carbon-based molecules have a property
called chiralitythey can exist in two forms that are mirror images of each other (like our left and right hands) called
enantiomers. Living organisms generally use only one of these enantiomers (e.g. left-handed amino acids and right-handed
sugars). In contrast, naturalistic experiments that produce amino acids and sugars always produce an approximately 50:50
mixture (called a racemic mixture) of the left-and right-handed forms. The horrors of the thalidomide drug disaster resulted
from this problem of chirality. The homochiral form of one kind had therapeutic benefits for pregnant women, but the other
form caused shocking fetal abnormalities.The property of life that allows it to create such perfectly pure chemical
components is its ability to manipulate single molecules one at a time. The assembly of proteins in ribosomes illustrates this
single-molecule precision. The recipe for the protein structure is coded onto the DNA molecule. This is transcribed onto a
messenger-RNA molecule which then takes it to a ribosome where a procession of transfer-RNA molecules each bring a
single molecule of the next required amino acid for the ribosome to add on to the growing chain. The protein is built up one
molecule at a time, and so the composition can be monitored and corrected if even a single error is made.
Specially structured molecules
Life contains such a vast new world of molecular amazement that no one has yet plumbed the depths of it. We cannot hope
to cover even a fraction of its wonders in a short article, so I will choose just one example. Proteins consist of long chains of
amino acids linked together. There are 20 amino acids coded for in DNA, and proteins commonly contain hundreds or even
thousands of amino acids. Cyclin B is an averaged-size protein, with 433 amino acids. It belongs to the hedgehog group of
signalling pathways which are essential for development in all metazoans. Now there are 20 433 (20 multiplied by itself 433
times) = 10563 (10 multiplied by itself 563 times) possible proteins that could be made from an arbitrary arrangement of 20
different kinds of amino acids in a chain of 433 units. The human bodythe most complex known organismcontains
somewhere between 105 (= 100,000) and 106 (=1,000,000) different proteins. So the probability (p) that an average-sized
biologically useful protein could arise by a chance combination of 20 different amino acids is about p = 106 /10563 = 1/10557 .
And this assumes that only L-amino acids are being usedi.e. perfect enantiomer purity.14For comparison, the chance of
winning the lottery is about 1/10 6 per trial, and the chance of finding a needle in a haystack is about 1/10 11per trial. Even the
whole universe only contains about 1080 atoms, so there are not even enough atoms to ensure the chance assembly of even
a single average-sized biologically useful molecule. Out of all possible proteins, those we see in life are very highly
specializedthey can do things that are naturally not possible. For example, some enzymes can do in one second what
natural processes would take a billion years to do. 15 Just like the needle in the haystack. Out of all the infinite possible
arrangements of iron alloy (steel) particles, only those with a long narrow shape, pointed at one end and with an eye-loop at
the other end, will function as a needle. This structure does not arise from the properties of steel, but is imposed from
outside.
Water, water, everywhere
There is an amazing paradox at the heart of biology. Water is essential to life, 16 but also toxicit splits up polymers by a
process called hydrolysis, and that is why we use it to wash with. Hydrolysis is a constant hazard to origin-of-life
experiments, but it is never a problem in cells, even though cells are mostly water (typically 6090%). In fact, special
enzymes called hydrolases are required in order to get hydrolysis to occur at all in a cell. 17 Why the difference? Water in a
test tube is free and active, but water in cells is highly structured, via a process called hydrogen bonding, and this waterstructure is comprehensively integrated with both the structure and function of all the cells macromolecules:The hydrogenbonding properties of water are crucial to [its] versatility, as they allow water to execute an intricate three-dimensional
ballet, exchanging partners while retaining complex order and enduring effects. Water can generate small active clusters
and macroscopic assemblies, which can both transmit and receive information on different scales. 18Water should actually
be first on the list of molecules that need to be specially configured for life to function. Both the vast variety of specially

structured macromolecules and their complementary hydrogen-bonded water structures are required at the same time. No
origin-of-life experiment has ever addressed this problem.
Functionally integrated molecular machines
Figure 4. ATP synthase, a proton-powered molecular motor.
Protons (+) from inside the cell (below) move through the
stator mechanism embedded in the cell membrane and turn
the rotor (top part) which adds inorganic phosphate (iP) to ADP
to convert it to the high-energy state ATP.
It is not enough to have specifically structured, ultra-pure
molecules, they must also be integrated together into useful
machinery. A can of stewed fruit is full of chemically pure and
biologically useful molecules but it will never produce a living
organism19 because the molecules have been disorganized in
the cooking process. Cells contain an enormous array of useful
molecular machinery. The average machine in a yeast cell
contains 5 component proteins,20 and the most complexthe
spliceosome, that orchestrates the reading of separated
sections of genesconsists of about 300 proteins and several
nucleic acids.21One of the more spectacular machines is the
tiny proton-powered motor that produces the universal energy
molecule ATP (adenosine tri-phosphate) illustrated in Figure 4.
When the motor spins one way, it takes energy from digested
food and converts it into the high-energy ATP, and when the motor spins the other way, it breaks down the ATP in such a
way that its energy is available for use by other metabolic processes.22
Comprehensively regulated, information-driven metabolic functions
It is still not enough to have spectacular molecular machinerythe various machines must be linked up into metabolic
pathways and cycles that work towards an overall purpose. What purpose? This question is potentially far deeper than
science can take us, but science certainly can ascertain that the immediate practical purpose of the amazing array of life
structures is the survival of the individual and perpetuation of its species. 23 Although we are still unravelling the way cells
work, a good idea of the multiplicity of metabolic pathways and cycles can be found in the BioCyc collection. The majority of
organisms so far examined, from microbes to humans, have between 1,000 and 10,000 different metabolic
pathways.24 Nothing ever happens on its own in a cellsomething else always causes it, links with it or benefits or is
affected by it. And all of these links are multi-step processes.All of these links are also choreographed by informationa
phenomenon that never occurs in the natural environment. At the bottom of the information hierarchy is the storage
moleculeDNA. The double-helix of DNA is just right for genetic information storage, and this just right structure is
beautifully matched by the elegance and efficiency of the code in which the cells information is written there. 25 But it is not
enough even to have an elegant just right information storage systemit must also contain information. And not just
biologically relevant information, but brilliantly inventive strategies and tactics to guide living things through the extraordinary
challenges they face in their seemingly miraculous achievements of metabolism and reproduction. Yet even ingenious
strategies and tactics are not enough. Choreography requires an intricate and harmonious regulation of every aspect of life
to make sure that the right things happen at the right time, and in the right sequence, otherwise chaos and death soon
follow.Recent discoveries show that biochemical molecules are constantly moving, and much of their amazing achievements
are the result of choreographing all this constant and complex movement to accomplish things that static molecules could
never achieve. Yet there is no spacious dance floor on which to choreograph the intense and lightning-fast (up to a million
events per second for a single reaction26) activity of metabolism. A cell is more like a crowded dressing room than a dance
floor, and in a show with a cast of millions!
Inversely causal meta-information
The Law of Cause and Effect is one of the most fundamental in all of science. Every scientific experiment is based upon the
assumption that the end result of the experiment will be caused by something that happens during the experiment. If the
experimenter is clever enough, then he/she might be able to identify that cause and describe how it produced that particular
result or effect.Causality always happens in a very specific orderthe cause always comes before the effect.27 That is,
event A must always precede eventB if A is to be considered as a possible cause of B. If we happened to observe
that A occurred after B, then this would rule out A as a possible cause of B.In living systems however, we see the universal
occurrence of inverse causality. That is, an event A is the cause of event B, but A exists or occurs after B. It is easier to
understand the biological situation if we refer to examples from human affairs. In economics, for example, it occurs when
behaviour now, such as an investment decision, is influenced by some future event, such as an anticipated profit or loss. In
psychology, a condition that exists now, such as anxiety or paranoia, may be caused by some anticipated future event, such
as harm to ones person. In the field of occupational health and safety, workplace and environmental hazards can exert
direct toxic effects upon workers (normal causality), but the anticipation or fear of potential future harm can also have an
independently toxic effect (inverse causality).Darwinian philosopher of science Michael Ruse recently noted that inverse
causality is a universal feature of life,28 and his example was that stegosaur plates begin forming in the embryo but only
have a function in the adultsupposedly for temperature control. However most biologists avoid admitting such things
because it suggests that life might have purpose (a future goal), and this is strictly forbidden to materialists.The most
important example of inverse causality in living organisms is, of course, autopoiesis. We still do not fully understand it, but
we do understand the most important aspects. Fundamentally, it is meta-informationit is information about information. It is
the information that you need to have in order to keep the information you want to have to stay alive, and to ensure the
survival of your descendants and the perpetuation of your species.This last statement is the crux of this whole paper, so to
illustrate its validity lets go back to the vacuum cleaner analogy. Lets imagine that one lineage of vacuum cleaners
managed to reach the robotic, energy-independent stage, but lacked autopoiesis, while a second makes it all the way to
autopoiesis. What is the difference between these vacuum cleaners? Both will function very well for a time. But as the
Second Law of Thermodynamics begins to take its toll, components will begin to wear out, vibrations will loosen
connections, dust will gather and short circuit the electronics, blockages in the suction passage will reduce cleaning
efficiency, wheel axles will go rusty and make movement difficult, and so on. The former will eventually die and leave no
descendants. The latter will repair itself, keep its components running smoothly and reproduce itself to ensure the
perpetuation of its species.But what happens if the environment changes and endangers the often-delicate metabolic cycles
that real organisms depend upon? Differential reproduction is the solution. Evolutionists from Darwin to Dawkins have taken
this amazing ability for granted, but it cannot be overlooked. There are elaborate systems in placefor example, the diploid

to haploid transition in meiosis, the often extraordinary embellishments and rituals of sexual encounters, the huge number of
permutations and combinations provided for in recombination mechanismsto provide offspring with variations from their
parents that might prove of survival value. To complement these potentially dangerous deviations from the tried-and-true
there are also firm conservation measures in place to protect the essential processes of life (e.g. the ability to read the DNA
code and to translate it into metabolic action). None of this should ever be taken for granted.In summary, autopoiesis is the
informationand associated abilitiesthat you need to have (repair, maintenance and differential reproduction) in order to
keep the information that you want to have (e.g. vacuum cleaner functionality) alive and in good condition to ensure both
your survival and that of your descendants. In a parallel way, my humanity is what I personally value, so my autopoietic
capability is the repair, maintenance and differential reproductive capacity that I have to maintain my humanity and to share
it with my descendants. The egg and sperm that produced me knew nothing of this, but the information was encoded there
and only reached fruition six decades later as I sit here writing thisthe inverse causality of autopoiesis.
Summary
There are three lines of reasoning pointing to the conclusion that autopoiesis provides a compelling case for the intelligent
design of life.
If life began in some stepwise manner from a non-autopoietic beginning, then autopoiesis will be the end product of some
long and blind process of accidents and natural selection. Such a result would mean that autopoiesis is not essential to life,
so some organisms should exist that never attained it, and some organisms should have lost it by natural selection because
they do not need it. However, autopoiesis is universal in all forms of life, so it must be essential. The argument from the
Second Law of Thermodynamics as applied to the vacuum cleaner analogy also points to the same conclusion. Both
arguments demonstrate that autopoiesis is required at thebeginning for life to even exist and perpetuate itself, and could not
have turned up at the end of some long naturalistic process. This conclusion is consistent with the experimental finding that
origin-of-life projects which begin without autopoiesis as a pre-requisite have proved universally futile in achieving even the
first step towards life.
Each level of the autopoietic hierarchy is dependent upon the one below it, but is causally separated from it by a Polanyi
impossibility. Autopoiesis therefore cannot be reduced to any sequence of naturalistic causes.
There is an unbridgeable abyss below the autopoietic hierarchy, between the dirty, mass-action chemistry of the natural
environment and the perfect purity, the single-molecule precision, the structural specificity, and the inversely causal
integration, regulation, repair, maintenance and differential reproduction of life.
Quotable quote: Primeval soup: failed paradigm
Although at the beginning the paradigm was worth consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is
self-deception based on the ideology of its champions.The history of science shows that a paradigm, once it has achieved
the status of acceptance (and is incorporated in textbooks) and regardless of its failures, is declared invalid only when a new
paradigm is available to replace it. Nevertheless, in order to make progress in science, it is necessary to clear the decks, so
to speak, of failed paradigms. This must be done even if this leaves the decks entirely clear and no paradigms survive. It is a
characteristic of the true believer in religion, philosophy and ideology that he must have a set of beliefs, come what may
(Hoffer, 1951). Belief in a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical
fallacy of the false alternative. In science it is a virtue to acknowledge ignorance. This has been universally the case in the
history of science as Kuhn (1970) has discussed in detail. There is no reason that this should be different in the research on
the origin of life.
Hubert P. Yockey, 1992 (a non-creationist). Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Cambridge University Press, UK, p.
336.
WHAT ARE SOME SCIENTIFIC PROBLEMS WITH THE IDEA THAT LIFE AROSE DUE TO CHEMICAL EVOLUTION?
Origin of life: the chirality problem
by Jonathan Sarfati
First published in 1998; updated in 2010
Many important molecules required for life exist in two forms. These two forms are non-superimposable mirror images of
each other, i.e.: they are related like our left and right hands. Hence this property is called chirality, from the Greek word for
hand. The two forms are called enantiomers (from the Greek word for opposite) or optical isomers, because they rotate
plane-polarised light either to the right or to the left.
Diagram of chirality.
Whether or not a molecule or crystal is chiral is determined by
itssymmetry. A molecule is achiral (non-chiral) if and only if it has
anaxis of improper rotation, that is, an n-fold rotation (rotation by
360/n) followed by a reflection in the plane perpendicular to this
axis maps the molecule on to itself. Thus a molecule is chiral if
and only if it lacks such an axis. Because chiral molecules lack
this type of symmetry, they are called dissymmetric. They are
not necessarilyasymmetric (i.e. without symmetry), because
they can have other types of symmetry.1 However, all amino
acids (except glycine) and many sugars are indeed asymmetric
as well as dissymmetric.
Chirality and life
Nearly all biological polymers must be homochiral (all its
component monomers having the same handedness. Another
term used is optically pure or 100 % optically active) to function. All amino acids in proteins are left-handed, while all sugars
in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are right-handed.A 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed forms is called
a racemate or racemic mixture. Racemic polypeptides could not form the specific shapes required for enzymes, because
they would have the side chains sticking out randomly. Also, a wrong-handed amino acid disrupts the stabilizing -helix in
proteins. DNA could not be stabilised in a helix if even a single wrong-handed monomer were present, so it could not form
long chains. This means it could not store much information, so it could not support life.2
Ordinary chemistry produces racemates
A well-regarded organic chemistry textbook states a universal chemical rule in bold type:
Synthesis of chiral compounds from achiral reagents always yields the racemic modification. andOptically
inactive reagents yield optically inactive products.3This is a consequence of the Laws of Thermodynamics. The left and

right handed forms have identical free energy (G), so the free energy difference (G) is zero. The equilibrium constant for
any reaction (K) is the equilibrium ratio of the concentration of products to reactants. The relationship between these
quantities at any Kelvin temperature (T) is given by the standard equation:
K = exp (G/RT)
where R is the universal gas constant (= Avogadros number x Boltzmanns constant k) = 8.314 J/K.mol.
For the reaction of changing left-handed to right-handed amino acids (L R), or the reverse (R L), G = 0, so K = 1.
That is, the reaction reaches equilibrium when the concentrations of R and L are equal; that is, a racemate is produced. This
explains the textbook rule above.
Separating the left hand from the right
To resolve a racemate (i.e. separate the two enantiomers), another homochiral substance must be introduced. The
procedure is explained in any organic chemistry textbook. The idea is that right-handed and left-handed substances have
identical properties, except when interacting with other chiral phenomena. The analogy is that our left and right hands grip
an achiral (non-chiral) object like a baseball bat equally, but they fit differently into a chiral object like a left-handed glove.
Thus to resolve a racemate, an organic chemist will usually use a ready-made homochiral substance from a living organism.
The reaction products of the R and L enantiomers with an exclusively right handed substance R, that is R-R and L-R
(called diastereomers), are not mirror images. So they have different physical properties, e.g. solubility in water, thus they
can be separated.However, this does not solve the mystery of where the optical activity in living organisms came from in the
first place. A recent world conference on The Origin of Homochirality and Life made it clear that the origin of this
handedness is a complete mystery to evolutionists. 4The probability of forming one homochiral polymer of N monomers by
chance = 2N. For a small protein of 100 amino acids, this probability = 2 100 = 1030. Note, this is the probability
of any homochiral polypeptide. The probability of forming a functional homochiral polymer is much lower, since a precise
amino acid sequence is required in many places. Of course, many homochiral polymers are required for life, so the
probabilities must be compounded. Chance is thus not an option.A further problem is that homochiral biological substances
racemize in time. This is the basis of the amino acid racemization dating method. Its main proponent is Jeffrey Bada of the
Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. 5 As a dating method, it is not very reliable, since the racemization
rate is strongly dependent on temperature and pH, and depends on the particular amino acid. 6 Racemization is also a big
problem during peptide synthesis and hydrolysis. 7 It shows that the tendency of undirected chemistry is towards death, not
life.A tragic reminder of the importance of chirality is thalidomide. In the early 1960s, this drug was prescribed to pregnant
women suffering from morning sickness. However, while the left-handed form is a powerful tranquilliser, the right handed
form can disrupt fetal development, resulting in severe birth defects. Unfortunately, the synthesis of the drug produced a
racemate, as would be expected, and the wrong enantiomer was not removed before the drug was marketed. 8In my own
undergraduate chemistry education, one of the required experiments demonstrated these concepts. We synthesized the
dissymmetric complex ion, [Co(H2NC2H4NH2)3]3+,9 from achiral reagents, so a racemate was produced. We resolved it by
reacting it with a homochiral acid from a plant source, forming diastereomers that could be resolved by fractional
crystallisation. When the resultant homochiral crystals were dissolved, and activated charcoal (a catalyst) added, the
substance quickly racemized, because a catalyst accelerates approach to equilibrium.Origin-of-life researchers have tried to
think of other means of producing the required homochirality. There have been unsuccessful attempts to resolve racemates
by other means.
Circularly polarized ultraviolet light
With circularly polarized light, the electric field direction rotates along the beam, so it is a chiral phenomenon. Homochiral
substances have different absorption intensities for left and right CP lightthis is called circular
dichroism (CD).10 Similarly, CP light is absorbed differently by left and right enantiomers. Since photolysis (destruction by
light) occurs only when light photons are absorbed, CP light destroys one enantiomer more readily than the other. However,
because CP light also destroys the correct form to some extent, this method would not produce the necessary 100 %
homochirality required for life. One of the best results has been 20 % optically pure camphor, but this occurred after 99 % of
the starting material had been destroyed. 35.5 % optical purity would have resulted after 99.99 % destruction. 11 A practically
optically pure compound (99.99 per cent) is obtained at an asymptotic point where absolutely no material remains.12
Another problem is that magnitude and sign (i.e. right-favouring or left-favouring) of CD depends on the frequency of the CP
light.10 This means that resolution can occur only with CP light over a narrow frequency band. Over a broad band,
enantioselective effects would cancel.Circularly polarised light has recently been revived as a solution in a paper by the
Australian astronomer Jeremy Bailey in Science,13 and widely reported in the media. His team has discovered circularly
polarised infrared radiation in a nebula. They admit in the paper that they have not discovered the required circularly
polarised ultraviolet light nor any evidence that amino acids are produced in nebulae. They are also aware of the very limited
enantioselectivity of CP light, and the fact that the effect averages to zero over a whole spectrum (the Kuhn-Condon rule).
However, their faith in chemical evolution colours the way they interpret the evidence.Not all evolutionists are convinced by
the proposal of Baileys team. For example, Jeffrey Bada said, Its just a series of maybe steps. To me, that makes the
whole thing a big maybe. 14Another proposed source of circularly polarised light is synchrotron radiation from a neutron
star,15 but this is speculative and doesnt solve the chemical problems.
Beta decay and the weak force
-decay is one form of radioactive decay, and it is governed by one of the four fundamental forces of nature, the weak force.
This force has a slight handedness, called parity violation, so some theorists thought -decay could account for the chirality
in living organisms.16 However, the weak force is aptly namedthe effect is minusculea long way from producing the
required 100 % homochirality. One specialist in the chirality problem, organic chemist William Bonner, professor emeritus at
Stanford University, said, none of this work has yielded convincing conclusions.17 Another researcher concluded:the
exceptional prebiotic conditions required do not favour asymmetric -radiolysis as the selector of the exclusive signature of
optical activity in living nature.18Another aspect of parity violation is that the L-amino acids and D-sugars have a theoretically
slightly lower energy than their enantiomers so are slightly more stable. But the energy difference is immeasurableonly
about 1017 kT, meaning that there would be only one excess L-enantiomer for every 6x10 17 molecules of a racemic mixture
of amino acids!19
Optically active quartz powders
Quartz is a widespread mineralthe commonest form of silica (SiO 2) on Earth. Its crystals are hexagonal and
dissymmetric.20 So some investigators tried to use optically active quartz powders to adsorb one enantiomer more than the
other. But they had no success. Besides, there are equal amounts of left and right-handed quartz crystals on Earth.21
Clay minerals
Some investigators have reported a very small chiral selection effect by clay minerals, but the effects may have been an
artefact of the technique used. Selective adsorption and binding have now been rejected.22 Even if modern clays did have a

chiral bias, this could be due to previous absorption of optically active biomolecules (which are, of course produced by living
things). Prebiotic clays would then have had no chiral bias.
Self-selection
There are two ways that chiral compounds can crystallize: most crystallize into racemic crystals, while a small minority
(about 10%) of chiral substances crystallize as conglomerates, i.e. they separate into homochiral crystals. Louis Pasteur
was not only the founder of the germ theory of disease, the destroyer of spontaneous generation ideas, and a creationist,
he was also the first person in history to resolve a racemate. He used tweezers to separate the left and right-handed crystals
of such a substance, sodium ammonium tartrate. 23This separation only happened because of outside interference by an
intelligent investigator, who could recognise the different patterns. On the supposed primitive earth, there was no such
investigator. Therefore the two forms, even if they could be separated by chance, would have re-dissolved together and reformed a racemic solution.Also, Pasteur was fortunate to choose one of the minority of substances that self-resolve in
crystalline form. Only two of the 19 chiral amino acids do so (glycine is achiral). And even Pasteurs substance has this
property only below 23C, so its perhaps fortunate that 19th century laboratories were not well heated!
Fluke seeding
Some theorists have proposed that a fluke seeding of a supersaturated solution with a homochiral crystal would crystallise
out the same enantiomer. However, the primordial soup, if it existed, 24 would have been extremely dilute and grossly
contaminated, as shown by many writers. 25 Also, nothing could be done with the growing homochiral crystal, because it
would be immersed in a solution of the remaining wrong enantiomer. Concentrating the solution would crystallise out this
wrong enantiomer. Diluting the solution would dissolve the crystal, so the alleged process would have to keep starting from
scratch.
Homochiral template
Some have proposed that a homochiral polymer arose by chance and acted as a template. However, this ran into severe
problems. A template of 100 % right-handed poly-C (RNA containing only cytosine monomers) was made (by intelligent
chemists!). This could direct the oligomerisation (formation of small chains) of (activated) G (guanine) nucleotides. Indeed,
pure right-handed G was oligomerised much more efficiently than pure left-handed G. But racemic G did not oligomerise,
because:monomers of opposite handedness to the template are incorporated as chain terminators This inhibition raises
an important problem for many theories of the origin of life.26
Transfer RNAs selected the right enantiomer
One attempt to solve the chirality problem was proposed by Russell Doolittle, a professor of biochemistry at the University of
California at San Diego, and an atheist. He claimed: From the start of their [Transfer RNA synthetases] existence, they
probably bound only L-amino acids.27He never explains how such complicated enzymes could have functioned unless they
were themselves homochiral, or how they would operate before RNA was composed of homochiral ribose. Doolittles
solution is mere hand-waving. It is hardly worth refuting except that it appeared in a well-known anti-creationist book, which
says something about the quality of its editing, or the quality of anti-creationist arguments.It seems like Doolittle was trying to
explain away his prior televised evolution/creation debate with biochemist Duane Gish held before 5,000 people at Liberty
University on 13 Oct 1981. The pro-evolution journal Science described the debate as a rout in favour of Gish. 28 The next
day, the debate was reported by the pro-evolution Washington Post under the headline Science Loses One to Creationism.
The sub-headline cited Doolittles anguished remark: How am I going to face my wife? showing that Doolittle himself knew
he was defeated.
Magnetic fields
Some German chemists, led by Eberhard Breitmaier of the Institute for Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry at the
University Gerhard-Domagk-Strasse in Bonn, announced that a very strong magnetic field (1.22.1 T) produced 98 %
homochiral products from achiral reagents.29 So organic chemists like Philip Kocienski, of the University of Southampton,
speculated that the earths magnetic field could have caused lifes homochirality. Although the earths magnetic field is about
10,000 times weaker than that of the experiment, Kocienski thought that vast time spans would result in the homochirality
we see today.29 He may have forgotten about palaeogeomagnetic field reversals!Yet other chemists like Tony Barrett, of
Londons Imperial College, thought that the German experiment seems just too good to be true.29This caution was
vindicated about six weeks later. No-one else could reproduce the German teams results. It turned out that one of the team,
Guido Zadel, the post-doctoral fellow on whose thesis the original work was based, had adulterated the reagents with a
homochiral additive.30
[Magnetochiral dichroismpost script]
See my subsequent article, Origin of life and the chirality problem: Is magnetochiral dichroism the solution?
Update, 2010: Selective crystallization of saturated solutions
An atheopathic website claims:
Studies have shown that, once an initial excess of one enantiomer in a mixture of amino acids exists, even if it is just very
slight, it can have an enormous effect. This effect can occur when solid and dissolved amino acids from such a mixture
coexist in equilibrium, i.e. when crystals form upon, for example, limited evaporation of a solution. A smaller study,
[32]
independently conducted around the same time, reports similar findings. Slow evaporation of an aqueous solution of
phenylalanine at just 1 % ee [enantioneric excess] of the L-enantiomer led to a solution of this amino acid with 40 % ee of
the L-enantiomer above solid material. If, in turn, such a solution was allowed to evaporate, the resulting solution in
equilibrium with the solid material had a 90 % ee.Yet once again, these are unrealistic conditions for prebiotic synthesis.
They start off with a saturated solution of phenylalanine, which is at best produced in tiny amounts, with an initial ee
from somewhere, then allowed to evaporate undisturbed. Also, there is a problem similar to that of circularly polarized light:
that the necessary purity seems to be reached asymptotically as the amount of material decreased. In the first stage, the
high chiral excess is in a very small amount of solution after >80% of the material had crystallized, and the solution had a
few mg out of the initial 500 mg with a 40% ee of the L component, a 70/30 ratio of L to D. The next stage wasnt taking
that liquid, but a large amount of solution with the same concentration. It wasnt stated how a small amount of enriched
solution would be naturally decanted into a convenient evaporating pond, but the next stage left a solution of 100 mg that
had a 90% ee in the L enantiomer, a 95/5 ratio of L to D. Its also not clear whether this is the limit, because this is close to
the 88% enantiomeric excess of the eutectic composition.Furthermore, it means that the crystals must be slightly enriched in
the wrong enantiomer, so any splash of water would dissolve it and mix the enantiomers together, so they are back to
square one, just as explained above in the section Fluke seeding.The atheopathic article continues:
In a more recent study, the Blackmond group expanded the concept to mixtures of amino acids with other compounds,
which can co-crystallize with the amino acids.[33] They showed that, by influencing solubility, in some cases these
compounds strongly influenced the ee in solution under solid-liquid equilibrium conditions. For example, under those
conditions the ee of valine was raised from 47 % to up to 99 % in the presence of fumaric acid. Note that prebiotic
plausibility is enhanced in this scenario, since it employs compound mixtures rather than pure components.The difference

with this experiment was trying to increase the limit noted above, by introducing other compounds:We demonstrate that the
eutectic composition of aqueous mixtures of l and d amino acids may be tuned by the addition of achiral dicarboxylic acids
that cocrystallize with chiral amino acids. We find that, in several cases, these systems yield new eutectic compositions of
98% ee or higher.33However, this is at a cost of lowering solubility of the racemate crystals, meaning that still less solution
would be available.34 Further, where would these additional compounds come from? According to an evolutionary paper,
Apart from the detection of succinic acid [refs.] no other dicarboxylic acids have been reported in chemical evolution
experiments.35
Conclusion
The textbook cited earlier states:
We eat optically active bread & meat, live in houses, wear clothes, and read books made of optically active cellulose. The
proteins that make up our muscles, the glycogen in our liver and blood, the enzymes and hormones are all optically
active. Naturally occurring substances are optically active because the enzymes which bring about their formation are
optically active. As to the origin of the optically active enzymes, we can only speculate 31If we can only speculate on the
origin of life, why do so many people state that evolution is a fact? Repeat a rumour often enough and people will swallow
it.

Origin of life and the homochirality problem: is magnetochiral dichroism the solution?
by Jonathan Sarfati
Introduction
A huge barrier for those desiring to be intellectually fulfilled
atheists1 is finding a naturalistic origin of the first living organisms.
Despite some evasion by major evolutionary propagandists, this is
a 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.2 Indeed, lifes alleged origin from lifeless chemicals
is commonly called chemical or prebiotic evolution, or abiogenesis.
In fact, readers should be aware that most researchers have
already presupposed that chemical evolution happenedit must
have, because we are here (and dont give me that rubbish about a
Designer, because that is not scienceregardless of whether the
evidence supports it)!However, because even the simplest selfreproducing organisms are extremely complex,3 there are
enormous hurdles for all chemical evolutionary theories to
overcome.4,5,6One of the major hurdles is the origin of homochirality,
that is, all the vital biomolecules of life having the same handedness (see diagram showing chirality in amino acids, right)
and Origin of life: the chirality problem), e.g. proteins comprise almost entirely left-handed amino acids, while nucleic acids,
starch, glycogen etc. contain sugars that are all right handed. Homochirality is necessary to produce the precise shapes of
enzymes and the DNAs double helix. But ordinary chemistry always produces a 50/50 mixture of left and right handed forms
(enantiomers)such a mix is called a racemate or racemic mixture. Chemists normally require pre-existing homochirality,
usually from a biological source, to synthesize homochiral compounds. But this illustrates the problem of the origin of
biological homochirality in the first place.7
Magnetochiral dichroism
A recent attempt, by Rikken and Raupach of the Grenoble High Magnetic Field Laboratory, to solve the homochirality
problem involves magnetochiral dichroism (MChD).8,9 This solution had been suggested in 1983 by Wagnire and
Meier.10 Its basis, as with most of the main branches of science, was discovered by creationist scientists11 (see
also Creationist Biographies), in this case, three in the 19 th century. In 1846, Faraday rotated the plane of linearly polarized
light with a magnetic field parallel to the beam.12 But Louis Pasteur, the first to resolve a racemic mixture into
its enantiomers (1848), failed in his attempt to use magnetism to grow homochiral crystals. 12 Lord Kelvin,12who coined the
word chirality, pointed out that the magnetic field in itself had no chirality (in the geometrical sense of dissymmetry 7), as
Faraday also realized, unlike Pasteur. Barron showed theoretically that a magnetic field alone cannot produce an
enantiomeric excess, and at the time called magnetic optical activity (MOA) false chirality.13Natural optical activity (NOA),
first discovered in 1811 by Arago, 14 results from different interactions of left and right-handed circularly polarised light by
dissymmetric molecules. But MOA results from breaking time-reversal symmetry by a magnetic field that induces changes in
optical properties of a medium. Barron now suggests extending the definition of chirality to include time-reversal as well as
dissymmetry.In 1982, Wagnire and Meier predicted that a chiral medium would absorb light travelling parallel to a magnetic
field differently from light travelling antiparallel 15this effect was later named magnetochiral dichroism.16 It doesnt even
require polarized light. The effect was predicted to be very weak, but least weak with rare earth and transition metal ions. So
it wasnt till 1997 that Rikken and Raupach observed it in a chiral complex of the rare earth element europium.17
Solving the biological homochirality problem?
Because only photons absorbed by a molecule can have any destructive effect, Rikken and Raupach proposed that MChD
could induce an enantiomeric excess.8 They showed this experimentally by irradiating the dissymmetric [Cr(ox)3]3 (Cr(III)
tris-oxalato) complex with laser light in a very powerful magnetic field. In their abstract, they claimed that MChD may have
played a role in the origin of the homochirality of life.8
Problems with this solution to the homochirality problem
There is some similarity with photoresolution by circularly polarized light (CPL). Rikken and Raupach claim that this could
yield e.e. [enantiomeric excess] close to unity. 8 But this is not so for reasons mentioned in Ref. 7, and many of them apply
here too. One important factor overlooked is that this hypothetical e.e. of unity would be achieved at an asymptotic point
where no material remains.7Rikken and Raupach8 hint at problems with MChD resolution, which are similar to those with
CPL. For example, magnitude and sign (i.e. right-favouring or left-favouring) of MChD depends on the wavelength of the
light. This means that resolution can occur only with light over a narrow wavelength band. Over a broad band,

enantioselective effects would cancel. Rikken and Raupach show that the e.e. peaked in the negative with light at 695.5 nm,
but peaked in the positive (although only half as much) only 3.5 nm higher.18 So their best results were using a laser tuned to
the optimal wavelength of 695.5 nm, but this is hardly proof that this effect could arise without intelligent input. Only a very
narrow window of opportunity was found for a single, carefully selected compound. It is unrealistic to assume the Denantiomers of all 20 essential amino acids and the L-enantiomer of all relevant sugars, including all biological polymers
these form, could be eliminated under such narrow constraint.Rikken and Raupach 8 agree that spatial averaging needs to
be addressed as with CPL. That is, it is inevitable that light would come in all directions relative to magnetic flux lines, rather
than preferentially aligned parallel to it, so the effect would cancel out. In fact, on a typical planet with a magnetic field and
orbiting a star, the light would be mostly perpendicular to the field, which has no effect.An extremely strong magnetic field
was required, up to 15 T.19 But Earths surface field is only 3.1 x 105 T, and even Jupiter, the planet with the strongest field,
has a field of just 4.3 x 10 4 T at its equator.20 Even sunspots, with their intense magnetic fields, go up to only ~4 T. Neutron
stars have a magnetic field of 10 8 T at the surface, but neutron stars are hardly suitable locales for chemical evolution!
Strong laser irradiation was required100 mW tuned to the optimal wavelength absorbed in only 50 l of solution. This is
unacceptable investigator interference for an experiment purporting to demonstrate that homochirality can arise without
intelligent input.The effect is very weakthe reaction reached equilibrium after about 20 minutes with e.e. peaking at about
1.6 x 104, despite the unrealistically high magnetic field and irradiation. Since the slightest deviation of e.e. from unity is
catastrophic for biological molecules, MChD hardly even makes a dent. Whether any e.e. at all would be detectable for
biologically relevant building blocks remains to be determined.The complex begins to racemize after stopping irradiation,
with a time constant21 of 70 minutes. So even under optimal conditions for producing the tiny e.e., the weak chirality is
unlikely to last long enough to influence any biologically relevant molecules. Although many evolutionists appeal to long
ages to solve all their problems, in reality long ages would mean more time for degradation.
Discussion and Conclusion
The experiment is great experimental chemistry, but as usual, the difference between creationists and evolutionists is not
the data, but theirinterpretation, because of their different presuppositions. Creationists dispute no observations by
evolutionists, but often vigorously oppose the conclusions evolutionists draws from their observations. So here, a creationist
would interpret the observation of enantioselective magnetichiral photochemistry as showing once again that the
homochirality problem for chemical evolution is still unsolved. As shown, this caution is amply justified by the problems
involved, some of which were commendably admitted by the authors. In their concluding comments, Rikken and Raupach
admit (contrary to their optimistic abstract): Clearly the question of the origin of the homochirality of life is far from
answered.But will the insuperable barriers against chemical evolution make atheists abandon their faith? Most unlikely,
given the amount of research funding spent on chemical evolutionary experiments. Yet evolutionists frequently chide
creationists for not abandoning their beliefs because of some supposedly irrefutable proof of evolution or argument against
a young Earth and global Flood.
Origin of life: the polymerization problem
by Jonathan Sarfati
December 1998; updated May 2014
A well-publicised paper by Claudia Huber and Gnter Wchtershuser in Science proposed a scenario for a materialistic
origin of life from non-living matter.1 They correctly state:The activation of amino acids and the formation of peptides under
primordial conditions is one of the great riddles of the origin of life.Indeed it is. The reaction to form a peptide bond between
two amino acids to form a dipeptide is:
Amino acid 1 + amino acid 2 dipeptide + water
H2NCHRCOOH +H2NCHRCOOH H2NCHRCONHCHRCOOH + H2O (1)
The free energy change(G1) is about 2033 kJ/mol, depending on the amino acids. The equilibrium constant for any
reaction (K) is the equilibrium ratio of the concentration of products to reactants. The relationship between these quantities
at any Kelvin temperature (T) is given by the standard equation:
K = exp (G/RT)
where R is the universal gas constant (= Avogadros number x Boltzmanns constant k) = 8.314 J/K.mol
For reaction (1),
K1 = [H2NCHRCONHCHRCOOH][H2O]/[H2NCHRCOOH][H2NCHRCOOH]
= 0.007 at 298 K
where a compound in square brackets symbolises the concentration of that compound.
This means that if we start with a concentrated solution of 1 M (mol/l) of each amino acid, the equilibrium dipeptide
concentration would be only 0.007 M. Since tripeptides have two peptide bonds, the equilibrium tripeptide concentration
would be 0.0072 M or 5x105 M. For a non-specific polypeptide with 100 peptide bonds (101 amino acids), the equilibrium
concentration would be 3.2 x 10216 M. NB: the problem for evolutionists is even worse, because life requires not just any
polymers, but highly specified ones.Since the equilibrium concentration of polymers is so low, their thermodynamic tendency
is to break down in water, not to be built up. The long ages postulated by evolutionists simply make the problem worse,
because there is more time for waters destructive effects to occur. High temperatures, as many researchers advocate,
would accelerate the breakdown. The famous pioneer of evolutionary origin-of-life experiments, Stanley Miller, points out
that polymers are too unstable to exist in a hot prebiotic environment. 2,3 A recent article in New Scientist also described the
instability of polymers in water as a headache for researchers working on evolutionary ideas on the origin of life. 4It also
showed its materialistic bias by saying this was not good news. But the real bad news is the faith in evolution which
overrides objective science.
Some evolutionary scenarios
The analysis above doesnt mean its impossible to make polypeptides. Consider the expression for the equilibrium constant
K: if [H2O] is lowered, then [polypeptide] must increase. One approach is to drive off the water with heat, as proposed by
Sydney Fox.5 However, his experiments required a large excess of the trifunctional amino acids (i.e. they can combine with
three other molecules), but these are produced very sparingly in typical simulation experiments. 6 The heat also destroys
some vital amino acids and results in highly randomized polymers. Another problem is that all the chiral amino acids are
racemized, that is, a 50/50 mixture of left and right handed molecules is produced, which is unsuitable for life. 7The large
excess of trifunctional amino acids results in extensive branching, unlike biological polymers. The required heating and
cooling conditions are geologically unrealisticthere is no known place on earth where amino acids could be dumped and
polypeptides would result. Finally, Foxs experiments required very concentrated and pure amino acids, while any
hypothetical primordial soup would be impure and grossly contaminated with other organic chemicals that would destroy
them.8Another way to remove water is with certain high-energy chemicals that absorb water, called condensing agents. If
the reaction between condensing agent C and water is:

C + H2O D (2)
and if G2 of reaction (2) is negative and large enough, it can couple with reaction (1):
H2NCHRCOOH + H2NCHRCOOH + C H2NCHRCONHCHRCOOH + D (3)
G3 = G1 + G2. If G3 is large and negative, the equilibrium constant for reaction 3, K3, will be large, and this could
conceivably produce reasonable quantities of polymers.Some researchers used the condensing agent dicyanamide
(N=CNHC=N) to produce some peptides from glycine, even claiming, dicyanamide mediated polypeptide synthesis may
have been a key process by which polypeptides were produced in the primitive hydrosphere. 9However, the biggest problem
is that condensing agents would readily react with any water available. Therefore it is a chemical impossibility for the
primordial soup to accumulate large quantities of condensing agents, especially if there were millions of years for water to
react with them. Yet the above experiment used a 30-fold excess of dicyanamide. And even with these unrealistic conditions,
95% of the glycine remained unreacted, and the highest polymer formed was a tetrapeptide. 10Organic chemists can certainly
make polypeptides, using intelligent planning of a complex multi-stage synthesis, designed to prevent wrong reactions
occurring.11 Living cells also use an elegant process to make polypeptides. This involves the use of enzymes to activate
amino acids (and nucleotides) by combining them with the high-energy compound ATP (adenosine triphosphate), to
overcome the energy barrier. Such high-energy compounds are not formed in prebiotic simulation experiments, and are very
unstable.
Chain termination
To form a chain, it is necessary to react bifunctional monomers, that is, molecules with two functional groups so they
combine with two others. If a unifunctional monomer (with only one functional group) reacts with the end of the chain, the
chain can grow no further at this end.12 If only a small fraction of unifunctional molecules were present, long polymers could
not form. But all prebiotic simulation experiments produce at least three times more unifunctional molecules than
bifunctional molecules.13 Formic acid (HCOOH) is by far the commonest organic product of Miller-type simulations. Indeed, if
it werent for evolutionary bias, the abstracts of the experimental reports would probably state nothing more than: An
inefficient method for production of formic acid is here described Formic acid has little biological significance except that
it is a major component of ant (Latin formica) stings.A realistic prebiotic polymerisation simulation experiment should begin
with the organic compounds produced by Miller-type experiments, but the reported ones always exclude unifunctional
contaminants.
[Update, 2014: Dr Dudley Eirich comments:
I work in Biotech producing a bifunctional monomer for the polymer industry. I can attest to the fact that the final purified
material for sale has to be essentially free of the monofunctional monomer. The final product generally has to be greater
than 99.5% pure and for some applications the final product has to be greater than 99.9% pure. We have to use a lot of
scientific knowledge and expensive equipment to attain those purity levels. Realistic natural polymerization reactions could
never produce long chains of polymers because there would always be overly high concentrations of monofunctional
monomer components around to terminate growing chains.]
Wchtershusers theory
Gnter Wchtershuser is a German patent attorney with a doctorate in organic chemistry. He is highly critical of the usual
primordial soup ideas of the origin of life. As the quote at the beginning of this article shows, he recognises that
polymerization is a big problem. However, not willing to abandon his evolutionary faith, he proposes that life began as a
cyclic chemical reaction on the surface of pyrite (FeS2). The energy to drive this cycle is said to come from the continued
production of pyrite from iron and sulfur. However, he admits that this proposal is for the most part, pure
speculation.14 Fellow origin-of-life researcher Gerald Joyce claims that the acceptance of Wchtershusers theory owes
more to his legal skills than to its merit.14 Stanley Miller calls it paper chemistry. 15In their latest well-publicised experiment,
Huber and Wchtershuser activated amino acids with carbon monoxide (CO) and reacted them in an aqueous slurry of coprecipitated (Ni,Fe)S using either hydrogen sulfide (H2S) or methanethiol (CH3SH) at 100 C at a pH of 710.We should also
note that Huber and Wchtershuser started off with very favourable conditions for chemical evolution. Although the
researchers have not yet shown that this recipe can produce amino acids, 16 they used a strong solution (0.05 M) of lefthanded amino acids (or the achiral glycine), with no other organic material. Of course, any primordial soup would have
been dilute, impure and racemic. It would have contained many unifunctional molecules and other organic compounds that
would have destroyed amino acids. Stanley Miller also points out that Huber and Wchtershuser used concentrations of
CO far higher than are realistic in nature. 16Even under their favourable conditions (due to intelligent design!), all they
produced was a small percentage of dipeptides (0.412.4%) and an even tinier amount of tripeptides (0.003%)calculated
from reported quantities. Huber and Wchtershuser also reported that under these same conditions dipeptides hydrolysed
rapidly!The exclusive left-handedness required for life7 was destroyed in the process. They excuse this by pointing out that
some cell wall peptides have right-handed amino acids. But this misses the pointenzymes that break down cell walls are
designed for exclusively left-handed amino acids, so an occasional right-handed amino acid is the perfect defence in a lefthanded world.A final irony is that one of their previous experiments converted CO into acetic acid (CH 3COOH) under similar
conditions with CH3SH and a (Ni,Fe)S slurry.17 Since acetic acid is unifunctional, this would prevent long polymers from
forming under the conditions Huber and Wchtershuser propose!
Did scientists create life, or did the media create hype?
Newspapers around the world reported this experiment. Some went as far as claiming: German chemists have produced
living cells from a combination of amino acids 18If true, then this would be remarkable. Even the simplest decoded freeliving organism, Mycoplasma genitalium, has 482 genes coding for all the necessary proteins, including enzymes. These
proteins are composed of about 400 amino acids each on average, in precise sequences, and all in the left-handed
form.19 Of course, these genes are only functional with pre-existing translational and replicating machinery, a cell membrane,
etc. But Mycoplasma can only survive by parasitizing more complex organisms, which provide many of the nutrients it
cannot manufacture for itself. So evolutionists must postulate an even more complex first living organism with even more
genes.However, as shown above, all Huber and Wchtershuser produced were a few dipeptides and even fewer
tripeptides. While they didnt make the deceitful claim quoted above, their evolutionary faith means that they see far more
significance in their experiment than it deserves.The next day, the same newspaper wrote WA Museum evolutionary
biologist Ken McNamara said if life could be created artificially, it could emerge naturally given the right conditions. 20 How
absurddoes this mean that because we can create cars artificially (with loads of intelligent input), it proves they could
emerge naturally (without intelligence!)?People should not be surprised by such biased reporting. We should compare the
hype about Martian life with the near silence about the fact that this claim has been thoroughly discredited, even according
to most secular scientists.21,22,23,24 The cynical media disdain for truth was well illustrated at a symposium sponsored by the
Smithsonian Institution. Ben Bradlee, editor of The Washington Post, said:To hell with the news! Im no longer interested in
news. Im interested in causes. We dont print the truth. We dont pretend to print the truth. We print what people tell us. Its
up to the public to decide whats true.25

Conclusion
Despite over-optimistic science reports and very biased and hyped-up media reports, scientists have not even come close
to creating life in the test-tube. Even if they do manage this feat, it will be the result of intelligent design. Ordinary
undirected chemistry moves in the wrong directionfor example, as shown in this article, biological polymers tend to break
apart, not form.
Origin of life: instability of building blocks
by Jonathan Sarfati
Evolutionary propaganda often understates the difficulty of a naturalistic origin of life. Production of traces of building blocks
is commonly equated with proving that they could have built up the required complicated molecules under natural
conditions. The instability of building blocks in non-biotic environments is usually glossed over.The RNA/DNA base cytosine
is not produced in spark discharge experiments. The proposed prebiotic productions are chemically unrealistic because the
alleged precursors are unlikely to be concentrated enough, and they would undergo side reactions with other organic
compounds, or hydrolyse. Cytosine itself is too unstable to accumulate over alleged geological deep time, as its half life for
deamination is 340 years at 25C.
Populist RNA-world propaganda
A pro-evolution booklet called Science and Creationism, recently released on the Internet by the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS),1 summarized the origin of life section as follows:For those who are studying the origin of life, the question
is no longer whether life could have originated by chemical processes involving nonbiological components. The question
instead has become which of many pathways might have been followed to produce the first cells. 2No one disputes the
existence of living organisms on earth, and that cells indeed are capable of using simple building blocks to generate the
required complex biochemicals at the necessary time, location and concentration. The question is whether the massive coordination of the metabolic processes which perform such feats could have arisen without intelligent guidance and driven by
only statistical and thermodynamic constraints.The NAS book glosses over the enormous chemical and informational
hurdles which must be jumped to go from non-living matter to even the simplest living cells (see also Q&A: Origin of
Life).3,4,5 Its not too surprising, considering the heavy atheistic bias of the NAS, which was documented in the
journal Nature,6 and which was probably partly responsible for their demonstrable scientific unreliability in the area of
origins.7 It is even less excusable to ignore the difficulties documented in their own journalProceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences (PNAS), USA, as will be shown here.
Production of building blocks of life
Science and Creationism argued:
Experiments conducted under conditions intended to resemble those present on primitive Earth have resulted in the
production of some of the chemical components of proteins, DNA, and RNA. Some of these molecules also have been
detected in meteorites from outer space and in interstellar space by astronomers using radiotelescopes. Scientists have
concluded that the building blocks of life could have been available early in Earths history. 2Even if we granted that the
building blocks were available, it does not follow that they could actually build anything. For example, under plausible
prebiotic conditions, the tendency is for biological macromolecules to break apart into the building blocks, not the other
way round.8 Also, the building blocks are likely to react in the wrong ways with other building blocks, for example, sugars
and other carbonyl (>C=O) compounds react destructively with amino acids and other amino (NH 2) compounds, to form
imines (>C=N), a common cause of browning in foods. 9Furthermore, some of the building blocks are very unstable. A good
example is ribose, which is obviously essential for RNA, and hence for the RNA-world hypothesis of the origin of life. 10 A
team including the famous evolutionary origin-of-life pioneer Stanley Miller, in PNAS, found that the half life (t ) of ribose is
only 44 years at pH 7.0 (neutral) and 0C. Its even worse at high temperatures73 minutes at pH 7.0 and 100C. 11 This is a
major hurdle for hydrothermal theories of the origin of life. Miller, in another PNAS paper, has also pointed out that the RNA
bases are destroyed very quickly in water at 100Cadenine and guanine have half lives of about a year, uracil about 12
years, and cytosine only 19 days. 12Most researchers avoid such hurdles with the following methodology: find a trace of
compound X in a spark discharge experiment, claim see, X can be produced under realistic primitive-earth conditions. Then
they obtain pure, homochiral, concentrated X from an industrial synthetic chemicals company, react it to form traces of the
more complex compound Y. Typically, the process is repeated to form traces of Z from purified Y, and so on. 13 In short, the
evolutionists simulations have an unacceptable level of intelligent interference. 14Much of the populist evolutionary
propaganda resembles the following hypothetical theory for the origin of a car:Design is an unscientific explanation, so we
must find a naturalistic explanation instead. Now, experiments have shown that one of the important building blocks of the
carironcan be produced by heating naturally occurring minerals like hematite to temperatures which are found in some
locations on earth. Whats more, iron can be shown to form thin sheets under pressures which are known to occur in certain
geological formations .If this seems far-fetched, then note that even the simplest self-reproducing cell, which has 482
genes,15 has a vastly higher information content than a car, yet self-reproduction is a pre-requisite for neo-Darwinian
evolution.
Essential building block missingcytosine
The evolutionary biochemist, Robert Shapiro, published a detailed study of the prebiotic synthesis of cytosine in
the Proceedings of the NAS.16 Previous studies of his had noted that neither adenine 17 nor ribose18 were plausible prebiotic
components of any self-replicating molecule, but the problems with cytosine are even worse. Together, these studies raise
serious doubts about whether a prebiotic replicator with any Watson-Crick base pairing could have arisen abiotically.Shapiro
noted that not the slightest trace of cytosine has been produced in gas discharge experiments, and nor has it been found in
meteorites. Thus, he notes, either it is extremely hard to synthesise, or it breaks down before detection. So prebiotic
productions of cytosine have always been indirect, and involve the methodology alluded to above. That is, cyanoacetylene
(HCCCN) and cyanoacetaldehyde (H3CCOCN) have been found in some spark discharge experiments. Organic
chemists have obtained pure and fairly strong solutions of each, and reacted each of them with solutions of other
compounds which are allegedly likely to be found on a primitive earth. Some cytosine is produced. This then apparently
justifies experiments trying to link up pure and dry cytosine and ribose to form the nucleoside cytidine. However, these
experiments have been unsuccessful (although analogous experiments with purines have produced 2% yields of
nucleosides),19 despite a high level of investigator interference.
Unavailability of cytosine precursors
Shapiro also critiqued some of the prebiotic cytosine productions. He pointed out that both cyanoacetylene and
cyanoacetaldehyde are produced in spark discharge experiments with an unlikely methane/nitrogen (CH 4/N2) mixture. The
classical Miller experiment used ammonia (NH3), but NH3, H2O and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) greatly hindered cyanoacetylene
and cyanoacetaldehyde formation. However, most evolutionists now believe that the primitive atmosphere was probably
dominated by CO2 and N2.20Furthermore, cyanoacetylene and cyanoacetaldehyde would undergo side reactions with other

nucleophiles rather than produce cytosine. For example, cyanoacetylene and cyanoacetaldehyde both react with the amino
group, which would destroy any prebiotic amino acids. And there is one destructive molecule which is unavoidably present:
water. Cyanoacetylene readily hydrolyzes to form cyanoacetaldehyde (t = 11 days at pH 9, 30C),20 although one should
not count on this as a reliable source of cyanoacetaldehyde because cyanoacetylene would more likely be destroyed by
other reactions.20 And cyanoacetaldehyde, while more stable than cyanoacetylene, is still quite quickly hydrolyzed (t = 31
years at pH 9, 30C).21The implausible production scenarios and likely rapid destruction means it is unrealistic to assume
that the concentration of cyanoacetylene and cyanoacetaldehyde could remotely approach that needed to produce cytosine.
Instability of cytosine
As pointed out above, cytosine is deaminated/hydrolyzed (to uracil) far too rapidly for any hot origin-of-life scenario. But it is
still very unstable at moderate temperaturest = 340 years at 25C. This shows that a cold earth origin-of-life scenario
would merely alleviate, but not overcome, the decomposition problem. And a low temperature also retards synthetic
reactions as well as destructive ones.On single-stranded DNA in solution, t of an individual cytosine residue = 200 years at
37C, while the double helix structure provides good protectiont = 30,000 years.22 Such CU mutations would be a great
genetic hazard, but cells have an ingenious repair system involving a number of enzymes. It first detects the mutant U (now
mismatched with G) and removes it from the DNA strand, opens the strand, inserts the correct C, and closes the strand. 22 It
seems that such a repair system would be necessary from the beginning, because a hypothetical primitive cell lacking this
would mutate so badly that error catastrophe would result. And the far greater instability of cytosine on single-stranded
nucleic acid is yet another problem that proponents of the RNA-world must account for.Also, cytosine is readily decomposed
under solar UV radiation, which requires that prebiotic synthesis should be carried out in the dark.21
An efficient prebiotic synthesis of cytosine?
This was claimed by Robertson and Miller.23 They rightly disagreed with a previous suggested synthesis of cytosine from
cyanoacetylene and cyanate (OCN-) because cyanate is rapidly hydrolyzed to CO2 and NH3. Instead, they heated 10-3 M
cyanoacetaldehyde with various concentrations of urea ((NH2)2CO) in a sealed ampoule at 100 oC for five hours with 3050% yields of cytosine. Urea is produced in spark discharge experiments with N 2, CO and H2O.However, Shapiro criticised
this experiment on the grounds of the unavailability of cyanoacetaldehyde and instability of cytosine, as above. Robertson
and Miller avoided the latter problem by stopping the reaction after five hours. But in a real prebiotic world, such a reaction
would most likely continue with hydrolysis of cytosine.Shapiro also shows that urea is too unstable to reach the
concentrations required (>0.1 M). Urea exists in equilibrium with small amounts of its isomer, ammonium cyanate, and since
cyanate is hydrolysed readily, more urea must convert to maintain the equilibrium ratio (K = 1.04 x 10 -4 at 60C).21 Robertson
and Millers sealed tube thus provided a further example of unacceptable investigator interference, because this prevented
escape of NH3, thus unrealistically retarding cyanate and urea decomposition. In an open system, half of the urea was
destroyed after 5 hr at 90 oC and pH 7,21 and t is estimated at 25 years at 25C. 21The usual cross-reaction problem would
intervene in the real world. For example, urea can react with glycine to form N-carbamoyl glycine, 21which would remove both
urea and amino acids from a primordial soup.Also, the primordial soup would be far too dilute, so Robertson and Miller
propose that seawater was concentrated by evaporation in lagoons. But this would require isolation of the lagoon from fresh
seawater which would dilute the lagoon, evaporation to about 10 5 of its original volume, then cytosine synthesis. However,
such conditions are geologically rare or non-existent today.24 Concentrating mechanisms would also concentrate
destructive chemicals.The conditions required for cytosine production are incompatible with those of purine production.
Therefore this scenario must also include a well-timed rupture of the lagoon, releasing the contents into the sea, so both
pyrimidines and purines can be incorporated into a replicator.
Shapiros materialistic faith
Shapiro concluded:
the evidence that is available at the present time does not support the idea that RNA, or an alternative replicator that uses
the current set of RNA bases, was present at the start of life. 25But unwilling to abandon evolution, he suggests two
alternative theories:
1. Cairns-Smiths clay mineral idea,13 which seems to be driven more by dissatisfaction with other theories than evidence for
his own.
Cairns-Smith cheerfully admits the failings of his pet hypothesis: no-one has been able to coax clay into something
resembling evolution in the laboratory; nor has anyone found anything resembling a clay-based organism in nature.26
[Update: recent research shows more difficulties with this idea: Darwins warm pond idea is tested, 13 February 2006:
Professor Deamer said that amino acids and DNA, the building blocks for life, and phosphate, another essential
ingredient, clung to the surfaces of clay particles in the volcanic pools.
The reason this is significant is that it has been proposed that clay promotes interesting chemical reactions relating to the
origin of life, he explained.
However, he added, in our experiments, the organic compounds became so strongly held to the clay particles that they
could not undergo any further chemical reactions.]
2. Life began as a cyclic chemical reaction, e.g. Gnter Wchtershusers theory that life began on the surface of pyrite,
which Stanley Miller calls paper chemistry.27
Wchtershuser himself admits that his theory is for the most part pure speculation.28,29
Shapiros dogmatism is illustrated in his interesting popular-level book Origins: A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life in
the Universe, where he effectively critiques many origin-of-life scenarios. But he says, in a striking admission that no amount
of evidence would upset his faith:
some future day may yet arrive when all reasonable chemical experiments run to discover a probable origin of life have
failed unequivocally. Further, new geological evidence may yet indicate a sudden appearance of life on the earth. Finally, we
may have explored the universe and found no trace of life, or processes leading to life, elsewhere. Some scientists might
choose to turn to religion for an answer. Others, however, myself included, would attempt to sort out the surviving less
probable scientific explanations in the hope of selecting one that was still more likely than the remainder.30
Conclusion
No plausible prebiotic synthesis of cytosine yet exists.
Vital building blocks including cytosine and ribose are too unstable to have existed on a hypothetical prebiotic earth for
long.Even if cytosine and ribose could have existed, there is no known prebiotic way to combine them to form the nucleoside
cytidine, even if we granted unacceptably high levels of investigator interference.Building blocks would be too dilute to
actually build anything, and would be subject to cross-reactions.Even if the building blocks could have formed polymers, the
polymers would readily hydrolyse.There is no tendency to form the high-information polymers required for life as opposed
to random ones.
Self-replicating enzymes?
A critique of some current evolutionary origin-of-life models

by Jonathan Sarfati
Evolutionary origin-of-life theories have many hurdles to overcome.1,2,3 To form a self-reproducing cell from non-living
chemicals requires the generation of a large amount of information, or specified complexity. A cell must be able to perform
many chemical reactions in the right order, place and degree, which requires a number of specific catalysts (enzymes). It
must also be able to reproduce the information needed to produce these enzymes.In all known cells, the specific catalysts
are proteins, while the information storage/retrieval and reproduction tasks are carried out by the nucleic acids DNA and
RNA. Proteins are polymers of amino acids, while nucleic acids are polymers of nucleotides. Nucleotides themselves are a
combination of a sugar (deoxyribose for DNA, ribose for RNA), a nitrogenous base and a phosphate group.But the
DNA itself codes for the proteins, yet requires at least 50 proteins for the necessary decoding, and still others for
replication. The noted philosopher of science, the late Sir Karl Popper, commented:What makes the origin of life and of the
genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is,
unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But the machinery by which the
cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty
macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus the code can not be translated except by
using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to
form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life
(like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to
chemistry and physics.4The obvious conclusion is that both the DNA and proteins must have been functional from the
beginning, otherwise life could not exist.
RNA World?
To avoid this conclusion, some evolutionists have theorised that one type of molecule could perform both catalytic and
reproductive roles. A recent discovery of some catalytic functions in RNA has led many evolutionists to postulate an RNA
world. The idea is that the first life consisted mainly of RNA, which could not only reproduce but also carry out many of the
functions now carried out by enzymes. But this model has several dubious postulates:A pool of exclusively right-handed
ribose molecules could be produced, separated from a jumble of other sugars, and remain stable long enough; the bases
could be produced in large quantities; and a high concentration of phosphate (PO 43-) would be in solution rather than
precipitated out.Ribose could combine with the bases and phosphate to produce -D-ribonucleotides.These -Dribonucleotides could spontaneously produce RNA polymers of the proper form.That if such polymers form, they could
replicate themselves.That such self-replicating RNA molecules would have all the functions needed to sustain an organism.
That such an RNA organism could give rise to a modern organism with protein catalysts, coded on the reproducing material,
and the means to decode them.These postulates are all contrary to experimental evidence. 5 It is no wonder that one of the
leading researchers into RNA World models, Gerald Joyce, wrote:The most reasonable assumption is that life did not start
with RNA . The transition to an RNA world, like the origins of life in general, is fraught with uncertainty and is plagued by a
lack of experimental data.6
A Self-replicating Molecule
A group led by Julius Rebek synthesized a molecule called amino adenosine triacid ester (AATE), which itself consists of
two components, pentafluorophenyl ester and amino adenosine. When AATE molecules are dissolved in chloroform with the
two components, the AATE molecules act as templates for the two components to join up and form new AATE
molecules.7 There are a number of reasons why this is irrelevant to an evolutionary origin of life.This system carries very
little information, in contrast to even the simplest cell. Mycoplasma genitalium has the smallest known genome of any living
organism, which contains 482 genes comprising 580,000 bases. 8 This organism is an obligate parasite. A free-living
organism would need many more genes.The new AATE molecule binds too strongly to the parent, so no new reactants can
come in and join, as Rebek himself admits.9Replication only occurred in highly artificial, unnatural conditions.10 A reaction in
chloroform is irrelevant to living organisms. In particular, chloroform would not hinder condensation reactions as water does.
Most polymerisation reactions in life are condensationreactions, that is, they eject a small molecule like water. If there is
much water around as there is with all living things, the reversereaction is favoured, that is the hydrolysis (break-up) of
polymers. [For more information, see my later paper, Origin of Life: The Polymerization Problem].The molecule
reproduced too accuratelythere is no possibility of neo-Darwinian evolution by mutation and natural selection.11
Self-replicating Peptides?
Amino acids can be formed (with difficulty12) in Miller-type experiments where reducing gases are sparked, unlike ribose and
the nitrogenous bases. Thus some evolutionists are investigating protein-first rather than nucleic-acid-first theories of the
origin of life. But proteins do not have anything analogous to the base-pairing in nucleic acids. So there was a surprise in
August 1996, when some newspapers and science journals reported a peptide that can reproduce itself. David Lee et
al. reported that a short peptide derived from part of a yeast enzyme can catalyse its own formation. 13Lee et al. made a 32unit-long a-helical peptide based on the leucine-zipper domain of the yeast transcription factor GCN4. They found that it
catalysed its own synthesis in a neutral, dilute water solution of 15 and 17-unit fragments. This was an ingenious
experiment, but it does not help the evolutionary cause because:Where would the first 32-unit long chain of 100 % lefthanded amino acid residues come from? Amino acids are not formed as easily as Lee et al. claim. If they form at all, they
are extremely dilute and impure, as well as racemic (5050 mix of left and right-handed forms). Such amino acids do not
spontaneously polymerise in water.Where would a supply of the matching 15 and 17-unit chains come from? Not only does
the objection above apply, but what mechanism is supposed to produce the right sequences? Even if we had a mixture of
the right homochiral (all the same handedness) amino acids, the chance of getting one 15-unit peptide right is one in 20 15 (=
one in 3 x 1019). If it is not necessary to get the sequences exactly right, then it would mean that the replication is not
specific, and would thus allow many errors.The 15 and 17-unit peptides must be activated, because condensation of
ordinary amino acids is not spontaneous in water. Lee et al.used a thiobenzyl ester derivative of one peptide. As they say,
this also circumvents potential side reactions. The hypothetical primordial soup would not have had intelligent chemists
adding the right chemicals to prevent wrong reactions!The particular 32-unit chain was an -helix, where hydrogen bonds
between different amino acid residues cause the chain to helicize. This common structure is more likely to be able to act as
a template under artificial conditions. Lee et al. claim that -sheets, which also depend on hydrogen bonding, might also be
able to act as templates. This seems plausible. -helices and -sheets are known as the secondary structure of the
protein.14The exact way in which the protein folds is called the tertiary structure, and this determines its specific properties.
Although Lee et al. say:we suggest the possibility of protein self-replication in which the catalytic activity of the protein could
be conserved,they present no experimental proof.
Complexity Theory
This has been promoted by Stuart Kauffman.15 It claims that large numbers of interacting components spontaneously
organise themselves into ordered patterns. Sometimes a small perturbation of a system could cause it to switch from one
pattern to another. Kauffman proposes that his idea could account for the origin of life, body shapes and even cultural

patterns and economics. Complexity theorists point to computer simulations of the patterns of clam shells and other shapes
found in nature.But this has little relevance to the real world of chemicals. Chemicals obey the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, and do not arrange themselves into self-sustaining metabolic pathways. Living cells have molecular
machinery to channel the chemistry in the right direction and amounts. If the clam shell pattern on the computer screen was
enlarged, there would be no traces of cells with cilia, mitochondria, DNA, etc. 16It is small wonder that even most sections of
the evolutionary establishment are sceptical of complexity theory. The cover of the June 1995 issue of Scientific
American asked Is Complexity Theory a Sham?. This issue contained an article called From Complexity to Perplexity,
which said:Artificial life, a major subfield of complexity studies, is fact-free science, according to one critic. But it excels at
generating computer graphics.17
Hydrothermal origin of life?
by Jonathan Sarfati
Abstract
Some Japanese researchers have claimed to prove that life could have arisen in a submarine hydrothermal vent. However,
the most complex molecule their simulation produced was hexaglycine, in the microscopic yield of 0.001%. Compared to
the complexity of even the simplest living cell, hexaglycine is extremely simple. High temperatures would degrade any
complex molecules over the alleged geological time.
Introduction
The simplest possible cell, according to recent theoretical analysis, would need a bare minimum of 256 genes coding for the
required enzymes, which are long polypeptides. And it is doubtful whether such a hypothetical organism could survive,
because such an organism could barely repair DNA damage, could no longer fine-tune the ability of its remaining genes,
would lack the ability to digest complex compounds, and would need a comprehensive supply of organic nutrients in its
environment.1One major difficulty is linking up the building blocks at all, let alone in the right sequence. This is because
thermodynamic considerations show that long molecules like proteins and nucleic acids tend to break up into their
component monomers (amino acids and nucleotides respectively). 2 Any undirected energy input is more likely to be
destructive rather than constructive, like a bull in a china shop, and to increase the variety of undesirable side reactions
possible.
Hydrothermal vents
Some researchers have proposed that life began in submarine hydrothermal vents, where superheated subterranean water
pours into the sea. The idea is that the heat can help synthesize polymers, which would then be quenched in the
surrounding sea waterthis would prevent the same energy from destroying the products soon after they were formed.Five
researchers in Nagaoka, Japan, claimed to have simulated such conditions in a flow reactor.3 They circulated 500 ml of a
strong solution of glycine (0.1 M) through several chambers at a high pressure of 24.0 MPa. The first chamber was heated
mainly to 200250 C; from there, the liquid was injected at the rate of 812 ml/min into a cooling chamber kept at 0 C.
Then the liquid was depressurized before samples were extracted at various intervals. The whole cycle was completed in 1
1.3 hours. In some of the runs, 0.01 M CuCl2 was added to the 0.1 M glycine solution, which was also acidified to pH 2.5 by
HCl at room temperature.
Experimental results
The most spectacular results occurred in the runs with the extra CuCl 2 and HCl. The Cu2+ ions catalyzed the formation of
tetraglycine (yield 0.1%). Even some hexaglycine formed (yield 0.001%). But the product with the highest yield was the
cyclic dimer, diketopiperazine, which peaked at about 1% yield, then dropped. The reader is not informed as to how much
effort was invested in optimizing the conditions to maximize the amount of larger polyglycines.
Assessment
The team leader, Koichiro Matsuno, was quoted as follows:
For 10 years, underwater hydrothermal vents have been thought to be the place where life beganand we were able to
prove it. 4But is this justified by the experimental results? No! As shown by the following reasons, Matsunos claim is based
on evolutionary faith, which results in over-optimistic interpretation of the data.The concentration of glycine of 0.1 M was far
higher than could be expected in a real primordial soup. In reality, prebiotic simulations of glycine production produce far
lower yields. Also, any glycine produced would be subject to oxidative degradation in an oxygenic atmosphere. Or else, if
there was a primitive oxygen-free atmosphere,5 the lack of an ozone layer would result in destruction by ultraviolet radiation.
Also, adsorption by clays, precipitation or complexation by metal ions, or reactions with other organic molecules would
reduce the concentration still further. A more realistic concentration would be 10 7 M.6 While the hydrothermal conditions
might be right for this experiment, overall, they would be harmful in the long term to other vital components of life. For
example, the famous pioneer of evolutionary origin-of-life experiments, Stanley Miller, points out that polymers are too
unstable to exist in a hot prebiotic environment.7 Miller has also pointed out that the RNA bases are destroyed very quickly
in water at 100 C adenine and guanine have half lives of about a year, uracil about 12 years, and cytosine only 19
days.8 Intense heating also readily destroys many of the complex amino acids such as serine and threonine. 9 Another
problem is that the exclusive left-handedness required for life is destroyed by heating, i.e. the amino acids
are racemized.10 But this was not put to the test because the Japanese team used the simplest amino acid, glycine, which is
the only achiral amino acid used in living systems. It seems incomprehensible that after designing this experiment with such
care other amino acids would not have been tested. The fact that they are all known to undergo various non-peptide bond
reactions has surely not escaped the researchers attention. The longest polymer (or rather, oligomer) formed was
hexaglycine. Most enzymes, however, have far more than six amino acid residuesusually hundreds. And even the
hexaglycine produced was found only in minuscule amounts. This experiment gave a simple homo-oligomer, i.e. all
monomers are the same. But life requires many polymers in precise sequences of 20 different types of amino acids. Thus
Matsunos experiments offer not the slightest explanation for the complex, high-information polymers of living organisms.
Conclusion
As the non-creationist information theorist Hubert Yockey observed over 20 years earlier (and he has not revised his opinion
since):Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted
. What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this
happened.One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life
on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written. 11

[Update: recent research shows more difficulties with this idea: Darwins warm pond idea is tested, 13 February 2006:David
Deamer, emeritus professor of chemistry at the University of California at Santa
Cruz, said ahead of his presentation: It is about 140 years since Charles Darwin
suggested that life may have begun in a warm little pond.We are now testing
Darwin's idea, but in hot little puddles associated with the volcanic regions of
Kamchatka (Russia) and Mount Lassen (California, US).The results are surprising
and in some ways disappointing. It seems that hot acidic waters containing clay do
not provide the right conditions for chemicals to assemble themselves into pioneer
organisms.Professor Deamer said that amino acids and DNA, the building blocks
for life, and phosphate, another essential ingredient, clung to the surfaces of clay
particles in the volcanic pools.The reason this is significant is that it has been
proposed that clay promotes interesting chemical reactions relating to the origin of
life, he explained.However, he added, in our experiments, the organic
compounds became so strongly held to the clay particles that they could not
undergo any further chemical reactions.]
World record enzymes
Decarboxylation of orotidine 5-monophosphate (OMP) to uridine 5-phosphate
(UMP), an essential precursor of RNA and DNA, by the enzyme 5-monophosphate
decarboxylase.
by Jonathan Sarfati
One vital class of proteins is enzymes, which are catalysts, i.e. they speed up
chemical reactions without being consumed in the process. Without them, many
reactions essential for life would be far too slow for life to exist. Catalysts do not
affect the equilibrium, but only the rate at which equilibrium is reached. They work
by lowering the activation energy, which means decreasing the energy of a transitional state or reaction intermediate.
Rate enhancement by 1018
Enzyme expert Dr Richard Wolfenden, of the University of North Carolina, showed in 1998 that a reaction absolutely
essential in creating the building blocks of DNA and RNA would take 78 million years in water, but was speeded up
1018 times by an enzyme.1 This was orotidine 5-monophosphate decarboxylase, responsible forde novo synthesis of uridine
5-phosphate, an essential precursor of RNA and DNA, by decarboxylating orotidine 5-monophosphate (OMP). 2The enzyme
has a special shape, a TIM-barrel. This binds the substrate at the open end of the barrel, while protein loop movements
almost totally surround the substrate. The enzyme has amino acid residues in just the right places to interact with the
functional groups on the substrate. One lysine is provides a positive charge to interact with the increasing negative charge
as the substrate reacts, and provides a proton which replaces carboxylate group at C-6 of the product. And the enzyme is
structured so that some hydrogen bonds form and delocalize negative charge in the transition state, lowering the energy.
Interactions between the enzyme and the phosphoribosyl group anchor the pyrimidine within the active site, helping to
explain the phosphoribosyl groups remarkably large contribution to catalysis despite its distance from the site of
decarboxylation. Still other interactions hold the pyrimidine within the active site, which also contributes greatly to the
catalysis although it is far from the site of decarboxylation.
Rate enhancement by 1021
In 2003, Wolfenden found another enzyme exceeded even this vast rate enhancement. A phosphatase, which catalyzes the
hydrolysis of phosphate dianions, magnified the reaction rate by thousand times more than even that previous enzyme
1021 times. That is, the phosphatase allows reactions vital for cell signalling and regulation to take place in a hundredth of a
second. Without the enzyme, this essential reaction would take a trillion yearsalmost a hundred times even the supposed
evolutionary age of the universe (about 15 billion years)!3
Implications
Wolfenden said,
Without catalysts, there would be no life at all, from microbes to humans. It makes you wonder how natural selection
operated in such a way as to produce a protein that got off the ground as a primitive catalyst for such an extraordinarily slow
reaction.1Actually, it should make one wonder about the faith commitment to evolution from goo to you via the zoo, in the
face of such amazingly fine-tuned enzymes vital for even the simplest life! And natural selection cant operate until there
are already living organisms to pass on the information coding for the enzymes, so it cannot explain the origin of these
enzymes.
Is RNA self-replication evidence for evolution?; and: Does CMI tell flat out lies?
Published: 31 October 2009(GMT+10)
3D structure of myoglobin, a protein used to store oxygen in
muscles. This protein was the first to have its structure solved by
X-ray crystallography. FromWikipedia, after Phillips, S.E.,
Structure and refinement of oxymyoglobin at 1.6 resolution, J.
Mol. Bio. 142(4):53154, 5 October 1980.
Correspondent Davis G. wrote:
Hello,
Im sure I am one of many writing in to get your opinion on the
scientific experiment reported in the media earlier this year in
which RNA seems to self-replicate as well as evolve to favor
certain species.
Could you please give us the creationist perspective on this?
Thanks much, and God bless your ministry.
Best
Regards
Davis G.
CMIs Dr Jonathan Sarfati, a Ph.D. chemist, responds:
Dear Mr G./ Dear Davis
Its likely that the media reports you mention were referring to the
paper in Science journal by Tracey Lincoln and Gerald

Joyce.1 Quite often, the media hype just doesnt match what was actually discovered. To be fair, Joyce, a well known
chemical evolutionist, made it clear that he and his Ph.D. student Lincoln had not produced life, despite the
headlines.2 Much earlier, Joyce admitted:The most reasonable assumption is that life did not start with RNA . The
transition to an RNA world, like the origins of life in general, is fraught with uncertainty and is plagued by a lack of
experimental data.3Joyce and Lincoln started off with a fairly long RNA molecule. Given that nothing like RNA appears in
MillerUrey experiments, this already shows unjustified interference from an intelligent investigator. In fact, not even the
building blocks, ribonucleotides, appear in such experiments, and they do not spontaneously form RNA. In fact, there are
numerous chemical difficulties with obtaining RNA by blind undirected chemistry, the only sort allowed on the hypothetical
primordial earth, as chemical evolutionist A.G. Cairns-Smith points out in his book Genetic Takeover4 (see extract at Cairns
Smith: Detailed criticisms of the RNA world hypothesis). And its a huge step from RNA to the genetic code, its major use
today.Furthermore, this paper didnt demonstrate replication but ligationjoining two small RNA pieces. So this research
already assumed not just one but three RNA strands. For this to be relevant to chemical evolution, the two pieces just by
chance had to have pretty close to the complementary base pairs of the first piecenatural selection could not be invoked
before reproduction.Furthermore, since polymerization is unfavorable, the RNA pieces must be chemically activated in some
way. Note that a catalyst merely accelerates the approach to equilibrium; it doesnt change it (see diagram and explanation
in Dino proteins and blood vessels: are they a big deal?). The paper states that one of the two joining RNA strands has a
triphosphate group on the end. This is very reactive, so would be an unlikely component of a primordial soup, and would not
last long even if it appeared. So a supply of matching activated RNA pieces likewise shows unacceptable investigator
interference.See also Does ribozyme research prove Darwinian evolution? for a critique of an earlier Joyce paper on alleged
ribozyme evolution, as well asSelf-replicating peptides? which has many similarities to the recent Joyce claim.
Regards
Jonathan Sarfati
CMI-Australia
Post-Script (added 17 November 2009): South African correspondent Louis v.R. wrote to us claiming there is an
inconsistency between our comments above and our subsequent article about the rapid conversion of sand to rock. You can
see his letter, and our response, in our Feedback article When is intelligent intervention acceptable?

Natural selection cannot explain the origin of life

by David Catchpoole, Jonathan Sarfati and Don Batten
Photo Wikipedia
Published: 12 November 2009(GMT+10)
While Charles Darwins On the Origin of Species has been described as a grand
narrativea story of origins that would change the world, 1 ironically his book very
pointedly avoided the question of the origin of life itself.This ought not be surprising.
Darwins theory of the origin of species by means of natural
selection2 presupposes self-reproduction, so cant explain the origin of selfreproduction.Unfortunately, many proponents of evolution seem unaware of that.
They dont acknowledge that natural selection requires pre-existing life. As leading
20thcentury evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky lamented:In reading some other
literature on the origin of life, I am afraid that not all authors have used the term
[natural selection] carefully. Natural selection is differential reproduction, organism
perpetuation. In order to have natural selection, you have to have self-reproduction
or self-replication and at least two distinct self-replicating units or entities. I would
like to plead with you, simply, please realize you cannot use the words natural
selection loosely.Prebiological natural selection is a contradiction of terms.3So,
natural selection could only work on a living organism that could produce offspring.
By its very definition natural selection could not work on non-living
chemicals. Emphasizing the same point that Dobzhansky makes above, the famous
philosopher Antony Flew (long known as a leading proponent of atheism until
abandoning that belief in the light of increasing knowledge about the cells amazing
complexitysee Atheism in decline) explained:It seems to me that Richard
Dawkins [a fanatical advocate for all things Darwinian] constantly overlooks the fact
that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out
that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive
powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some
account.Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of
more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously
powerful argument to design.4
Charles Darwin
Some people might be surprised at Flews comment that Darwin himself was aware he
had not produced a comprehensive theory of evolution that could account for the
supposed primordial first life. But Flew is correctin his Origin of Species, Darwin
concentrated on the origin of the diversity of life. 5 In the final chapter, Darwin wrote: I
should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this
earth have descended from some one primordial form . 6 In a letter to botanist Joseph
Hooker in 1863, Darwin lamented having pandered to public opinion in writing in Origin, of
the first life form, into which life was first breathed 6 (as if he believed in divine creation):It
will be some time before we see slime, protoplasm, &c. generating a new animal. But I
have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and used the Pentateuchal term of
creation, by which I really meant appeared by some wholly unknown process. 7Yet he then
conceded:It is mere rubbish thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think
of the origin of matter.7,8However, in 1871, just eight years later, consistent with his drive to
explain origins entirely materialistically, he speculated: if (and Oh! what a big if!) we
could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present,

that a proteine [sic] compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes 7However, how do
you get a living cell capable of self-reproduction from a protein compound ready to undergo still more complex
changes? Todays knowledge of the staggering complexity of the cell and more than 50 years of DNA research has
convinced the likes of Antony Flew to acknowledge design (and therefore a Designer).A key problem for the warm pond
idea is that it equates life to a mere assemblage of chemicals. 9 But as renowned physicist Paul Davies, certainly no friend to
creationists in general, has pointed out, the living cell would be more meaningfully equated to an incredibly powerful
supercomputer. Thats because the secret of life lies not with the chemical ingredients, but with the organizational
arrangement of the molecules. In Davies words, the living cell is an information processing and replicating system of
astonishing complexity.10 Davies continued:DNA is not a special life-giving molecule, but a genetic databank that transmits
its information using a mathematical code. Most of the workings of the cell are best described, not in terms of material stuff
hardware but as information, or software. Trying to make life by mixing chemicals in a test tube is like soldering
switches and wires in an attempt to produce Windows 98. It wont work because it addresses the problem at the wrong
conceptual level.9So, in todays terminology, Darwin seems to have been thinking of life only as hardware, not software. But
as Davies recognized, lifes information content from a naturalistic origin-of-life perspective leaves us with a curious
conundrum. How did nature fabricate the worlds first digital information processorthe original living cellfrom the blind
chaos of blundering molecules? How did molecular hardware get to write its own software? 10Thus the origin of life by
chemical evolution (sometimes called abiogenesis) remains intractable. No wonder many modern evolutionists have been
eager to try to divorce the origin-of-life problem from their defence of evolutionary theory. But their fellow evolutionist Gordy
Slack rebukes them for that:I think it is disingenuous to argue that the origin of life is irrelevant to evolution. It is no less
relevant than the Big Bang is to physics or cosmology. Evolution should be able to explain, in theory at least, all the way
back to the very first organism that could replicate itself through biological or chemical processes. And to understand that
organism fully, we would simply have to know what came before it. And right now we are nowhere close. 11Slack is right, and
evolutionists should be reminded that the September 1978 issue of Scientific American was specially devoted to evolution,
and one major article was Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life. 12 This stated:J.B.S. Haldane, the British biochemist,
seems to have been the first to appreciate that a reducing atmosphere, one with no free oxygen, was a requirement for
the evolution of life from non-living organic matter. [Emphasis added]
Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion has already been authoritatively accepted . What
remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed mechanisms and processes by which this happened.
evolutionist Hubert Yockey
Its also notable that Dawkins, cited above by Flew, always included some desperate theories about the origin of life in his
evolutionary books. In his latest book, The Greatest Show on Earth, he admits:The truth is that there is no overwhelming
consensus. Several promising ideas have been suggested, but there is no decisive evidence pointing unmistakeably to any
one. (p. 419).He further tacitly admits that chemical evolution is a problem, but tries to twist this in his favour:The theory we
seek, of the origin of life on this planet, should therefore positively not be a plausible theory! If it were, then life should be
common in the galaxy. Maybe it is common, in which case a plausible theory is what we want. But we have no evidence that
life exists outside this planet, and at very least we are entitled to be satisfied with an implausible theory. (p. 422).Dawkins
atheistic faith must be strong indeed, to be satisfied with an implausible theory. He proves the point made by non-creationist
information theorist Hubert Yockey 30 years ago:Research on the origin of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion
has already been authoritatively accepted . What remains to be done is to find the scenarios which describe the detailed
mechanisms and processes by which this happened.13
DID LIVE ORIGINATE IN OUTER SPACE?
Did life come to Earth from outer space?
by Russell Grigg
NASA
The notion that life somehow originated on another planet and then
came to Earth via outer space holds a wistful obsession for many
evolutionists. This is because:They have been unable to explain the
origin of life on Earth, and even the simplest living cell is now
known to be unimaginably complex.As life has been found deeper
and deeper in the fossil record,1 and so in older and older strata
according to evolutionary dogma, many are now saying that there
has not been enough time for life to have evolved on Earth; thus an
older planet is needed.Of course, postulating that life began on
another planet does not solve the evolutionists problem of just how
non-living chemicals could have turned into a living cell it
merelytransfers it to another place.
Wanted a planet just like Earth!
Conditions for life
NASA
The optimum place for life as we know it on Earth 2 to exist
elsewhere in space would be a planet with features just like those
of Earth. These include having a star very like our own sun (an
exceptionally stable star),3 being the right distance from its sun,4 as well as having an
orbit5 and speed of rotation6 that would maintain a suitable temperature range, and
hence fulfil the Goldilocks criterionnot too hot, not too cold, just right. Another
essential would be the presence of liquid waterin living cells, water provides a liquid
medium, necessary for amino acids and other organic molecules to mingle and
react.7Also needed would be an atmosphere that was non-poisonous, 8 and which would
also absorb or deflect lethal doses of ultraviolet light, x-rays, and gamma rays, as well as
a magnetic field strong enough to deflect the solar wind (a stream of high-energy
charged particles).9 Complex life forms would need oxygen to be present in the right
proportion. Earth is just right for life.10
Mars
In the past, some researchers believed that Mars once fulfilled enough of these
conditions for life to have existed there; however, many scientists no longer accept this.

In particular, most now reject the claim that a small Mars meteorite, picked up in Antarctica in 1984, contained fossilised
micro-organisms.11,12 And there are increasing doubts that Mars was ever as warm and as wet as thought, despite the claims
of catastrophic flooding.The latest setback for the evolutionist true believers is that analysis of meteorites believed to have
originated from Mars has shown that the sulfur isotopes they contain were produced by atmospheric chemical reactions, not
by bacteria.13 Further disappointment has been the failure of NASAs latest two Mars missions and the loss of the Mars
landing crafts.There is, in fact, no evidence that life originated on Mars. Or for that matter on Europa, one of Jupiters
moons, which may hold some liquid water, but has few, if any, of the other conditions necessary for life.
Search for other planets14
Astrobiology (or exobiologythe study of/search for extraterrestrial life) has been given a shot in the arm recently now that
researchers have developed two techniques for looking for extrasolar planets, i.e. those which may orbit stars beyond our
solar system.
The techniques
Planets do not shine by their own light, but reflect the light they receive from the star they orbit. As this reflected light could
be as feeble as one billionth of that of the host star, an indirect technique for seeing such planets has been devised.As a
planet revolves around its star, it and the star tug on each other with an equal and opposite gravitational force. The pull of
the planet on the much more massive star causes the star to move slightly towards the planet, as the planet swings around
it. This may be seen from Earth as a periodic (i.e. regularly recurring) wobble on the part of that star. 15,16Another technique
is that, when a planet passes in front of its star, it could, slightly but periodically, dim its stars yellow-white glow. To detect
this, an observer on Earth would need to be in exactly the same plane as the planets orbit.
What has been found?
Using special hardware and software to detect this wobble, and applying the wobble-means-planet theory, researchers
have claimed to have found some 573 extrasolar planets (as of 9 August 2011Ed.), including the first claimed three-planet
solar system (around Upsilon Andromedae, about 44 light years from Earth). 17None of the claimed extrasolar planets fulfil
any of the conditions needed to support life, so the search continues for Earth-sized planets (the optimum size for life as we
know it). An Earth-sized planet would have about 1/300th of the gravitational pull of Jupiter (at the same distance), as Jupiter
is 318 times the mass of Earth, and so any wobble an Earth-sized planet might cause would be too small to be detected with
current equipment. Further research is proceeding.
Further problems
If any extrasolar planets capable of supporting life were to be found, several major problems would inhibit any rocks from
carrying such life to Earth. These are:
.1. The need to achieve escape velocity
For a rock (or spacecraft) to break free from the pull of gravity of its mother planet, it must achieve a speed called the
escape velocity. For Earth this is 11.18 km per second, or 40,248
kph (25,009 mph). For Mars it is 5.02 km per second, or 18,072
kph (11,229 mph). As volcanoes do not eject materials at these
speeds, scientists postulate that rocks are blasted from planets
and into space through giant asteroid collisions.
2. The tyranny of distance
The nearest star to Earth is Alpha Centauri. It is 4.37 light years
away, which means that lighttravelling at 300,000 km (186,000
miles) per secondtakes 4.37 years to reach us, 40 million
million km away. If an Earth-sized planet (the optimum size) were
orbiting Alpha Centauri and a rock were blasted from it at the
speed of Earths escape velocity, the object would take 115,000
years to get here.18Any rock coming from an Earth-sized planet
at the comparatively close distance of 40 light years away (or Series of timelapse images showing several of the
1/2500th of the diameter of the Milky Way) would take over a impacts on the surface of Jupiter by fragments of the
Shoemaker-Levy 9 comet. Gaping impact zones, in some
million years to get here.
cases larger than the earth, were revealed in photographs
3. Other problems
Radiation would destroy DNA on a journey between stars, says of the giant gas planet soon after collision.
Francis Cucincotta of the NASA Johnson Space Centre in
Houston.19 Other hazards would be: the near-absolute-zero temperature of space, without a space suit; the lack of nutrients
and/or oxygen in the vacuum of space, without a space vehicle; entry into Earths atmosphere, without a heat shield, which
has been proven to burn up bacteria 20; and impact with planet Earth, without a parachute.Some idea of the force of such an
impact was demonstrated by the catastrophic collision of 20 fragments of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 with Jupiter on July 16
22, 1994 (see images to the right).All in all, interstellar space travel for living organisms is sheer wishful thinking.
Young age perspectives
If some form of microbial life should one day be found on Mars, Europa, or elsewhere within our solar system, this would not
prove that it had evolved (or been created) there. Such life could be seeded from Earth, because:If rocks can be blasted
from Mars to Earth, the process should also be possible from Earth to Mars, as physicist Paul Davies suggests. 22Bacterial
spores may be able to survive the relatively short journey involved compared to interstellar travel.Spores in Earths upper
atmosphere could be pushed into space and then to another planet or moon by the solar wind.There is always the risk of
contamination by Earth bacteria of the surface of a planet or moon on which any man-made space vehicle lands and
digs.Space-life enthusiasts like to say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Perhaps, but they have never
been able to answer the famous question posed by Nobel-Prize-winning physicist Enrico Fermi half a century ago
concerning all the other alleged civilizations in the universe: Well then, where is everybody? SETI, the Search for
Extraterrestrial Intelligence, which now uses equipment that scans 28 million radio frequencies per second, has failed to
obtain a single intelligent signal from outer space in over 50 years.

NASA
In April 2000, 600 astronomers,
biologists, chemists, geologists,
In this Viking image of Mars surface
and other researchers met at the
we see a desolate landscape.
First
Astrobiology
Science
Researchers were hoping to find traces
Conference, held at NASAs
of life within the cold Martian soil. But
Ames
Research
Centre,
none has been found.
23
California, to
evaluate
the
Why the frantic search for life on
evidence on whether, biologically
other planets?
speaking, we are alone in the
Such a find could be used to reinforce
universe. The predominant mood
the idea that it is easy, if not inevitable,
of pessimism was encapsulated
for life to arise by itself from lifeless
by British palenontologist Simon
chemicals.If it can be shown that life
Conway Morriss comment: I
exists elsewhere in space, it would assist those who claim that Earth
dont think there is anything out
life began out there (see main text).Projects to investigate life elsewhere in the
there at all except ourselves,
universe overshadow more mundane Earth-directed research in attracting public
and Dan Cleese, a Mars
interest and tax dollars!
program scientist at NASAs
Pasadena
Jet
Propulsion
Laboratory, who said that it is time to tone down expectations.24
Conclusion
The fervent search to authenticate astrobiology has generated much data, but to date this has, if anything, strengthened
the Genesis record of the creation of life on Earth. Contrary to the claims of evolutionists and the many imaginative
Hollywood epics like ET, Star Wars, Independence Day, etc., the coming of aliens to Earth from outer space will always
remain in the realm of science fiction.
Editorial note: As this article originally appeared in 2000, the section Search for other planets has been updated and
relevant articles post-2000 have been included in the references. Also the boxes Feasibility of inter-stellar travel and Alien
Visitors to Earth? (below) have kindly been supplied by Dr Jonathan Sarfati.

Alien visitors to Earth?

Not with the huge energy shortage and megaton dust bombs
by Jonathan Sarfati
Films involving intelligent life on other planets have been some of the best box-office smashes, e.g. Avatar, the Star
Wars and Star Trekfilms, Independence Day. All these are cultural icons. But as we have pointed out many times, intelligent
life on other planets is contradicted by the young age model,25 and presupposes chemical evolution: that life evolved from
non-living chemicals.26 And as will be shown, there are huge scientific problems for the idea of interstellar space travel as
well, including a huge lack of energy.Distances between stars are literally astronomical. The closest star system to ours is
Alpha Centauri, 4.37 light years away. I.e. its light, although travelling at 300,000 km/s (186,000 mps), takes 4.37 years to get
here. One light year is just under 10 trillion km (about 6 trillion miles). Furthermore, Einsteins theory of Special Relativity
teaches that any mass increases as it approaches the speed of light, thus requiring even more energy to accelerate it. But
the problems for hypothetical aliens start well before this becomes an issue.27
NASA
Imagine an alien space craft with a mass of only 10 tonnes or 10,000 kg (about
22,000 lb)the Apollo Lunar Module, which could take only two men, was about
15 tonnes. Then how much energy would it take to accelerate it to 100,000 km/s,
or a third of the speed of light (c3)? This is given closely enough by the formula
in ordinary classical physicsno matter how gradually this speed is reached, this
total energy must be supplied:
E = mv
= 10,000 kg (100,000,000 m/s)
= 50 exajoules (5 1019 J).
This is equal to the entire world consumption of energy for over a month! 28 What
possible source could produce such an enormous output, as well as accelerate
at takeoff the extra mass of this source?Antimatter is the only real possibility,
since it can annihilate ordinary matter with complete conversion to energy, according to Einsteins famous formula, E = mc.
If perfect annihilation were achieved (most unlikely), 500 kg each of antimatter and matter would produce: 1000 kg (3
108 m/s) = 90 exajoules. So this looks like enough. But not so fast! About the same amount of energy would be needed to
slow the alien craft when it reaches Earth, and already they are running out of fuel. And this is just a small craftpowering
the massive space-ships of the movies for many fast, intricate maneuvers its not called science fiction for nothing.
Consider also that we have not even produced anti-atoms yet, except for perhaps about a hundred thousand anti-hydrogen
atoms, a sub-microscopic amount.29
Sand grains become bombs

Wikipedia
This energy shortage is not the only thing for aliens to worry about. They
need also to avoid tiny sand grains and even flecks of paint. Even our
own spacecrafts are damaged severely by impacts of only about 10 km/s
(22,000 mph)see picture. These hypothetical alien ships are travelling
10,000 times faster, so the impact energy would be 100 million times
more. Even a snowflake colliding at such a speed has almost as much
kinetic energy as 4 tons of TNT,30 which must be released somewhere in
the craft, or else it will shoot through everything in its path. A 1-kg body
colliding and releasing all its energy would be like a one-megaton
hydrogen bomb.31 A swarm of even small meteorites or asteroids would
be catastrophic. Thus huge amounts of energy must be expended on
some sort of deflector to prevent such impacts.
Conclusion
Because many believe that life evolved on other planets and that it might
be millions of years older than humans, they also belief that aliens would
have had the time to develop the incredible technologies as depicted in
much sci-fi. However, no amount of advanced technology could actually
defy or turn off the laws of physics that govern our universe. This would
be necessary even to travel close to the speed of light, let alone faster.
These are insurmountable problems.
There are no aliens from other planets visiting Earth. And the above
simple physics shows how nonsensical the idea is: the energy required
even for mild-sounding sub-light travel is more than the whole human
race consumes in a month, and the impact of even small bodies is like a
nuclear explosion.

A
fleck of paint left this crater on the surface of
Space Shuttle Challenger's front window on
STS-7.

Nucleic acid bases in Murchison meteorite?

Have they proved that life came from outer space?
Fragment of the Murchison meteorite (at right) and
isolated individual particles (shown in the test tube).
by Jonathan Sarfati
Published: 25 June 2008(GMT+10)
Have evolutionists proved that life came from outer
space?
Evolutionary papers are buzzing with the reports that
nucleobases were found in a meteorite. In some minds,
this is tantamount to discovering life itself. But does the
discovery justify the hype?
Introduction
In 28 September 1969, fragments of a meteorite landed
2 kilometres south of the small village of Murchison,
Victoria, Australia. Local residents collected about 100
kg of material, and the largest fragment was about 7 kg.
Photo Wikipedia
Xanthine
The Murchison fragments came from a class of meteorite called carbonaceous
chondrites, because they contain small nodules called chondrules. Since this class is
rich in carbon and water, right from the beginning the Murchison meteorite has been
analysed for organic molecules. Chemical evolutionists, who have faith that life evolved
from non-living chemicals, were hoping to find evidence to support their faith. They had
hoped that this meteorite would provide evidence that such processes were widespread
in the universe, even if some of them were pessimistic that life could arise on earth.
One of the first discoveries was amino acids, the components of proteins. 1 Later, there
were dubious claims that some of the amino acids had a slight excess of the
handedness (chirality) required for life, as we have reported. Still later, there were
claims that sugars and sugar-related compounds were discovered, which excited many
because the backbones of DNA and RNA contain the sugars deoxyribose and ribose
respectively. But see our report on why this offers no support for chemical evolution.

What was just discovered?

Pair of grains from the Murchison meteorite.
A team led by Zita Martins of Imperial College, London and Leiden Institute of
Chemistry, Netherlands, reported that they discovered two nucleobases in this
meteorite.2This could be important, because these are the letters of the genetic
code that stores the information of life in DNA and RNA. In particular, the bases
found were uracil, a pyrimidine (single-ringed base), and xanthine, a purine (doubleringed base). Uracil is found in RNA, and pairs with adenine, thus it substitutes for
DNAs thymine. Xanthine is not part of the genetic code, but it is found in living
organisms from the breakdown of guanine, which is a base in DNA and RNA.
These compounds were highly enriched in a heavy isotope of carbon, 13C, and this
was said to be consistent with formation in space, not earth. Surrounding soil
samples had a much lower 13C/12C ratio.3
Worldviews matter
Uracil
As always, creationists do not necessarily dispute the observations of evolutionists, but
often dispute theinterpretations of these observations. Most of the researchers are not
trying to find out whether chemical evolution has occurred. Rather, they assume that it
has occurred, and merely trying to find out how. So it is small wonder that many are
excited by the finding of the building blocks of life anywhere, although they are light
years away from finding proof that they ever could build anything.
Contamination?
Even some evolutionists are not convinced that these nucleobases formed beyond
earth, and believe that contamination has not been ruled out. For example, Sandra
Pizzarello, a chemist at Arizona State University in Tempe, US, who has previously
researched amino acids in this meteorite, is unconvinced. A New Scientist report on the
discovery includes:But it may be too early to conclude these nucleobases formed
beyond the Earth, says Sandra Pizzarello, a chemist at Arizona State University in
Tempe, US. The study raises a very interesting question that was raised a very long
time ago, but I don't think it solves it, she told New Scientist. But Pizzarello says too
many other chemicals were present in the samples to clearly distinguish the carbon
ratio. Analytically, it's not convincing, Pizzarello told New Scientist.4Contamination is not so implausible. Uracil is not just a
nucleobase in its own right, but also forms from hydrolysis of cytosine. Indeed, this instability of cytosine is a huge problem
for chemical evolution. And cytosine pairs with guanine, which breaks down to form xanthine.Degradation of nucleobases in
the hydrated parent body environment also has to be considered. For example, cytosine degrades to uracil with a half-life of
17,000 years and guanine decomposes to xanthine with a half-life of 1.3 Ma at 0C and pH 7. 5 Consequently, meteoritic
nucleobase distributions are the result of both synthetic and subsequent degradation reactions. 2However, this would
be consistent with degradation from terrestrial sources as well. In DNA of living organisms, G-C linkages are somewhat
more stable than A-T linkages, because the former have three hydrogen bonds while the latter have only two.
Small molecules are not life
Creationists have long pointed out that some monomers (the components of big molecules or polymers) would be expected
to be able to form naturalistically. So it is not surprising that some have been formed in both outer space and in the Miller
Urey simulation experiments. However, rather than proof of chemical evolution, the observations are evidence against it.
This is because we never see them progress any furtherthey are chemical dead ends.In particular, to form DNA and RNA,
its far from enough to find nucleobases.They must be purified from other closely related compounds,
then concentrated.They must combine with ribose to form a nucleoside. But this reaction just doesnt occur in water. And
even in a dry environment (a primordial soup doesnt quite qualify), purine nucleosides have been formed, but even this
failed to form pyrimidine nucleosides.They must combine with phosphate to form a nucleotide. Yet phosphate concentrations
in naturally occurring water are far too low. And this phosphate must be activated otherwise the reaction wont occur.These
nucleotides must be activated, purified and concentrated so they will combine to form polymers. But even then,
polymerization must have first occurred without a template, and pyrimidines wont polymerize even with a polypurine
template.The biological significance of DNA and RNA is in the sequence of the nucleobase letters. There is nothing in the
bases themselves that would make them join up in predetermined ways that have any biological significance, any more than
forces between ink molecules make them join up into letters and words. Michael Polanyi (18911976), a former chairman of
physical chemistry at the University of Manchester (UK) who turned to philosophy, confirmed this: As the arrangement of a
printed page is extraneous to the chemistry of the printed page, so is the base sequence in a DNA molecule extraneous to
the chemical forces at work in the DNA molecule. It is this physical indeterminacy of the sequence that produces the
improbability of any particular sequence and thereby enables it to have a meaninga meaning that has a mathematically
determinate information content.6The Imperial College press release called the findings an important component of early
genetic material. But this is true only in the sense that a carburettor is an important part of an early car, or that a letter of
alphabet soup might have been an important component of an early message.
Conclusion
This is hardly the first time that the pro-evolution mass media have hyped scientific discoveries as proof of goo-to-you
evolution. When the actual evidence is analysed, even if reported
correctly, it fails to support what it claims. In the case of the origin
of life, such discoveries really show the limits of what real
chemistry can achieve without intelligent design. That is, not only
do the observations provide no support for chemical evolution,
they are actually further evidence that chemical evolution is
based on blind faith rather than fact.
Panspermia theory burned to a crisp: bacteria couldnt
survive on meteorite
by Jonathan Sarfati
Published: 10 October 2008(GMT+10)

A number of evolutionists have become disillusioned with ideas that life could have evolved from non-living chemicals on
Earth (i.e. viachemical evolution, sometimes called abiogenesis). So they hoped that with the whole universe to work with,
life might have evolved elsewhere in the universe, and travelled to Earth. This is the theory of panspermia, from
Greek / (pas/pan, all) and (sperma, seed), i.e. seeds of life are everywhere in the universe (see how one
evolutionist reasons to panspermia).The classic form of panspermia is the theory that these seeds happen to hitch a ride
on comets or meteorites (as opposed to directed panspermia where the seeds are sent by aliens 1). Yet a recent experiment
has dealt a fatal blow to this theory, because it showed that they couldnt survive the extreme heat on entering the earths
atmosphereand causes meteoroids to become meteors or shooting stars.2
Experimental disproof
Scientists at the Centre of Molecular Biophysics in Orleans, France, managed to simulate a meteorite entry by attaching
rocks to the heat shield of a returning Russian spacecraft (FOTON M3 capsule) last month. These rocks were smeared with
a hardy bacterium called Chroococcidiopsissupposed to resemble a proposed germ on Mars. The rocks also contained
microfossils.After the spacecraft was retrieved, the microfossils survived, but the Chroococcidiopsis was burned black,
although their outlines remained. Lead author Frances Westall says:The results are more problematic when applied to
panspermia. STONE-6 showed at least two centimetres (0.8 inch) of rock is not sufficient to protect the organisms during
[atmospheric] entry.Frances Westall, Centre of Molecular Biophysics in OrleansThe STONE-6 experiment suggests that,
if Martian sedimentary meteorites carry traces of past life, these traces could be safely transported to Earth. However, the
results are more problematic when applied to panspermia. STONE-6 showed at least two centimetres (0.8 inch) of rock is
not sufficient to protect the organisms during [atmospheric] entry. 2Their original paper stated:The Chroococcidiopsis did not
survive but their carbonized remains did. Thus sedimentary meteorites from Mars could reach the surface of the Earth and,
if they contain traces of fossil life, these traces could be preserved. However, living organisms may need more than 2 cm of
rock protection.3The paper also had this typically cautious concluding remark:However, because of a technological flaw, no
conclusions can be drawn regarding the thickness of rocky materials needed to protect extant life during atmospheric entry.
It turned out that there was:burning of the back side of this particular sample owing, apparently, to the entry of heat and
flames behind the sample. This occurred because the difference in composition between the carbon-carbon screws and the
silicon phenolic material of the sample holder resulted in a space appearing between the screws and the screw holes. Thus,
the Chroococcidiopsis cells were completely carbonised despite the 2 cm thickness of protective rock covering
them.However, this didnt stop the leading researcher asserting that 2 cm of rock was insufficient, both in a press release
and in their abstract. A real rock is likely to have gaps larger than in the experiment.Indeed, this experiment seems
to understate the problems. The paper states:Entry speed of the FOTON capsule was 7.6 km/sec, slightly lower than the
normal meteorite velocities of 1215 km/sec. It was possible to determine the minimum temperature reached during entry
through the thermal dissociation of one of the space cement that occurs at a temperature of ~1700C. Although the basalt
control sample was lost, comparison with the results of the STONE 5 experiment indicates that the temperatures upon entry
are high enough to form a fusion crust.3One must question whether little over half the speed is slightly lower. Its worse
because the frictional drag and kinetic energy are proportional to the square of the velocity; i.e. if the velocity is doubled, the
drag and energy are quadrupled.4This indicates that a real meteorite would heat up much more, requiring an even thicker
shield.
Life from Mars?
This experiment also supports our rejection of the life from Mars hype in 1996, in that the atmosphere would likely fry any
Martian meteoritic microbes. We also pointed out that life on Mars was more likely to have been blasted off from Earth in the
first place, and this experiment indirectly reinforces this. I.e. the frictional drag is proportional to the atmospheric
density,4 and the Martian atmosphere is < 1% as dense as ours. So planets with dense atmospheres are more likely to
be sources than destinations for life.
Conclusion
Panspermia has now been shown to have a huge flaw. Since panspermia was a common last-ditch attempt to preserve
materialism in the face of problems in chemical evolution on Earth, materialism itself has likewise taken yet another huge
blow.
Extrasolar planets with organic materials
by Wayne Spencer
Artists impression of Gliese 581c, an extrasolar planet that has
been thought to be able to support liquid water.In March 2008
some simple organic molecules were detected in spectra from
two extrasolar planets. Scientists have been excited about this
discovery because they believe it suggests the possibility of life
evolving on other planets. In previous articles I have argued for
the existence of extrasolar planets but have pointed out many
problems with theories trying to explain their origin.1
3
Researchers using the Spitzer Space Telescopes Infrared
Spectrometer detected some simple organic molecules in a star
known as AA Tauri.4 This star is believed to be less than one
million years old. It is surrounded by a large dust disk, considered
to be a protoplanetary disk that has the potential of forming
planets. Gases that have been detected from AA Tauri are
acetylene, hydrogen cyanide, carbon dioxide and water. The
researchers are beginning to apply a new detection technique for
looking at the composition of gases in planetary disks. This new
technique focuses on the gases in the disk rather than the dust. The same measurements also found water vapour to be
abundant in the disk.In addition, the Hubble Space Telescope has detected methane and water in another extrasolar planet,
referred to as HD 189733b.5 The star is somewhat smaller than our Sun and the planet is estimated to be like Jupiter but
slightly more massive. It is very near its star so its orbital period is only about 2 days.The Hubble detection was done as part
of a transit measurement in May 2007. In a transit, the stars light passes through the planets atmosphere as the planet
passes through the line of sight from Earth to the star. Transits allow some information to be gleaned about the planet and
its atmosphere. Transits are relatively rare opportunities but a number of transit measurements have been done for various
extrasolar planets. The NASA Planetquest website lists 35 planets that have been studied via transit measurements.The
amount of methane detected in the Hubble data was reported as surprising to astronomers, particularly because of the high
temperature of this planet.5Methane tends to evaporate into space from a hot planet such as this one, or be used up in

chemical reactions. Thus, based on current models, scientists would have expected it to show carbon monoxide more
abundant than methane, but carbon monoxide is either not present at all or at surprisingly low concentrations. The presence
of small quantities of ammonia is also possible but not conclusive.In both the above cases, the discovery of substances like
methane, acetylene and hydrogen cyanide merely shows that the extrasolar planets are similar to planets such as Jupiter in
our solar system. In our solar system, the planet Jupiter and Saturns moon Titan both have at least traces of methane,
acetylene and hydrogen cyanide. Ultraviolet light from our Sun is likely responsible for driving chemical reactions that create
substances such as hydrogen cyanide and acetylene in Titans atmosphere. The same processes may be at work for
exoplanets. The presence of these chemicals is not an indication that life is present or that life could evolve on these
exoplanets. Simple molecules like methane (CH4) and acetylene (C2H2) are far less complex and easier to form than the
larger biomolecules that life depends on.The search for biologically habitable planets is of great interest to astronomers
today. We can expect to see more reports similar to the above as more extrasolar planets are studied in the hope (by some
scientists) of finding planets where life could evolve and survive. Thus far, extrasolar planets have been found to be either
too hot or too cold to be suitable environments for living things. Even if a planet were found to have a liveable temperature
range, there are many other barriers to life evolving from simple chemicals. Important biomolecules such as proteins require
the formation of long chain molecules with hundreds of carbons. These large complex molecules are not likely to naturally
arise from conceivable chemical processes in planetary atmospheres. Furthermore, natural processes cannot explain the
origin of the information content of molecules like RNA and DNA.
Sugars from space? Do they prove evolution?
by Jonathan Sarfati
To a chemist, a sugar is not just that sweet crystal added to coffee and tea. Rather, sugars are one family of chemicals
containing lots of hydroxyl groups (OH) attached to a carbon skeleton (polyols). Sugars are vital components of life, e.g. the
5-carbon (5C) sugars ribose and deoxyribose are part of the skeletons of our information storage molecules, RNA and DNA
respectively. Ribose is also an essential component of the energy currency of life, adenosine triphosphate (ATP). The 6C
sugar glucose is a basic energy source for plants and animals, and they are joined in chains to form the cellulose of plant
cell walls, as well as the energy storage molecules starch (plants) and glycogen (animals). Common sugar, sucrose, found
in sugar cane and to a lesser extent in sugar beet, is actually a combination of two 6C sugars, glucose and fructose.The
ultimate origin of sugars is a huge problem for those who believe abiogenesis, the idea that non-living chemicals evolved
into living cells without any intelligent input (see Q&A: Origin of Life). Abiogenesis has been such a difficult problem for the
materialistic world view that various antitheists, such as Eugenie Scott of the so-called National Center for Science
Education; and Richard Hutton, the producer of the Evolution series shown on PBS(USA) and SBS(Australia); try not to
answer tough questions about abiogenesis. Instead, they claim it is not part of evolution, which is simply not true, given its
common name chemical evolution. It has also been included as a 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.1But according to some recent headlines, abiogenesis has virtually been solved by the discovery of
sugars in meteorites. Supposedly this shows that sugars could be produced in space, then rained down on Earth to be
incorporated into the first organisms. But what is the correct story?
What was found?
Researchers led by Dr George Cooper of the NASA Ames Research Center in California analysed the much-studied
Murchison meteorite and the less-well-known Murray meteorite.2,3 Both are a type of meteorite called carbonaceous
chondrites, because they contain small nodules called chondrules. They are claimed to be the most primitive objects in the
solar system, and the most likely to have organic (carbon-containing) molecules. They used a reliable technique called gas
chromatographymass spectrometry (GCMS) to detect the different molecules, in the form of compounds with large
silicon/carbon groups. They also studied the ratios of carbon and hydrogen isotopes, i.e. different forms of the same
element. They found that they were enriched in the heavier isotopes 13C and 2H, which is consistent with an extraterrestrial
origin for most of the molecules, rather than contamination from Earth.They found evidence of lots of different chemicals
with names unfamiliar to non-chemists, but in extremely tiny amounts. In fact, there was only one proper sugar found, and
this contained only three carbon atoms. They also found a number of related compounds, the most abundant being the
sugar alcohols, ethylene glycol (2C, better known as antifreeze), and glycerol (3C), but even glycerol made up only about
0.001% of the mass, and the other compounds were far less abundant. There were none of the sugars familiar to most
people.4 The fact that these sugars are not common in living organisms is good evidence against biological contamination
from Earth.The researchers have proposed several possible ways these compounds could have been produced, including
the formose reaction starting from formaldehyde, which itself might have been formed from carbon monoxide and
hydrogen.The real science stops here with the last section, and as always, creationists dispute no observations made by
evolutionists; i.e., we agree that the meteorite does contain organic compounds, probably of extraterrestrial origin. The
difference is how we interpret the observations.
What should we think?
The Big picture
The most important point to remember, more important than the chemistry, is that both creationists and evolutionists have
biases. For the people who performed the research, the Nature editors, and the journalists who reported the results, the
question was not Did life evolve from non-life? Neither were they trying to find evidence to support either yes or no.
Rather, before even adducing the evidence, they have already made up their minds that the answer is yessomewhat
along these lines:Well, of course life evolved from non-life, because were here! Whats that you suggest that life may
have been designed? You just dont understand the rules of science. A designer is not part of science, even if the evidence
supports that, as Dr Scott Toddpointed out. As Dr Richard Lewontin said, we must only allow materialistic explanations,
because we cant allow a divine foot in the door.This faith commitment has been noticed even by non-creationists such as
the information theorist Dr Hubert Yockey, as shown by thisquote.This bias produces much wishful thinking, where every
trace of organic molecules found is taken as evidence for chemical evolution. As will be shown below, this is contradicted by
science. The wishful thinking occurs not only in the popular media, but also in the Nature Science Update commentary:The
findings therefore support a growing realization that, even in the frozen depths of space, lifeless chemistry can arrange the
elements into molecular forms well along the road to primitive life. 5Even the acting director of astrobiology and space
research at Ames, Kenneth Souza claimed:This discovery shows that its highly likely organic synthesis critical to life has
gone on throughout the universe. Then, on Earth, since the other critical elements were in place, life could blossom. 6But
while Cooper himself was enthusiastic overall, he did sound a note of caution about the research:What we found could just
be interesting space chemistry, and polyols could be just relatives of the compounds that actually gave rise to early life. 6I
agree that it was interesting space chemistry, and actually have no problem with the researchers suggested production

mechanisms such as the formose reaction, but this doesnt mean that it was relevant to chemical evolution. Cooper
concluded that more research was needed to learn whether this research was significant.6
Scientific problems
One of the key evidences against contamination, the presence of non-biological sugars and their relatives, also seems like
good evidence against chemical evolution. That is, that natural processes tend to produce gunk with little relevance to
life.The amounts of these chemicals were tinyfar too low to contribute to biological processes. So this can also be
interpreted as evidence against chemical evolution, by showing that under truly natural conditions (as opposed to unrealistic
laboratory simulations), only trace amounts of these compounds are formed.The wide variety of compounds in itself counts
as evidence against chemical evolution. Most of the alleged prebiotic simulations use pure compounds, and even then, the
results are meagre, so how much worse would they be with the contaminated gunk produced in the real world?Sugars are
very unstable, and easily decompose or react with other chemicals. This counts against any proposed mechanism to
concentrate them to useable proportions. See Origin of Life: Instability of building blocks.Living things require homochiral
sugars, i.e. with the same handedness, but these ones would not have been. See Origin of Life: The Chirality
Problem.Even under highly artificial conditions, the result of intelligent investigator interference, there is no plausible method
of making the sugar ribose join to some of the essential building blocks needed to make DNA or RNA, let alone into RNA or
DNA themselves. Instead, the tendency is for long molecules to break down into their building blocks. See Origin of Life: The
Polymerization Problem and The RNA World: A Critique.Even DNA or RNA by themselves would not be life, since its not
enough to just join the bases (letters) together, but the sequence of the letters must consitute meaningful information. The
information depends on the letter sequence and this sequence is not a function of the chemistry of the letters. Information: A
modern scientific design argument.Even this letter sequence would be meaningless without elaborate decoding machinery
to translate this into amino acid sequences. I.e. the DNA stores the instruction code to form the enzymes and structural
proteins needed for life. Unless the decoding machinery already existed, those instructions can never be read. Similarly, this
article would be useless to a non-Englishspeaker, who lacks knowledge of the code of the English language to convert
alphabetical letter sequences into concepts in the mind (information). See Self-Replicating Enzymes?.
Conclusion
Once again, this teaches us that we shouldnt rely on pro-evolution newspaper headlines. As always, even if they have
reported the scientific observations correctly, the observations must be interpreted. As shown, it is more plausible to interpret
them in a young age framework and apply well-attested chemical principles. The result is that not only do the observations
provide no support for chemical evolution, they are actually further evidence that chemical evolution is based on blind faith
rather than fact.
Moon microbes?
Remember the life from Mars!
by Jonathan Sarfati, CMIAustralia
27 October 2000
Have we found life from the moon? So asks the article Microorganisms from the Moon: Russian biologists recognize fossils
of microorganisms in lunar soil (27 October 2000). This reports new microscopic analysis of samples from the lunar surface
collected from the then Soviet Unions Luna missions in 1970 and 1972. These samples contained spherical particles that
are virtually identical to fossils of known biological species in size, shape, distribution and even the way they are deformed
during fossilization. The report claims These fossils are solid evidence for ancient life elsewhere in space. So how should
we regard these claims?We should certainly wait until more evidence comes in. Many times, evolutionists have triumphantly
announced proofs of evolution or something else against the young age worldview, and the secular media uncritically
splashed them over the front page. But later, this evidence has been discredited by further discovery. We have only to
remember Archaeoraptor, pushed as proof of dinosaur-to-bird evolution by the influentialNational Geographic, but later
exposed as a hoax (see Archaeoraptor hoax update: National Geographicrecants!). More closely related to the moon life
claim is of course the alleged life found in the meteorite labeled ALH84001, supposedly from Mars. This has been
discredited on a number of grounds, but the media and assorted skeptics didnt give the retraction anywhere near the same
publicity. See Life on Mars? Separating fact from fiction and Mars claims weaken further.One of the many problems with the
alleged Mars life was that contamination from Earth life is almost inevitable. Supposedly this shouldnt be a problem with this
moon life because the samples have been kept in sealed containers from when they were collected on the moon to their
examination in the laboratory. But they may be underestimating the abilities of microbes to invade containers, and do we
really know how effectively sealed they were during the entire time since they returned from the moonalmost 30 years?
The origin of life from non-living chemicals (called spontaneous generation, abiogenesis or chemical evolution) is
chemically impossible for many reasons, even under the best conditions (see Q&A: Origin of Life). But the moon has
appalling conditionswaterless, airless, temperature extremes, and exposure to damaging radiation.Therefore if this report
does turn out to be genuine evidence for life on the moon, this life couldnt have begun there. Rather, it may be Earth life
that was somehow transported to the moon. After all, the ALH84001 meteorite found its way to Earth from Mars, so its
hardly impossible for things to be transported out of the Earth as well. A violent meteoritic impact could conceivably knock
material out, with a speed exceeding escape velocity. Or spores could be carried so high up that the solar wind could move
them.This is supported by the fact that the moon fossils were virtually identical to fossils of known biological species and
had an unmistakable resemblance to modern spiral filamentous microorganisms like Phormidium frigidum, found in growing
stromatolith [sic] in Shark Bay, Australia. Evolutionists frequently use common structures to prove a common ancestry
(although a common designer would explain them better), so its difficult to believe that almost identical structures evolved
independently on different places with vastly different environments.
Life on Mars?
Separating fact from fiction
by Jonathan Sarfati
If asked What was the hot media topic of 1996?, many would reply, The sensational claim that scientists have discovered
life from Mars. It certainly dominated the newspapers and television channels for some time. The news has been great
publicity for NASA, just when the US Congress was discussing funding cuts.The timing of the announcement was brilliant,
coinciding with the release of the blockbuster movie Independence Day, about an extraterrestrial invasion of Earth.The
possibility of life on Mars has fascinated many, including the wealthy American astronomer Percival Lowell, who erroneously
thought he had discovered hundreds of canals by 1908. But when the Viking spacecraft visited Mars in 1976, no trace of life
was found, despite sophisticated detection techniques.They argued that life on Mars would show that matter has an inbuilt
tendency to form life. Thus, a designer is unnecessary, and the Earth and humanity are nothing special. However, the
professing evangelical President of the USA, Bill Clinton, was very enthusiastic, saying, If this discovery is confirmed, it

would surely be one of the most

stunning insights into our universe
that science has discovered.1
What was actually found?
No-one has found life on Mars; the
announcement concerns a potatosized
rock
on
Earth
(from
Antarctica). This rock, thought to be
a meteorite, contains tiny globules
which
superficially
resemble
bacteria in shape, and certain
chemicals which supposedly came
from once-living organisms. Note
that the most which is being claimed
is evidence for fossilmicrobial life,
not little green men.
Did the rock really come from
Mars?
We do not know for sure, although
about
the
only
thing
most
researchers agree upon is that it did.
The gases trapped inside the rocks
tiny pores reportedly match today's
atmosphere on Mars (argon and
carbon dioxide). However, its
mineral composition differs from that
of the 11 other meteorites believed
to be martian, and it is reportedly
(according to evolutionary dating
methods) several billion years older
than these other 11. But it does
have the same distinctive oxygen
isotope ratio, which has supposedly
remained unchanged for billions of
years. This is evidence that they all
may have come from the same parent body, but is not conclusive. For a rock to escape Mars gravity, its speed would need
to be over five times greater than that of a rifle bullet. 2 Some scientists believe an impact from a large enough object could
cause this.
Was any life actually found?
One of Australias most ardent atheistic sceptics proclaimed Mars life as a fact, and, without the caution one would expect
from a scientist, used it as an excuse to launch another tirade against scientists who believe the universe and life were
created. But the facts do not justify his dogmatic claims.Some of the structures in the rock are unusual, and are shaped a bit
like some bacteria. But you cannot judge most things by their outward appearance. The chief researcher for one team
examining it admitted that such shapes could represent dried-up mud.A huge problem with the alleged fossil bacteria is their
tiny size many times smaller than all known free-living bacteria. 3 The Martian objects simply do not have enough room to
pack in all the information needed for a self-reproducing cell. 4 This is why William Schopf of the University of California, LA,
a leading expert on microfossils, said: I think it is very unlikely they have remnants of biological activity.Most people dont
know that another team which analysed the same rock found that it lacked a key sign of biological activity. The leader, Jim
Papike, director of the Institute of Meteoritics at the University of New Mexico, said: When we looked at the ratio [of two
types of sulphur], there was no evidence that it was in a ratio for life forms. In fact, he said that the ratio pointed in the
opposite direction.5
So why did people think life was found?
Tiny globules of minerals called carbonates, with even tinier oval and tube-shaped objects on the
surface. Limestone and marble, for example, consist mainly of carbonate minerals. However, the key paper 6 concedes that
The origin of these globules is controversial, and that they could have formed by processes unconnected with life. In
particular, there is some evidence that they were formed at a temperature far too hot for life.Molecules called
PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, many of which are strong cancer-causing agents). However, these molecules are
not always produced by living things. They are commonly found in soot and diesel exhaust. Also, 'PAHs are very widespread
compounds in asteroids and not diagnostic of life' according to Robert Clayton, a geochemist at the University of Chicago.
He also pointed out that PAHs in fossils have about a thousand times the variety of those in this rock. 7Another possibility is
that these chemicals are from Earth and contaminated the meteorite once it was here. Richard Zare, who headed the
chemistry team, tried to rule out this explanation because there are more PAHs deep inside the rock than on the surface,
whereas contaminants would tend to affect the surface more than the inside. But Robert Gregory, a geologist at Southern
Methodist University points out that water could seep into the many fissures in the rock and concentrate PAHs on the inside,
while those on the surface would be destroyed by UV light.8Certain iron compounds. The rock contains a mineral called
magnetite, also called lodestone (which was used in the first compasses), as well as another mineral similar to 'fool's gold'.
These minerals can be formed by living organisms or by processes having nothing to do with life. It is the occurrence of
these minerals together which suggests (to some) that they were formed by living cells. But the researchers haven't ruled
out all possible non-living processes.
Would life on Mars prove particles-to-people evolution?
Many sceptics have committed a logical error, because even if life were actually found on Mars, it would not prove that it had
evolved there.First, it could not rule out an Earth origin for that life. After all, if rocks can be blasted from Mars to Earth, it
should be possible to blast them the other way.9 A less dramatic possibility, which scientists have considered for years, is
that spores from Earth were pushed out of the upper atmosphere into space by light pressure, especially during a solar flare.
Therefore, the alleged Martian life could originally have been seeded by Earth life.Second, evolutionists have not succeeded
in showing how non-living matter can jump the many hurdles required to form living cells.10
Summary

The media speculations about life on Mars were premature, to say the least. Some researchers in the field believe the
evidence is actually against any life. Some have suggested that the claim is a publicity stunt by NASA to gain more
Government funding. At most, the evidence is only vaguely suggestive of microbial life. If so, there is still no reason that this
could not have had an earth origin.
Designed by aliens?
Discoverers of DNAs structure attack creationism
by Gary Bates
Francis Crick and James Watson have used the occasion of the 50th anniversary of their discovery of the DNA double helix
as an excuse to attack belief in a designer.1A recent UK news article about the Nobel-Prizewinning pair claimed scientific
discoveries have a habit of offending religious susceptibilities, and pointed out, Watson and Crick are both outspoken
atheists.1These comments attempt to reinforce the old canard that science somehow disproves creationism. However, as
creationists have long pointed out, it is not the scientific facts that are the problem; its the interpretation of those facts. This
was made abundantly clear by Cricks beliefs. Long before he ever discovered DNAs structure, he held strong atheistic
views. The news article1 even reported that Cricks distaste for religion was one of the prime motives that led to his
discovery, and also said, The antipathy to religion of the DNA pioneers is long standing. In 1961 Crick resigned as a fellow
of Churchill College, Cambridge, when it proposed to build a chapel.
DNA: really evidence for design
But what was it that Watson and Crick discovered that supposedly disproved the idea of an intelligent designer ? The DNA
molecule has often been described as the most efficient information storage system in the entire universe. The immensity of
complex, coded and precisely sequenced information written on the DNA is absolutely staggering. The evidence speaks of
intelligent, information-bearing design. Complex DNA coding would have been necessary for even the hypothetical first socalled simple cell(s). Indeed, Creation magazine also used the 50th anniversary of the double helixs discovery to publish a
detailed article on the wonders of DNA.2Even Crick himself was quoted as saying, An honest man, armed with all the
knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost
a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. 3Crick reasoned that life
could not have evolved from non-living chemicals under any conceivable earth conditions. But the idea of a designer was
unacceptable, since it would go against his atheistic faith. He affirmed this when he said, People like myself get along
perfectly well with no religious views.1
Cricks atheistic faith leads to absurd pseudoscience
Unfortunately, Crick was not being entirely forthright in this regard. He does hold a religious view. Atheism is a religion in the
sense of answering the big questions, such as Where did we come from? and What is our destiny?, and is foundationally
a belief system, since the non-existence of a designer could hardly be said to have been proven! So he must explain the
origin of DNA from his religious perspective, and, subsequently, the origin of life on earth.He does this with a theory
called panspermia. This comes from the Greek words pas/pan (all) and sperma (seed), meaning that the seeds of life are all
through the universe.Crick has refined this idea to directed panspermia. To overcome the huge hurdles of evolution of life
from non-living chemicals on earth, Crick proposed, in a book called Life Itself, that some form of primordial life was shipped
to the earth billions of years ago in spaceshipsby supposedly more evolved (therefore advanced) alien beings.4
Watson and Cricks blooper: finding out how a car works proves it had no maker?
What was a major argument by Watson and Crick that supposedly disproves the idea of an intelligent designer ? They
discovered a mechanism to copy the genetic information that functions according to the laws of chemistry, and they claim that
this disproves the need for a designer. However, this merely knocks down the straw man of the faulty belief
calledvitalism, which says that living organisms have a vital force beyond ordinary physics and chemistry.But this is not the
young age view. Scientific laws are merely our descriptions of this sustaining activity. Atheism cannot provide any logical
basis for the order in the universe that makes science even possible.Watson and Cricks antitheistic argument is particularly
inept, as we can easily see by considering a car. We have no dispute that it works by the laws of physics and chemistry
without any miniature intelligent beings controlling the various parts. But this would not show that the laws of physics and
chemistry created the car in the first place! Rather, we know that an intelligent designer organized the components in the right
way, so they would run by these laws. 2
Although he tried to solve the problem of the source of intelligence for the creation of DNA without a designer, Crick only
succeeded in pushing the problem into outer space where, of course, it cannot be tested. After all, if such alleged aliens, in
turn, were not created by a greater intelligence than themselves, then how did they evolve from non-living chemicals in the
first place? Moreover, how could these benevolent extraterrestrials presume to know what the outcome of evolution would
be, with its undirected processes of time and chance? Another insurmountable problem for Crick is that evolution is
supposed to have been occurring for the last 3.5 billion years. How could any intelligent race plan for, and expect to be
around to see the results, some billions of years later?Crick later acknowledged the mounting problems and futility of his
ideas when he was reported as saying, Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I swear I will never write another one,
because there is too much speculation running after too few facts . 3After all of these speculations, have Crick or Watson
reconciled the evidence of intelligent design ?Absolutely not! Watson still maintains that religious explanations are myths
from the past.1Lifes enormous complexity in miniature is a serious objection to atheistic evolutionary theory. Evolutionists
cannot account for the origin of the first cell(s), and there are further problems with the increasing complexity and new
information that is required to produce higher, or more evolved, life-forms.Even the non-creationist molecular biologist,
Michael Denton, says, in his best-selling book Evolution a Theory in Crisis, Nothing illustrates clearly just how intractable a
problem the origin of life has become than the fact that world authorities can seriously toy with the idea of
panspermia.3Everywhere we look, life possesses the hallmark of the design and purposes of its designer. Unfortunately for
some, they are so blinded by their worldview that they are incapable, or unwilling, to consider the most obvious and sensible
explanation.
COULD DNA AND THE GENETIC CODE EVOLVE BY CHANCE?
DNA: marvellous messages or mostly mess?
by Jonathan Sarfati
2003 is the 50th anniversary of the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA. Its discoverers, James Watson, Francis
Crick and Maurice Wilkins, won the Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine in 1962 for their discovery. [2011 update: this
online version has been updated with animations and links to further amazing discoveries about the multiple codes in DNA.]

The unity of life

The amazing design and complexity of living things provides
Many evolutionists claim that the DNA code is
strong evidence for a designer. So how do complex living
universal, and that this is proof of a common
creatures arise today?
ancestor. But this is falsethere are exceptions,
Information technology
some known since the 1970s. An example is
One aspect of this sustenance is that the recipe for all these
Paramecium, where a few of the 64 (4 or 4x4x4)
structures on the famous double-helix molecule DNA was
possible codons code for different amino acids.
1
programed . This recipe has an enormous information content,
More examples are being found constantly.1 Also,
which is transmitted one generation to the next, so that living
some organisms code for one or two extra amino
things reproduce after their kinds .Leading atheistic evolutionist
acids beyond the main 20 types. 2 But if one
Richard Dawkins admits:[T]here is enough information capacity
organism evolved into another with a different
in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all
code, all the messages already encoded would be
2
30 volumes of it, three or four times over. Just as
scrambled, just as written messages would be
the Britannica had intelligent writers to produce its information, so
jumbled if typewriter keys were switched. This is a
it is reasonable and even scientific to believe that the information
huge problem for the evolution of one code into
in
the
living
world
likewise
had
an
original
another.Also, in our cells we have power plants
3
compositor/sender. There is no known non-intelligent cause that
called mitochondria, with their own genes. It turns
has ever been observed to generate even a small portion of the
out that they have a slightly different genetic code,
4
literally encyclopedic information required for life. The genetic
too.
code (see The programs of life below) is not an outcome of raw
Certainly most of the code is universal, but this is
chemistry, but of elaborate decoding machinery in the ribosome.
best explained by common designone designer.
Remarkably, this decoding machinery is itself encoded in the
Of all the millions of genetic codes possible, ours,
DNA, and the noted philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper
or something almost like it, is optimal for protecting
pointed out:Thus the code can not be translated except by using
against errors.3 But the created exceptions thwart
certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling
attempts to explain the organisms by commoncircle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a
ancestry evolution.
5,6
model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.
References and notes
So, such a system must be fully in place before it could work at
The genetic codes, National Institutes of Health,
all, a property called irreducible complexity. This means that it is
29 August 2002.
impossible to be built by natural selection working on small
Certain Archaea and eubacteria code for 21st or
changes.
22nd amino acids, selenocysteine and pyrrolysine
DNA is by far the most compact information storage system in the
see Atkins, J.F. and Gesteland, R., The
universe. Even the simplest known living organism has 482
22nd amino acid, Science296(5572):140910, 24
7
protein-coding genes. This is a total of 580,000 letters,
May 2002; commentary on technical papers on pp.
humans have three billion in every nucleus. (See The programs
145962 and 146266.
of life, for an explanation of the DNA letters.)The amount of
Knight,
J.,
Top
translator, New
information that could be stored in a pinheads volume of DNA is
Scientist158(2130):15, 18 April 1998. Natural
equivalent to a pile of paperback books 500 times as high as the
selection cannot explain this code optimality, since
distance from Earth to the moon, each with a different, yet
there is no way to replace the first functional code
specific content.8 Putting it another way, while we think that our
with a better one without destroying functionality.
new 40 gigabyte hard drives are advanced technology, a pinhead
of DNA could hold 100 million times more information.The letters
of DNA have another vital property due to their structure, which allows information to be transmitted: A pairs only with T, and
C only with G, due to the chemical structures of the basesthe pair is like a rung or step on a spiral staircase. This means
that the two strands of the double helix can be separated, and new strands can be formed that copy the information exactly.
The new strand carries the same information as the old one, but instead of being like a photocopy, it is in a sense like a
photographic negative. The copying is far more precise than pure chemistry could manageonly about 1 mistake in 10
billion copyings, because there is editing (proof-reading and error-checking) machinery, again encoded in the DNA. But how
would the information for editing machinery be transmitted accurately before the machinery was in place? Lest it be argued
that the accuracy could be achieved stepwise through selection, note that a high degree of accuracy is needed to prevent
error catastrophethe accumulation of noise in the form of junk proteins. Again there is a vicious circle (more irreducible
complexity).Also, even the choice of the letters A, T, G and C now seems to be based on minimizing error. Evolutionists
usually suppose that these letters happened to be the ones in the alleged primordial soup, but research shows that C
(cytosine) is extremely unlikely to have been present in any such soup. 9 Rather, Dnall Mac Dnaill of Trinity College
Dublin suggests that the letter choice is like the advanced error-checking systems that are incorporated into ISBNs on
books, credit card numbers, bank accounts and airline tickets. Any alternatives would suffer error catastrophe.10
Introns
DNA is not read directly, but first the cell makes a negative copy in a very similar molecule called RNA, 11 a process
called transcription. But in all organisms other than most bacteria, there is more to transcription. This RNA, reflecting the
DNA, contains regions called exons that code for proteins, and non-coding regions called introns. So the introns are
removed and the exons are spliced together to form the mRNA (messenger RNA) that is finally decoded to form the
protein. This also requires elaborate machinery called a spliceosome. This is assembled on the intron, chops it out at the
right place and joins the exons together (see also this animation of the spliceosome machinery). This must be in the right
direction and place, because, as shown above, it makes a huge difference if the exon is joined even one letter off. Thus,
partly formed splicing machinery would be harmful, so natural selection would work against it. Richard Roberts and Phillip
Sharp won the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine for discovering introns in 1977. It turns out that 9798% of the
genome may be introns and other non-coding sequences, but this raises the question of why introns exist at all. [ Update,
2011: now we know there is a splicing code; see related articles below.]
Junk DNA?

Dawkins and others have claimed that this

non-coding DNA is junk, or selfish DNA.
Supposedly, no intelligent designer would use
such an inefficient system, therefore it must
have evolved, they argue. This parallels the
19th century claim that about a hundred
vestigial organs exist in the human
body,12 i.e. allegedly useless remnants of our
evolutionary history.13 But more enlightened
evolutionists such as Scadding pointed out
that the argument is logically invalid, because
it is impossible in principle to prove that an
organ has no function; rather, it could have a
function we dont know about. Scadding also
reminds us that as our knowledge has
increased the list of vestigial structures has
decreased.14,15,16While Dawkins has often
claimed that belief in a designer is a cop-out,
its claims of vestigial or junk status that are
actually cop-outs. Such claims hindered
research into the vital function of allegedly
vestigial organs, and they do the same with
non-coding DNA.Actually, even if evolution
were true, the notion that the introns are useless is absurd. Why would more complex organisms evolve such elaborate
machinery to splice them? Rather, natural selection would favour organisms that did not have to waste resources processing
a genome filled with 98% junk. And there have been many uses discovered for so-called junk DNA, such as the overall
genome structure and regulation of genes. Some creationists believe that this DNA has a role in rapid post-Flood
diversification of the kinds on board the Ark.17Some non-coding RNAs called microRNAs (miRNAs) seem to regulate the
production of proteins coded in other genes, and seem to be almost identical in humans, mice and zebrafish. The recent
sequencing of the mouse genome18surprised researchers and led to headlines such as Junk DNA Contains Essential
Information.19 They found that 5% of the genome was basically identical but only 2% of that was actual genes. So they
reasoned that the other 3% must also be identical for a reason. The researchers believe the 3% probably has a crucial role
in determining the behaviour of the actual genes, e.g. the order in which they are switched on. 20Also, damage to introns can
be disastrousin one example, deleting four letters in the centre
of an intron prevented the spliceosome from binding to it,
resulting in the intron being included.21 Mutations in introns also
More than just a super hard drive
interfere with imprinting, the process by which only certain genes
Actually, DNA is far more complicated than simply
from the mother or father are expressed, not both. Expression of
coding for proteins, as we are discovering all the
both genes results in a variety of diseases and cancers.22Another
time.1 For example, because the DNA letters are
intriguing discovery is that DNA can conduct electrical signals as
read in groups of three, it makes a huge difference
far as 60 letters, enough to code for 20 amino acids. This is a
which letter we start from. E.g. the sequence
typical length for molecular switches that turn on adjoining genes.
GTTCAACGCTGAA can be read from the first
Theoretically, the electrical signals could travel indefinitely.
letter, GTT CAA CGC TGA A but a totally
However, single or multiple pairings between A and T stop the
different protein will result from starting from the
signals; that is, they are insulators or electronic hinges in a
second letter, TTC AAC GCT GAA
circuit. So, although these particular regions dont code for
This means that DNA can be an even more
proteins, they may protect essential genes from electrical
compact information storage system. This partly
damage from free radicals attacking a distant part of the DNA.23
explains the surprising finding of The Human
So times have changedAlexander Httenhofer of the University
Genome Project that there are only about 35,000
of Mnster, Germany, says:
genes, when humans can manufacture over
Five or six years ago, people said we were wasting our time.
100,000 proteins.
Today, no one regards people studying non-coding RNA as timeReference
wasters.24
Batten, D., Discoveries that undermine the one
Advanced operating system?
geneone protein idea,Creation 24(4):13, 2002.
Dr John Mattick of the University of Queensland in Brisbane,
Australia, has published a number of papers arguing that the
non-coding DNA regions, or rather their non-coding RNA negatives, are important components of a complicated genetic
network.25,26 These interact with each other, the DNA, mRNA and the proteins. Mattick proposes that the introns function
as nodes, linking points in the network. The introns provide many extra connections, enabling what in computer terminology
would be called multi-tasking and parallel processing.In organisms, this network could control the order in which genes are
switched on and off. This means that a tremendous variety of multicellular life could be produced by rewiring the network. In
contrast, early computers were like simple organisms, very cleverly designed [sic], but programmed for one task at a
time.27 The older computers were very inflexible, requiring a complete redesign of the network to change anything. Likewise,
single-celled organisms such as bacteria can also afford to be inflexible, because they dont have to develop as many-celled
creatures do.
Evolutionary interpretation
Mattick suggests that this new system somehow evolved (despite the irreducible complexity) and in turn enabled the
evolution of many complex living things from simple organisms. However, the same evidence is better interpreted from a
young age framework. This system can indeed enable multicellular organisms to develop from a simple cellbut this is the
fertilized egg. This makes more sense; the fertilized egg has all the programming in place for all the information for a
complex life-form to develop from an embryo.It is also an example of good design economy pointing to a single designer as
opposed to many. In contrast, the first simple cell to allegedly evolve the complex splicing machinery would have no introns
needing splicing.But Mattick may be partly right about diversification of life. Creationists also believe that life diversified
after the Flood. However, this diversification involved no new information. Some creationists have proposed that certain
parts of currently non-coding DNA could have enabled faster diversification, 28 and Matticks theory could provide still another
mechanism.
Hindering science

The circle of life

A severe critic of Matticks theory, Jean-Michel Claverie of CNRS,
All living things have encyclopedic information
the national research institute in Marseilles, France, said
content, a recipe for all their complex machinery
something very revealing:
and structures.This is stored and transmitted to
I dont think much of this work. In general, all these global ideas
the next generation as a message on DNA
dont travel very far because they fail to take into account the
letters, but the message is in the arrangement,
most basic principle of biology: things arose by the additive
not the letters themselves.The message requires
addition of evolution of tiny subsystems, not by global design. It is
decoding and transmission machinery, which itself
perfectly possible that one intron in one given gene might have
is part of the stored message.The choices of the
evolvedby chancesome regulatory property. It is utterly
code and even the letters are optimal.Therefore,
improbable that all genes might have acquired introns for the
the genetic coding system is an example of
future property of regulating expression.
irreducible complexity.
Two points to note:
This agrees that if the intron system really is an advanced
operating system, it really would be irreducibly complex, because evolution could not build it stepwise.It illustrates the role of
materialistic assumptions behind evolution. Usually, atheists such as Dawkins use evolution as proof for their faith; in
reality, evolution is deduced from their assumption of materialism! E.g. Richard Lewontin wrote, we have a prior
commitment, a commitment to materialism. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in
the door.29 Scott Todd said, Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science
because it is not naturalistic.30Similarly, while many use junk DNA as proof of evolution, Claverie is using the assumption
of evolution as proof of its junkiness! This is again a parallel with vestigial organs. In reality, evolution was used as a proof
of their vestigiality, and hindered research into their function. Claveries attitude could likewise hinder research into the
networking capacity of non-coding DNA.
Summary
Junk DNA (or, rather, DNA that doesnt directly code for proteins) is not evidence for evolution. Rather, its alleged junkiness
is a deduction from the false assumption of evolution.Just because no function is known, it doesnt mean there is no
function.Many uses have been found for this non-coding DNA.There is good evidence that it has an essential role as part of
an elaborate genetic network. This could have a crucial role in the development of many-celled creatures from a single
fertilized egg, and also in the post-Flood diversification (e.g. a canine kind giving rise to dingoes, wolves, coyotes etc.).
The programs of life
Information is a measure of the complexity of the arrangement
of parts of a storage medium, and doesnt depend on what
parts are arranged. For instance, the printed page stores
information via the 26 letters of the alphabet, which are
arrangements of ink molecules on paper. But the information is
not contained in the letters themselves. Even a translation into
another language, even those with a different alphabet, need
not change the information, but simply the way it is presented.
However, a computer hard drive stores information in a totally
different wayan array of magnetic on or off patterns in a
ferrimagnetic disk, and again the information is in the patterns,
the arrangement, not the magnetic substance. Totally different
media can carry exactly the same information. An example is
this article youre readingthe information is exactly the same
as that on my computers hard drive, but my hard drive looks
vastly different from this page. In DNA, the information is stored
as sequences of four types of DNA bases, A,C,G and T. In one
sense, these could be called chemical letters because they
store information an analogous way to printed letters. 1 There are huge problems for evolutionists explaining how the letters
alone could come from a primordial soup.2 But even if this was solved, it would be as meaningless as getting a bowl of
alphabet soup.The letters must then link together, in the face of chemistry trying to break them apart. 3 Most importantly, the
letters must be arranged correctly to have any meaning for life.A group (codon) of 3 DNA letters codes for one protein letter
called an amino acid, and the conversion is called translation. Since even one mistake in a protein can be catastrophic, its
important to decode correctly. Think again about a written languageit is only useful if the reader is familiar with the
language. For example, a reader must know that the letter sequence c-a-t codes for a furry pet with retractable claws. But
consider the sequence g-i-f-tin English, it means a present; but in German, it means poison. Understandably, during the
postSeptember-11 anthrax scare, some German postal workers were very reluctant to handle packages marked Gift. Return
to main text.

Decoding and editing designs: double-sieve enzymes

by Jonathan Sarfati
All living organisms contain literally encyclopedic quantities of complex, specific information. To store this information, living
things have by far the most compact information storage/retrieval system known: the nucleic acid/protein system. The
master blueprint or recipe is coded on enormous molecules of DNA (deoxyribonucleicacid).1 A codon, or sequence of three
of the four types of DNA letters (nucleotides), codes for one of the 20 types of protein letters (amino acids). A gene is
defined as a sequence of nucleotides coding for a single protein, or a subunit of a multicomponent protein. Even the
smallest known genome of any free-living organism, Mycoplasma genitalium, contains 482 genes comprising 580,000
nucleotides.2The decoding (translation) requires many components, including complex editing machinery to correct errors.
But the famous philosopher of science, Sir Karl Popper (19021994), pointed out:the machinery by which the cell (at least
the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular
components which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain
products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model
or theory of the genesis of the genetic code. 3The obvious conclusion is that the decoding must have been functional from
the beginning, otherwise life could not exist.
Decoding molecules

One of the many types of molecules needed are the transfer ribonucleic acid (tRNA) molecules. These are the molecules
which link the right amino acid with the right codon. They comprise about 80 nucleotide letters, three of which are called
the anticodon. The anticodon links to the corresponding codon on the messenger RNA (mRNA), which in turn has relayed
the correct code from the DNA. Thus the tRNAs can transfer the right amino acids to the right place in the growing peptide
chain, as coded in the mRNA.4 Also, the amino acid is bonded to the tRNA in such a way as to be activated, i.e. to have a
high chemical potentialthis is necessary so it will form a peptide bond to the adjacent amino acid in the polypeptide. Free
amino acids have almost no tendency to form polypeptides by themselves; rather, the tendency is for the reverse to
happen.5There are also enormous chemical hurdles for any evolutionary explanation of the origin of nucleic acids from a
hypothetical primordial soup.6,7 And even if we granted that RNA could form spontaneously, there is a huge hurdle in linking
the right amino acid to the right anticodon by naturalistic means. If the links are not correct, the entire decoding machinery
would decode the wrong message, or no message at all, meaning that the organism could not manufacture vital enzymes.
However, there is no chemical reason for any particular anticodon to link to any particular amino acid. In fact, they are at the
opposite ends of the tRNAs, precluding any chemical interaction. Again, they must have been fully functional from the
beginning.
Synthesizing the tRNAs
Living organisms do not, and could not, rely on random chemistry to synthesize the tRNAs. Rather, the right amino acid is
activated and linked in two steps to the right tRNA by aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases (aaRSs). 8 First, chemical energy is
supplied by adenosine triphosphate (ATP), which was formed elsewhere by ATP synthase, an enzyme containing a
miniature rotary motor, F1-ATPase.9,10,11,12 ATP reacts with the amino acid to form a mixed carboxylic-phosphoric
anhydride.13 Secondly, the aminoacyl group forms an ester with the 3-hydroxyl of the ribose in the terminal adenosine of the
tRNA.8,13
Editingdouble sieve enzymes
However, these steps are not enough to ensure the required high decoding fidelity (error rates of 1/2400 to 1/40,000). The
aaRSs also edit the final products to make sure that the right amino acid is linked to the right tRNA. One difficulty is
discriminating between chemically similar amino acids. In particular, L-valine (Val) and L-isoleucine (Ile) differ by only one
methylene (CH2) group. Double Nobel laureate Linus Pauling (19011994), calculated that since the CH 2 group has a
hydrophobic binding energy of only about 4 kJ/mol, the error rate for replacing Ile with Val would be about one in five. 14 So it
is thermodynamically impossible for ordinary one-step recognition to achieve the error rate of 1/3,000 observed in isoleucyltRNA synthetase (IleRS).15,16,17,18However, an error substituting Ile for Val can be biologically harmful or even catastrophic.
Even a single IleVal mutation in the core of ribonuclease T 1 reduces its stability because of a loss of favorable packing
interactions of the side chain in the folded form of the protein.19Such a mutation in the hydrophobic core of chymotrypsin
inhibitor 2 changes the free energy of unfolding (DDGUF) by 5.0 0.4 kJ/mol on average.20 And a single IleVal mutation in
the interior of human lysozyme results in less resistance
to denaturation ((DDG from -1.5 -5.0 kJ/mol). 21 This
mutation also increases susceptibility to lung
cancer22 and affects Human Immunodeficiency Virus1
drug resistance.23Another problem cited by Pauling is
that while an enzymes binding site can easily exclude
molecules that are larger by steric hindrance, how can it
exclude molecules that are smaller?14,15Alan Fersht first
proposed a solution in 1977: a double-sieve editing
mechanism.24 A coarse sieve would exclude larger amino
acids from being activated, but allow the right amino
acid and the smaller ones to be activated. Then a fine
sieve would hydrolyse the products of the smaller amino
acids (see diagram below).
In 1998, Nureki et al. demonstrated this double-sieve
mechanism in IleRS. They used X-ray diffraction (XRD)
techniques to solve the crystal structure of Thermus
thermophilus IleRS, as well as its complexes with Ile and
Val. IleRS is a huge L-shaped molecule measuring about
100 x 80 x 45 , and belongs to the space
Firgure 1: The double-sieve mechanism for the isoleucylgroupC2.8IleRS contains a characteristic nucleotide
tRNA synthetase. Hydrolytic editing reduces the error rate
binding fold, the Rossmann fold, in the centre. The
for the misactivation of valine from an expected value
coarse sieve is a cleft in the Rossmann fold with two
15
characteristic four-amino-acid sequences that bind ATP. between 1 in 10 and 1 in 100 to 1 in 40,000 (after Ferscht ).
The cleft also binds L-Ile at the bottom its hydrocarbon
groups and the NH3+ and COO groups are recognized
by strategically placed amino acid residues of the enzyme. This site is able to exclude larger amino acids by steric
hindrance, including L-leucine, although this differs from Ile only in the placement of the methyl group on the side chain. This
contrasts with ordinary laboratory organic chemistry, where Leucine and isoleucine are particularly difficult to
separate.25The fine sieve is another part of the Rossmann fold, the Ins-2 structural domain, which contains another deep
cleft. XRD detected Val in this cleft in the L-valine-IleRS complex, but never any Ile in the L-isoleucine-IleRS complex the
cleft is simply too small. The incorrect Val products are hydrolysed here, but the correct Ile products are protected.
Nureki et al. demonstrated this by constructing a mutant IleRS which lacked 47 amino acid residues including a tryptophan
(Trp232) of the L-valine-specific pocket.8 This completely destroyed the editing ability. In another experiment, Nureki et al.
mutated just two amino acids (replacing Thr 243 and Asn250 with alanine) of E. coli IleRS, which again completely destroyed
the editing ability. Previous work had shown that even a single mutation (replacing Tyr 403 with Phe) greatly reduces the
editing ability of E. coli IleRS.26Other aaRSs also have editing activity, including ValRS, which deacylates errant threonine
products.27
Evolutionary bias
Unfortunately, the brilliant paper of Nureki et al.8 was spoiled when the authors went with the common secular flow, and
genuflected to the idol of todaythe Unholy Trinity of Time, Chance and Natural Selection. They wrote: it is interesting
from an evolutionary viewpoint that all of the enzymes catalyzing the central steps of Ile-Val biosynthesis and metabolism do
not distinguish, or can neglect the difference, between the two aliphatic amino acids, as was observed for the first catalytic
site of IleRS. This finding implies that a putative ancestral enzyme of IleRS and ValRS might have actually had a similar dual
specificity for L-isoleucine and L-valine in a primordial genetic code system.28Of course, a good designer will often use

similar machinery to make similar products, 29 and it makes sense especially with the extremely close chemical similarity of
Ile and Val.25 And their statement is merely just-so story telling, lacking even the slightest evidence. It is no substitute for
explaining exactly how such an editing site could evolve by natural selection. This site requires many amino acids in precise
sequences before it could work at all, thus exhibiting a hallmark of designwhat biochemist Michael Behe, in his
book Darwins Black Box, termedirreducible complexity.30 The problem is especially acute in this casesince natural
selection equals differential reproduction, if there is poor editing, then accurate reproduction of successful traits is
impossible. Error catastrophe is more likely.29,31, 32
Mans achievements vs amazing living computer technology
by Carl Wieland
Sometimes a comparison helps us grasp the fantastic design in miniature in the living world.
Lets start by looking at an outstanding achievement of mans technology, the silicon chip
shown here in the photo (right).This chip is undoubtedly a brilliant feat of miniaturization. It
requires enormous amounts of skill and ingenuity to
have so much information processing capacity in an
object small enough for an ant to hold in its jaws!But
before we get too carried away, lets scale down to
something even smaller than the ant itself, the
common dust mitesmaller than a pin-head.Even
smaller, E.coli bacteria can be clustered on the surface
of a pin point. We have now scaled down to a level
which is dramatically smaller than the silicon chip, and
what we are looking at is these amazing biological
machines. Each one of these bacteria is a single cell
with capabilities which outstrip anything our technology
has been able to put together. Among its many
astonishing features is the ability to make a complete
copy of itself in only a few minutes!The image to the left is a close-up view, going even further down in size, of these E.
coli bacteria. Weve now left the silicon chip far, far behind in miniaturization. Within each of these bacterial cells is their
most high-tech feature, namely their central command modulethe amazingly designed DNA molecule, with its incredible
capacity to store information.To the right is a stylized reconstruction of a small portion of the strand of DNA, magnified still
further. Each strand is so thin that if you drew out a pinhead with a 2mm diameter till it was a wire as thin as DNA, the wire
would
be
long
enough
to
go
around
the
equator
33
times! 1
This fantastic molecule is so way, way beyond the capacity of even our most advanced information storage systems as to
almost defy our capacity to describe it. It represents the highest storage density of anything on Earth, i.e. the highest amount
of information which can be packed into a given space.
To help understand this, note that the amount of information in one strand2 of human
DNA is the same as that in 1,000 books of small print, each around 500 pages thick.
Now imagine the total information carried in every human being on Earththat of
one human multiplied five or six thousand million times. If all that information were
stored on DNA and packed into one volume, it would be no bigger than a couple of
aspirin tablets!3

New DNA repair enzyme discovered

Figure 1: Bacillus cereus alkylpurine DNA glycosylase alkD bound to
DNA containing a G-T mismatch.
(www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Structure/mmdb/mmdbsrv.cgi?uid=84991)
by Jonathan Sarfati
Published: 13 January 2010(GMT+10)
Our information is stored on the famous DNA double helix molecule.
This is so efficient that just five round pinheads full of DNA could hold all
the information of the earths entire human population. 1 Just one of
these pinheads would have 2 million times the information content of a 2
TB hard drive. And each of our 100 trillion cells has 3 billion DNA letters
(callednucleobases) worth of information.2But chemically, DNA is
actually a very reactive molecule (and RNA is even more so), so its
highly implausible that it could have arisen in a hypothetical primordial
soup.3 Indeed, about a million DNA letters4 are damaged in a cell on a
good day. One common form of DNA damage is called alkylationthis
means a small hydrocarbon group is attached to one of the letters, and
there are many places for the attachment. This changes the shape
enough so it can no longer fit into the double helix. This can prevent
DNA replication or reading the gene.So living creatures must have
elaborate DNA repair machinery. University of Chicago biologist James
Shapiro points out that:all cells from bacteria to man possess a truly

astonishing array of repair systems which serve to remove accidental and stochastic sources of mutation. Multiple levels of
proofreading mechanisms recognize and remove errors that inevitably occur during DNA replication. cells protect
themselves against precisely the kinds of accidental genetic change that, according to conventional theory, are the sources
of evolutionary variability. By virtue of their proofreading and repair systems, living cells are not passive victims of the
random forces of chemistry and physics. They devote large resources to suppressing random genetic variation and have the
capacity to set the level of background localized mutability by adjusting the activity of their repair systems. 5For example,
there is base excision repair: special enzymes called DNA glycosylases run down the DNA molecule, detect the damaged
letter, grab it, put it in a specially shaped pocket, then chop it out. Then other enzymes repair the resulting gap.Scientists at
North American universities have discovered another ingenious repair enzyme in bacteria, called AlkD. 6 This has a very
different structure. It works by flipping a positively charged damaged basehighly unstableand the one its paired with,
from the inside to the outside of the helix. Then they are both detached, and the gap filled. Understanding these enzymes
could lead to more effective chemotherapy.Evolution has a major problem in explaining repair machinery. Natural selection
requires that the information selected for can be reproduced accurately. But without an already functioning repair
mechanism, the information would be degraded quickly. Furthermore, the instructions to build this repair machinery is
encoded on the very molecule it repairs, another vicious circle for evolution. 7There is seemingly no end to the machinery
required even for the first simple cell to evolve. See the related articles as well as following clips from our YouTube
channel, CreationClips:
Dazzling design in miniature: DNA information storage
by Werner Gitt
The cells of the human body can produce at least 100,000 different types of proteins, all with a unique function. The
information to make each of these complicated molecular machines is stored on the well-known molecule, DNA.We think
that we have done very well with human technology, packing information very densely on to computer hard drives, chips and
CD-ROM disks. However, these all store information on the surface, whereas DNA stores it in three dimensions. It is by far
the densest information storage mechanism known in the universe.Lets look at the amount of information that could be
contained in a pinhead volume of DNA. If all this information were written into paperback books, it would make a pile of such
books 500 times higher than from here to the moon! The design of such an incredible system of information storage
indicates a vastly intelligent Designer.In addition, there is the information itself, which is stored on DNA, and transmitted from
generation to generation of living things. There are no laws of science that support the idea that life, with all its information,
could have come from non-living chemicals. On the contrary, we know from the laws of science, particularly in my own area
of expertise, that messages (such as those that we find in all living things) always point back to an intelligent message
sender. When we look at living things in the light of DNA, Genesis creation makes real sense of the scientific evidence.
Addendum to Creation magazine article: calculations by Dr Gitt
The greatest known density of information is that in the DNA of living cells. The diameter of this chemical storage medium is
d = 2 nm, and the spiral increment of the helix is 3.4 nm (1 nm = 10-9 m = 10-6 mm). The volume of this cylinder is:
V = h d 4
= 3.4 10-6 mm (2 10-6 mm) 4 = 1.06810-19 mm per winding.
There are 10 chemical letters (nucleotides) in each winding of the double spiral (= 0.34 10-9 mletter), giving a statistical
information density of:
r = 10 letters ( 1.06810-19 mm) = 0.94 1018 letters per mm.
This packing density is so inconceivably great that we need illustrative comparisons.
First: What is the amount of information contained in a pinhead of DNA? How many paperback books can be stored in this
volume?
Example: The paperback Did God Use Evolution? has the following data:
Thickness = 12 mm, 160 pages, LB = 250,000 letters/book
Volume of a pinhead of 2 mm diameter (r = 1 mm):
VP = 43 r = 4.19 mm
How many letters can be stored in the volume of 1 pinhead?
LP = VP r = 4.19 mm (0.94 1018 letters/mm) = 3.94 1018 letters
How many books can be stored in the volume of 1 pinhead?
n = LPLB = 3.94 1018 letters (250,000 lettersbook) = 15.76 1012 books
What is the height of the pile of books?
h = 15.76 1012 books (12 mmbook) = 189.1 1012 mm = 189.1 106 km
How many times the distance to the moon is this?
Distance to the moon M = 384,000 km
m = h/M = 189.1 106 km 384,000 km = 492.5 times
[Update, 2 September 2010: how many 2 TB hard drives can be stored in the volume of 1 pinhead?
This is simply a division of the information capacity of the pinhead of DNA and that of the hard drive:
(3.94 1018) (2 1012)
2 million]
Secondly: The human genome has 3 109 letters (nucleotides). In body cells there are 6 109 letters.
The length of the genome LG is given by
LG = (0.34 10-9 m/letter) 3 109 letters = 1.02 m
The volume of the human genome is
VG = LGr = 3 109 letters (0.94 1018 letters/mm) = 3.19 10-9 mm
Volume of a pinhead of 2 mm diameter: V = 43 r = 4.19 mm
How many human genomes could be contained in 1 pinhead?
k = 4.19 mm (3.19 10-9 mm) = 1.313 109 times
These are the genomes of more than thousand million people or one fifth of the population of the world.
Thirdly: A huge storage density is achieved, manifold greater than can be attained by the modern computers. To grasp the
storage density of this material, we can imagine taking the material from the head of a pin with a diameter of 2 mm and
stretching it out into a wire, which has the same diameter as a DNA molecule. How long would this wire be?
Diameter of the DNA molecule d = 2 nm = 2 10-6 mm (radius r = 10-6 mm)
Cross-section A of the DNA molecule:
A = r p = (1 nm) p = (10-6 mm) p = 3.14 10-12 mm
Length of the wire LW = Volume of the pinhead VP / Cross-section A

LW = VP/A = 4.19 mm / (3.14 10-12 mm) = 1.33 1012 mm = 1.33 106 km

Length of the equator = 40,000 km
k = 1.334 106 km/ 40,000 km = 33.3 times
If we are stretching out the material of a pinhead into a wire with the same thin diameter as a DNA molecule it would have a
length more than 30 times around the equator.
These comparisons illustrate in a breath-taking way the brilliant storage concepts we are dealing with here, as well as the
economic use of material and miniaturisation. The highest known (statistical) information density is obtained in living cells,
exceeding by far the best achievements of highly integrated storage densities in computer systems.
What is irreducible complexity and how does it pose a problem for evolution?
Refuting Evolution 2Chapter 10
A sequel to Refuting Evolution that refutes the latest arguments to support evolution (as presented by PBS and Scientific
American).
by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. with Michael Matthews
Argument: Irreducible complexity
Evolutionists say, Examples of supposed irreducible complexity (such as the eye, the complex cell and the
flagellum) can be explained.
First published in Refuting Evolution 2, Chapter 10
This chapter will examine how evolutionists respond to the irreducible complexity argument in three areas: the eye, the
complex cell and the flagellum. Scientific American states the problem this way:
14. Living things have fantastically intricate featuresat the anatomical, cellular and molecular level that could
not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the
products of intelligent design, not evolution.
This argument from design is the backbone of most recent attacks on evolution, but it is also one of the oldest. In 1802,
theologian William Paley wrote that if one finds a pocket watch in a field, the most reasonable conclusion is that someone
dropped it, not that natural forces created it there. By analogy, Paley argued, the complex structures of living things must be
the handiwork of direct, divine invention. Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species as an answer to Paley: he explained how
natural forces of selection, acting on inherited features, could gradually shape the evolution of ornate organic structures.
[SA 83]
Indeed, Gould, who was an expert on the history of evolution, agreed that Darwin was writing to counter Paley. This is
another way of saying that he had an anti-theistic agenda, 1 as discussed inchapter 2. This doesnt stop many churchian
academics kowtowing to every pronouncement made by Darwin and his god-hating successors, who in return regard them
as contemptuously as Lenin regarded his useful idiot allies in the West.2
Could the eye have evolved?
Its interesting to note that the eye, which evolutionists claim is an example of bad design leftover from evolution ( previous
chapter), presents their greatest challenge as an example of superb irreducible complexity. Scientific
American says:Generations of creationists have tried to counter Darwin by citing the example of the eye as a structure that
could not have evolved. The eyes ability to provide vision depends on the perfect arrangement of its parts, these critics say.
Natural selection could thus never favor the transitional forms needed during the eyes evolutionwhat good is half an eye?
Anticipating this criticism, Darwin suggested that even incomplete eyes might confer benefits (such as helping creatures
orient toward light) and thereby survive for further evolutionary refinement. [SA 83]First, this overlooks the incredible
complexity of even the simplest light-sensitive spot. Second, its fallacious to argue that 51 percent vision would necessarily
have a strong enough selective advantage over 50 percent to overcome the effects of genetic drifts tendency to eliminate
even beneficial mutations.3Biology has vindicated Darwin: researchers have identified primitive eyes and light-sensing
organs throughout the animal kingdom and have even tracked the evolutionary history of eyes through comparative
genetics. (It now appears that in various families of organisms, eyes have evolved independently.) [SA 83]Scientific
American contradicts itself here. If the evolutionary history of eyes has been tracked through comparative genetics, how is it
that eyes have supposedly evolved independently? Actually, evolutionists recognize that eyes must have arisen
independently at least 30 times because there is no evolutionary pattern to explain the origin of eyes from a common
ancestor. What this really means is that since eyes cannot be related by common ancestor, and since they are here, and
only materialistic explanations are allowed, hey presto, theres proof that they evolved independently!
Simulation of eye evolution
PBS 1 goes to great lengths to convince us that the eye could easily have evolved. Dan Nilsson explained a simplistic
computer simulation he published in a widely publicized paper.4 Taking his cue from Darwin, who started with a lightsensitive spot when explaining the origin of the eye, Nilssons simulation starts with a light-sensitive layer, with a
transparent coating in front and a light-absorbing layer behind.Here is how the simulation proceeds. Firstly, the lightsensitive layer bends gradually into a cup, so it can tell the direction of light rays increasingly well. This continues until it is
curved into a hemisphere filled with the transparent substance. Secondly, bringing the ends together, closing the aperture,
gradually increases the sharpness of the image, as a pinhole camera does, because a smaller hole cuts out light. But
because of the diffraction of light if the hole is too small, there is a limit to this process. So thirdly, the shape and refractive
index gradient of the transparent cover change gradually to a finely focusing lens. Even if we were generous and presumed
that such computer simulations really have anything to do with the real world of biochemistry, there are more serious
problems.However, the biochemist Michael Behe has shown that even a simple light-sensitive spot requires a dazzling
array of biochemicals in the right place and time to function. He states that each of its cells makes the complexity of a
motorcycle or television set look paltry in comparison and describes a small part of whats involved: 5When light first strikes
the retina a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. (A
picosecond [10-12 sec] is about the time it takes light to travel the breadth of a single human hair.) The change in the shape
of the retinal molecule forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The
proteins metamorphosis alters its behavior. Now called metarhodopsin II, the protein sticks to another protein, called
transducin. Before bumping into metarhodopsin II, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when
transducin interacts with metarhodopsin II, the GDP falls off, and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. (GTP is closely
related to, but different from, GDP.)GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase,
located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to metarhodopsin II and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase
acquires the chemical ability to cut a molecule called cGMP (a chemical relative of both GDP and GTP). Initially there are a
lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers its concentration, just as a pulled plug lowers the water
level in a bathtub.A transparent layer is also far more difficult to obtain than the researchers think. The best explanation for
the corneas transparency is diffraction theory, which shows that light is not scattered if the refractive index doesnt vary over

distances more than half the wavelength of light. This in turn requires a certain very finely organized structure of the corneal
fibers, which in turn requires complicated chemical pumps to make sure there is exactly the right water content. 6Therefore,
these simulations do not start from simple beginnings but presuppose vast complexity even to begin with. Also, in their
original paper, the researchers admitted an eye makes little sense on its own, because the ability to perceive light is
meaningless unless the organism has sophisticated computational machinery to make use of this information. For example,
it must have the ability to translate attenuation of photon intensity to a shadow of a predator is responsible to I must take
evasive measures, and be able to act on this information for it to have any selective value. Similarly, the first curving, with its
slight ability to detect the direction of light, would only work if the creature had the appropriate software to interpret this.
Perceiving actual images is more complicated still. And having the right hardware and software may not be enoughpeople
who have their sight restored after years of blindness take some time to learn to see properly. It should be noted that much
information processing occurs in the retina before the signal reaches the brain.It is also fallacious to point to a series of more
complex eyes in nature, and then argue that this presents an evolutionary sequence. This is like arranging a number of
different types of aircraft in order of complexity, then claiming that the simple aircraft evolved into complex ones, as opposed
to being designed. For one thing, eyes cant descend from other eyes per se; rather, organisms pass on genes for eyes to
their descendants. This is important when considering the nautilus eye, a pinhole camera. This cannot possibly be an
ancestor of the vertebrate lens/camera eye, because the nautilus as a whole is not an ancestor of the vertebrates, even
according to the evolutionists!
Rotary motors in the bacterial flagellum
Scientific American cites another difficult example of irreducible complexitythe rotary motors on bacterial flagellum, but it
really has no answers.
15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level life has a quality of complexity that could not have
come about through evolution.
Irreducible complexity is the battle cry of Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University, author of Darwins Black Box: The
Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. As a household example of irreducible complexity, Behe chooses the mousetrapa
machine that could not function if any of its pieces were missing and whose pieces have no value except as parts of the
whole.What is true of the mousetrap, he says, is even truer of the bacterial flagellum, a whiplike cellular organelle used for
propulsion that operates like an outboard motor. The proteins that make up a flagellum are uncannily arranged into motor
components, a universal joint, and other structures like those that a human engineer might specify. The possibility that this
intricate array could have arisen through evolutionary modification is virtually nil, Behe argues, and that bespeaks intelligent
design. [SA 84]
Indeed, it does (see diagram below).
He makes similar points about the bloods clotting
mechanism and other molecular systems.Yet
evolutionary biologists have answers to these
objections. First, there exist flagellae with forms
simpler than the one that Behe cites, so it is not
necessary for all those components to be present for a
flagellum to work. The sophisticated components of
this flagellum all have precedents elsewhere in nature,
Bacterial flagellum with rotary motor, with the following features:
as described by Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University
Self assembly and repair
and others. [SA 84]Miller is hardly the epitome of
Water-cooled rotary engine
reliability. Behe has also responded to critics such as
Proton motive force drive system
Miller.7In fact, the entire flagellum assembly is
Forward and reverse gears
extremely similar to an organelle that Yersinia pestis,
Operating speeds of up to 100,000 rpm
the bubonic plague bacterium, uses to inject toxins into
Direction reversing capability within 1/4 of a turn
cells. [SA 84]This actually comes from the National
Hard-wired signal transduction system with short-term memory
Center for Science Educations misuses of the
[from Bacterial Flagella: Paradigm for Design, video,
research of Dr Scott Minnich, a geneticist and
<www.arn.org/arnproducts/videos/v021.htm>]
associate professor of microbiology at the University of
Idaho. He is a world-class expert on the flagellum who
says that belief in design has given him many research insights. His research shows that the flagellum wont form above
37C, and instead some secretory organelles form from the same set of genes. But this secretory apparatus, as well as the
plague bacteriums drilling apparatus, are a degeneration from the flagellum, which Minnich says came first although it is
more complex.8The key is that the flagellums component structures, which Behe suggests have no value apart from their
role in propulsion, can serve multiple functions that would have helped favor their evolution. [SA 84]Actually, what Behe says
he means by irreducible complexity is that the flagellum could not work without about 40 protein components all organized in
the right way. Scientific Americans argument is like claiming that if the components of an electric motor already exist in an
electrical shop, they could assemble by themselves into a working motor. However, the right organization is just as important
as the right components.The final evolution of the flagellum might then have involved only the novel recombination of
sophisticated parts that initially evolved for other purposes. [SA 84]Minnich points out that only about 10 of the 40
components can be explained by co-option, but the other 30 are brand new. Also, the very process of assembly in the right
sequence requires other regulatory machines, so is in itself irreducibly complex.9
Blood clotting
Scientific American cites another serious problem for evolutionblood clotting.Similarly, the blood-clotting system seems to
involve the modification and elaboration of proteins that were originally used in digestion, according to studies by Russell F.
Doolittle of the University of California at San Diego. So some of the complexity that Behe calls proof of intelligent design is
not irreducible at all. [SA 84]This is once more a lot of bluff by the atheist Doolittle, or at least poor reading comprehension.
He cited recent experiments showing that mice could survive with two of the components of the blood clotting cascade
(plasminogen and fibrinogen) eliminated. This supposedly showed that the current cascade was not irreducibly complex but
clearly reducibly complex. But the experiment really showed that the mice lacking both components were better off than one
lacking only plasminogen, because the latter suffer from uncleared clots. But the former are hardly as healthy as Doolittle
implied, because the only reason they dont suffer from uncleared clots is that they have no functional clotting system at all!
A non-functioning clotting system (despite possessing all the many remaining components) is hardly an evolutionary
intermediate that natural selection could refine to produce a proper clotting system. Rather, this experiment is evidence
against this, because the next step (i.e., from lacking both plasminogen and fibrinogen to fibrinogen only) would be
selected against because of the uncleared clots.10Complexity of a different kindspecified complexityis the cornerstone
of the intelligent-design arguments of William A. Dembski of Baylor University in his books The Design Inference and No

Free Lunch. Essentially, his argument is that living things are complex in a way that undirected, random processes could
never produce. The only logical conclusion, Dembski asserts, in an echo of Paley 200 years ago, is that some superhuman
intelligence created and shaped life.Dembskis argument contains several holes. It is wrong to insinuate that the field of
explanations consists only of random processes or designing intelligences. Researchers into nonlinear systems and cellular
automata at the Santa Fe Institute and elsewhere have demonstrated that simple, undirected processes can yield
extraordinarily complex patterns. Some of the complexity seen in organisms may therefore emerge through natural
phenomena that we as yet barely understand. But that is far different from saying that the complexity could not have arisen
naturally. [SA 84]Talk about blind faith! But in practice, as Dembski points out, specified complexity in all cases but biology is
used as evidence of design, including the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. Since biological complexity is the only
exception proposed by evolutionists, it smacks of special pleading. 11In addition to the human eye, the flagellum, and blood
clotting, theres a host of other examples of irreducible complexity in nature. Earlier I alluded to the dynamic sticking
mechanism in the legs of insects. Its structure is described by its evolutionary discoverers as beyond the limits of human
technology.13 Still other examples of design include the lobster eyes with their unique square reflecting geometry that
inspired advanced x-ray telescopes and beam producers,14 the ATP synthase motor.
Irreducible complexity:some candid admissions byevolutionists
Although some evolutionists try to deny the existence of irreducible complexity, others, while using different wording, tacitly
admit that it is a serious problem for organic evolution. Three intertwined examples of irreducible complexity discussed in
this brief report are
1) The origin of novel regulatory complexes governing gene behavior,
2) The hopedfor evolution of genes that have novel functionsrelative to their supposedly ancestral genes, and
3)The origin of new proteins that have a very different function from the presumably ancestral proteins.
In each case, evolutionists point to instances of simultaneous changes in gene expression. However, the observed
phenotypic effects are always small. The simultaneous appearance of several mutations, even if neutral or beneficial, is not
yet proof that any combination of them can produce even one new irreducibly complex system. Living things are extremely
complex. Evolutionary theory rests upon the premise that all biological systems could have evolved from progressively
simpler systems. Although different forms of evolutionary theory assign varying degrees of importance to natural selection,
they all suggest that the complexity found in living things need not have developed at once, but could have been acquired
piecemeal. Proponents of selectionist approaches to evolution emphasize the claim that each potential step in the
acquisition of complexity is tested by natural selection.1 It is tacitly supposed that each increment of change towards an
eventual complex structure would be of benefit to the organism that bears it, and would therefore be preserved by natural
selection. Though in no way goal-directed, the outcome of this process, repeated often enough and long enough, would be a
complex living system. Biochemist Michael J. Behe,2 though an evolutionist, has challenged this widely held and incessantly
taught notion: What type of biological system could not be formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications? Well, for
starters, a system that is irreducibly complex. By irreducibly complex, I mean a single system composed of several wellmatched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the
system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously
improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a
precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional [italics in original]. Behe then presents several biochemical examples of irreducible complexity. Certain
evolutionists, notably those reviewing Behes book, summarily dismiss his argument and insist, in a purely arm-waving
manner, that there is no such thing as an irreducibly complex system. Given enough time, with the wonder-working power of
natural selection acting upon genetic mutations, even seemingly impossible things can happen. Yet despite this bravado,
there are other evolutionists who, without mentioning Behe or using the phrase irreducible complexity, acknowledge that it is
a very serious problem for evolutionary theory. A few such examples, focusing on gene regulation and novel protein origins,
are presented here. Origin of genomic regulatory systems The nature and degree of gene expression is commonly
governed by a tightly intertwined set of regulatory elements found on the DNA molecule. How is such a concert of regulatory
elements supposed to have evolved as a unit? The scenario invoked has a distinct flavour of storytelling: Advantageous
substitutions in regulatory elements caused by genetic factors are most interesting. They must be responsible for
morphological evolution as discussed before. When a new chain of gene expression patterns for transcription factors and
signal transduction elements is appearing, many advantageous mutations are thought to occur simultaneously at the loci
participating in the chain. This process is called recruitment or cooption by developmental biologists. How such a chain
originates is a very difficult problem, i.e., a module of interacting gene loci would have to be constantly tested by natural
selection under various genetic and external factors. On very rare occasions, while wandering via mutation and drift under
available transcription factors, a module might find its place in a larger gene regulation network. Then positive selection may
work on the regulatory elements of the module loci3 [emphasis added] . Yes, and if a cow had wings, it might fly. Various
speculative attempts to overcome the problem of irreducible complexity, discussed in the remainder of this report, are all
essentially hoped-for simultaneous accidental changes in the genome that are supposed to eventually lead to the
emergence of biological novelty. In the past, these have been called hopeful monsters. However, owing to the fact that the
mechanisms discussed are not as extreme as the classical hopeful monsters,4 I informally refer to them as mini hopeful
monsters. A network of highly regulated genes governs the development of an organism. One of the chief difficulties of
overcoming the irreducibly complex system of such gene regulation is the fact that, not only do all the parts of such a system
interact closely, but it is, except under special circumstances, difficult to upset this finely-tuned system: Evolution exploits
genetic differences between individuals in order to remodel developmental programs, yet development is generally robust to
individual genetic differences and environmental perturbations. Theoretical models describe how developmental
homeostasis is developed and why it is maintained, as well as how it could be disrupted so that evolutionary change can
occur.5 In the common fruit fly, Drosophila, environmentally mediated perturbations of the Hsp90 gene can cause the
simultaneous deregulation of a number or genes. This, in turn, causes these flies to display a variety of developmental
abnormalities, such as deformed or absent eyes, notched wings, duplicated bristles, etc.6 Such malformations hardly inspire
confidence in this mechanism as a cause of alleged evolutionary change. This is not to say that simultaneous changes,
which result in the uncovering of biologically meaningful cryptic genetic variation, cannot occur in the genome. In fact,
several examples are reviewed, by this author,7 in conjunction with the appearance of useful hidden variation among the
numerically impoverished organisms of the post-Flood world. However, note the minuscule scale of these changes. Clearly,
disruptions of gene complexes are a necessary but not sufficient cause for the appearance of new irreducibly complex
structures. The simultaneous appearance of several mutations, even if neutral or beneficial, is not yet proof that any
combination of them can produce even one new

irreducibly complex system! Notice, in the following quote, the huge leap between potential deregulation of gene complexes,
on one hand, and the hoped-for emergence of major evolutionary changes as an eventual outcome of this mini hopeful
monster mechanism: By altering the activities of multiple signal transducers and thereby simultaneously weakening several
developmental pathways, Hsp90 can expose such variation, allowing selection to remodel many different processes at once
. The use of Hsp90 as a capacitor for the conditional release of stores of hidden morphogenic variation may have been
adaptive for particular lineages, perhaps allowing the rapid morphological radiations that are found in the fossil record.
5 The emergence of new biological functions
There is no doubt that irreducible complexity is acknowledged in the following statement: A major enigma in evolutionary
biology is that new forms or functions often require the concerted efforts of several independent genetic changes. It is
unclear how such changes might accumulate when they are likely to be deleterious individually and be lost by selective
pressure8 [emphasis added]. One hopeful mini monster mechanism, proposed three decades ago by Koch,9 postulated
that genes could be temporarily inactivated, allowing them to drift neutrally (acquire a variety of random mutations without
the possibility of being removed by natural selection). Subsequently, the genes would re-acquire function, and the multiple
accumulated mutations could then be tested simultaneously by natural selection. Eventually, a lucky combination of
mutations would turn out to be beneficial to the host organism, and even cause the sudden appearance of biological novelty.
It is now recognized that this postulated inactivation-reactivation process is not likely to be effective: However, the known
mechanisms for the reactivation of inactive genes work sporadically, act infrequently and provide no obvious means for
sampling coding changes in several genes simultaneously. 8 True and Lindquist10 propose an alternative scenario for the
accumulation of temporarily neutral mutations. It is based on a prion (proteinaceous infectious particle)- mediated
mechanism that modulates the effectiveness of yeast genes premature stop codons in the termination of transcription, thus
allowing for flexibility in terms of gene expression. It is suggested that, while the premature stop codon is on, mutations
occurring in the gene sequence beyond this codon can accumulate freely owing to the inability of this part of the gene from
being read, and therefore potentially impacting host fitness. But once this prion [PSI+] turns the premature stop codon off,
the previously unreadable part of the gene sequence becomes expressed and the phenotypic effects of the accumulated
mutations can then be simultaneously tested by natural selection. This particular mechanism has been shown to cause
changes in such things as the heat resistance of the affected yeast, the ability of the yeast to grow in different chemical
media, and the geometric shape of the yeast colony itself.10 Although new phenotypes appear to have been produced (or at
least unmasked) by this particular mechanism, their impact is rather modest. The new phenotypes appear to be little more
than the tweaking of pre-existing yeast traits
rather than the emergence of radically new yeast
behaviors or capabilities. In any case, the yeast is still
yeast. How are the cumulative effects of this mechanism
supposed to add up to the emergence of irreducibly
complex structures? Consider the following: How might
such a system evolve and be maintained? We suggest
three different, not exclusive possibilities The
phenotypic diversity generated by these ORFs [genes
open reading frames, subject to having their premature
stop codons turned off and then on] by [PSI+] would
depend upon which ORFs had acquired ISCMs
[inactivating stop-codon mutations], the frequency of
their readthrough, and the presence of additional
mutations they have acquired while in the inactive state
Such mechanisms may be present more broadly than
previously suspected and exert an important influence
on the rates and mechanisms of evolutionary change11
[emphasis added]. Again, the foregoing has the
distinctive flavour of storytelling. In any case, we once
again see a huge leap in reasoning from the observed
very small phenotypic changes all the way to the hopedfor emergence of totally new structures and functions.
Origin of new proteins: still more hopeful mini monsters Earlier, the old ideas of Koch8 were discussed in conjunction with
the evolutionists difficulty of accounting for simultaneous large-scale beneficial changes cumulating in the appearance of
new biological functions. When it comes to the supposed origin of new proteins from pre-existing ones, a step-by-step set of
changes likewise appears to be untenable. A protein having an intermediate sequence between that of its ancestral form
and its eventual descendant form would likely be deleterious to its host (if able to be translated at all), and so would not be
preserved by natural selection in the first place.In fact, Koch9 had recognized this fact, and so had aptly titled his paper: The
importance of untranslatable intermediates. This, in fact, is the central problem for all evolutionary attempts to explain the
origin of all irreducibly complex structures. Using recent thinking and vocabulary, Harrison and Gerstein,11 having tacitly
recognized the irreducible complexity of protein design, have attempted to update Kochs old hypothesis: How does one get
unique folds in certain phylogenetic groups? As shown in Figure 5(b) [see next paragraph], in some cases it may be difficult
to imagine a scenario for this where each intermediate form has to be a functioning protein that is transcribed and
translated. (This is in contrast to other evolutionary pathways, where functioning and selected intermediates are more
plausible). One can speculate that resurrectable pseudogenes could eliminate this paradox to some degree. A sequence
comprising a particular domain fold or (more likely) part of a domain could become pseudogenic. It could then drift freely as
a pseudogene, and evolve to a new domain fold upon or after resurrection. In this scheme, each intermediate does not have
the constraint that it be a folded functional protein [emphasis added]. The word speculation, used in the quote above, is an
excellent choice of words for this hopeful mini monster mechanism! And, as in all prior discussed instances, speculative
outcomes do not begin to explain the origin of irreducibly complex proteins at all. (Note that Figure 5b in the quote above
simply shows changes in geometric shapes to illustrate the (virtually impossible) gradual change in proteins vs the hopeful
accumulation of this fortuitously beneficial set of changes within nonfunctional pseudogenes that will one day again become
functional genes). Although there are claims12 about supposedly nonfunctional gene copies (pseudogenes) becoming
eventually resurrected as new functional genes, such instances are few and far between (not to mention the fact that all
inferences of genes changing to pseudogenes and back to genes rely on phylogenic analyses and thereby presuppose
organic evolution). This returns the evolutionist to the problem of the rarity of this presumed phenomenon, as already shown
by the earlier quote from True and Lindquist Other attempts at understanding the hoped-for evolutionary origin of de novo
proteins have also been undertaken. For instance, Taverna and Goldstein12 noted the fact that proteins found in living

systems, in contrast to synthetic proteins, retain their structure, stability, and function even in the face of a significant number
of alterations in sequence. Citing and then extending some theoretical experiments revolving around evolution of individuals
as part of a group, they suggest that proteins found in living things have this capability because they evolved that way: Why
does the sequence plasticity observed in site-directed mutagenesis not translate into ease in protein engineering? These
results suggest that the observed sequence plasticity of biological proteins may occur because these proteins have evolved
to be robust to these specific experiments Firstly, the lessons of sequence plasticity in biological proteins may be
inapplicable to artificially designed proteins. It may be necessary to have a de novo sequence exquisitely designed to have
properties similar to biological proteins. This consideration begs the question about the very origin and diversification of
proteins in the first place!
Discussion and conclusions
I have discussed only a few examples of irreducible complexity that came to my attention inadvertently (while researching
other topics). For this reason, no inferences should be drawn regarding the extent of irreducible complexity based on this
short report. The traditional conception of step-by-step major evolutionary change has the supposed advantage of
reasonable probability for each step while suffering from the disadvantage of being incapable of producing the necessarily
simultaneous changes (hence irreducible complexity). Hopeful monster scenarios reverse this situation, invoking a very
improbable event to (theoretically) giving rise to a simultaneously emplaced set of interconnected simultaneous changes.
The mini hopeful monster scenarios discussed are intermediate between the foregoing two approaches to the
understanding of alleged major evolutionary change. But are they the best of both worlds or are they the worst of both
worlds? Consider the central fact that all the changes discussed in the cited works are quite small. Accounting for new
irreducibly complex structures by the foregoing mechanisms is a completely different proposition. There is not the slightest
indication, much less proof, that such changes (or ones comparable to those discussed in the cited works) could ever
accumulate in a manner that eventually produces a totally different life form (i.e. commensurate with a higher-level
taxonomic category). It seems clear that a succession of mini hopeful monster events, capable of originating a de novo
irreducibly complex system, appears to be simultaneously improbable and incapable of effecting the large-scale
simultaneous changes. Using Behes analogy of the mousetrap, 13 one mini hopeful mini monster event may perhaps
theoretically happen to produce a hammer that could fit with other would-be mousetrap components. Yet there is not the
slightest indication that successive hopeful mini-monster events would also produce the requisite correctly shaped and
correctly deployed spring, catch, holding bar, etc. It almost seems as though evolutionists are invoking these hopeful mini
monster mechanisms as an act of desperation. In any case, the giant chasm that remains between the observed tiny
changes, on the one hand, and the speculated large-scale evolutionary outcomes, on the other, itself attests to the validity
and force of the argument of irreducible complexity
Design in living organisms (motors: ATP synthase)
by Jonathan Sarfati
Bacterial flagellum with rotary motor, after Ref. 1. (from The Bacterial
Flagellum,
arn.org/docs/mm/flagellum_all.htm)In
our
everyday
experience, we can usually tell whether something has been designed.
The main evidence is high information content. The information content
of any arrangement is the size, in bits, of the shortest algorithm
required to generate that arrangement. This means that repetitive
structures, like crystals, have a low information content, because all
that is needed is to specify a few positions, then the instructions more
of the same. The difference between a crystal and an enzyme or DNA
is like the difference between a book containing nothing but ABCD
repeated and a book of Shakespeare.On a practical level, the
information specifies the many parts needed to make machines work.
Often, the removal of one part can disrupt the whole machine.
Biochemist Michael Behe, in his book Darwins Black Box(right), calls
this irreducible complexity.1 He gives the example of a very simple
machine: a mousetrap. This would not work without a platform, holding
bar, spring, hammer and catch, all in the right place. The thrust of
Behes book is that many structures in living organisms show
irreducible complexity, far in excess of a mousetrap or indeed any manmade machine.
Motors: a case study
Motors are irreducibly complex, because they need many parts working together to function. For example, an electric motor
needs a power source, fixed stator, movable rotor, and a commutator or slip rings.
ATP
synthase
motor,
afterRef.
4.
(from ATP
Mechanisms
Revealed,
arn.org/docs/mm/atpmechanism.htm)The more parts needed for a machine, the harder it is to
make it smaller. Miniaturisation is such a vital part of the computer industry, and the best
human minds are constantly working at it. And though miniaturised motors would be very
useful, e.g. for unblocking clogged arteries and blood cleaning, the number of parts makes it
difficult to make them below a certain size. But ingenious scientists are making them smaller
all the time.2However the design in living organisms has far exceeded our most painstaking
efforts. Bacteria propel themselves using flagella (singular flagellum, from the Latin for whip),
filaments propelled by a true rotary motor. This motor is only the size of a virus, thus far
smaller than anything man-made. Yet it can rotate at over 1000 times per second. 3But even
this impressively tiny motor is not the tiniest. In a paper published in March 1997, Hiroyuki
Noji et al. directly observed the rotation of the enzymeF1-ATPase, a subunit of a larger
enzyme, ATP synthase.4,5 This had been suggested as the mechanism for the enzymes operation by Paul Boyer.6 Structural
determination by X-ray diffraction by a team led by John Walker had supported this theory. 7 A few months after Noji et
al published their work, it was announced that Boyer and Walker had won a half share of the 1997 Nobel Prize for Chemistry
for their discovery.8The F1-ATPase motor has nine componentsfive different proteins with the stoichiometry of
3a:3b:1g:1d:1e. In bovine mitochondria, they contain 510, 482, 272, 146 and 50 amino acids respectively, so M r = 371,000.
F1-ATPase is a flattened sphere about 10 nm across by 8 nm highso tiny that 10 17 would fill the volume of a pinhead. This
has been shown to spin like a motor to produce ATP, a chemical which is the energy currency of life. 9 This motor produces

an immense torque (turning force) for its sizein the experiment, it rotated a strand of another protein, actin, 100 times its
own length. Also, when driving a heavy load, it probably changes to a lower gear, as any well-designed motor should.ATP
synthase also contains the membrane-embedded FO subunit functioning as a proton (hydrogen ion) channel. Protons
flowing through FOprovide the driving force of the F 1-ATPase motor. They turn a wheel-like structure as water turns a water
wheel, but researchers are still trying to determine precisely how. This rotation changes the conformation of the three active
sites on the enzyme. Then each in turn can attach ADP and inorganic phosphate to form ATP. Unlike most enzymes, where
energy is needed to link the building blocks, ATP synthase uses energy to link them to the enzyme, and throw off the newly
formed ATP molecules. Separating the ATP from the enzyme needs much energy.Note: the names of the two components
are historical. The F1 unit comes from the term Fraction 1. The name F O (written as a subscript capital O, not zero) is due to
its being the oligomycin-binding fraction. Oligomycin is an antibiotic that kills bacteria by blocking the proton channel of the
FO subunit.ATP synthase is the central enzyme in energy conversion in mitochondria (where they are embedded into
the cristae, folds in the mitochondrions inner membrane), chloroplasts and bacteria. This probably makes ATP synthase the
most ubiquitous protein on Earth. Since energy is required for life, and all life uses ATP as its energy currency (each of us
synthesizes and consumes half our bodyweight of ATP per day!), life could not have evolved before this motor was fully
functional. Natural selection by definition is differential reproduction, so requires self-reproducing entities to start with. So
even if a series of gradual steps could be imagined up this peak of Mount Improbable, there would be no natural selection
to enable that climb.One of the Nature articles was appropriately entitled Real Engines of Creation. Unfortunately, despite
the evidence for exquisite design, many scientists (including the editor of Nature) still have a blind faith that mutations and
natural selection could build such machines.
Animation of ATP synthase.
Would any evidence convince evolutionists?
The famous British evolutionist (and communist) J.B.S. Haldane claimed in 1949 that evolution could never produce various
mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect. 10 Therefore such machines in
organisms would, in his opinion, prove evolution false. These molecular motors have indeed fulfilled one of Haldanes
criteria. Also, turtles11 and monarch butterflies12 which use magnetic sensors for navigation fulfil Haldanes other criterion. I
wonder whether Haldane would have had a change of heart if he had been alive to see these discoveries. Many
evolutionists rule out intelligent design a priori, so the evidence, overwhelming as it is, would probably have no effect.
Did cells acquire organelles such as mitochondria by gobbling up other cells?
(Or, can the endosymbiont theory explain the origin of eukaryotic cells?)
by Dr Don Batten, CMIAustralia
6 July 2000
Eukaryotic cells, such as yeast and those of animals and plants, have a membrane-bound nucleus, chromosome structures
and organelles such as mitochondria and chloroplasts, whereas prokaryotic cells, such as bacteria, lack these features.
Many evolutionists believe Lynn Margulis idea that eukaryotic cells came about as a prokaryotic cell ate (by a process
called endocytosis) other prokaryotic cells, which then became the mitochondria and chloroplasts. The engulfed cells
supposedly reproduced in step with the host cell in some sort of symbiosis (mutual advantage), just by chance, before
coming under the control of the primitive eukaryotic cell (which developed chromosome structures, nuclear membrane,
Golgi apparatus, etc, etc, also). Over time, portions of the mitochondrial and chloroplast genomes happened to transfer to
the nucleus.Problems abound with this scenario. For example, how could the enveloped cells reproduce in close
synchronicity? How did lateral gene transfer into the nucleus take place when the nuclear membrane is designed for the
passage of mRNA (out), and to contain DNA? If DNA were passed between the engulfed cell and the host cell, would not the
host respond by degrading the foreign DNA, because it would detect it as a virus? (Note that the enzymes used so widely to
chop up DNA into pieces in DNA sequencing studies come from bacteria, i.e. prokaryotesthey function in destroying
foreign DNA inside the bacteria.)It is only to be expected that there would be similarities in many of the genes for
photosynthesis or respiration between prokaryotes and eukaryotesthey have to achieve the same chemistry
(photosynthesis: light energy + carbon dioxide + water giving glucose plus oxygen. Respiration: glucose (C 6H1206) giving
CO2 + H20 + energy). Furthermore, they have the same Designe .See The Biotic Message (right).However, detailed studies
of the DNA base sequences have shown that the pattern of similarity between eukaryote and prokaryote is not what would
be expected from the endosymbiont hypothesis. Doolittle said,Many eukaryotic genes turn out to be unlike those of any
known archaea or bacteria; they seem to have come from nowhere. (Doolittle, D.F., Uprooting the tree of life, Scientific
American 282(2):7277, 2000.).The endosymbiont idea was severely dealt with in the 70s and early 80s, and should have
died. But, what else is there for the evolutionist? It is very much akin to chemical evolutionanyone who knows a little of the
biochemistry involved in the most basic of bacteria knows that formation of a living cell from chance chemical reactions,
even in highly controlled/contrived Miller-type experiments, is absolutely impossible. But that it happened is deemed to be
certain (well, we have living cells, dont we?!) and it is taught that way in universities around the world. For a thorough
refutation of the idea that life could form by natural processes, see the Origin of life articles.However, something like
this must have happened, because we have plants, for example, which are fantastically complex things and theymust have
arisen from some stepwise evolutionary process (Did I just hear someone say they think the cells were created? Now listen
here, thats religion, which has nothing to do with the real world of cells and science. Science is about material explanations,
and just you remember that! We just will not accept an intelligent cause, regardless of whether the evidence supports it!).
See Lewontins admission regarding the materialistic bias applied in much scientific reasoning today about origins.Note that
this view that science can only deal with materialistic answers is a modern misuse of science. The founders of modern
science did not see things that way (Newton, Kepler, Boyle, Faraday, Pasteur, Kelvin, Pascal, etc.)see Creation scientists.
There are many modern highly qualified scientists who believe Genesis literallysee In Six Days: Why 50 [Ph.D.] Scientists
Choose to Believe in Creation. Read online.And science does deal with non-observable, intelligent causes where it suits the
practitionersfor example, forensic science is all about finding evidence that person X poisoned person Y with strychnine,
for example (natural causes cannot account for person Ys body containing strychnine, so someone, an intelligent agent,
was responsible). Likewise, the SETI program is tacit agreement that science can tell the difference between natural causes
and intelligent causes (certain patterns on radio signals from outer space could not be explained as originating from natural
forces). Also, archaeology is much about recognising that an axe-head, for example, was created by an (unseen) intelligent
agent, because the structure of an axe-head is so unlikely to arise from natural chemical and physical processes. See the
article A brief history of design.
It is the atheistic bias of modern practitioners of science that prevents them from seeing the abundant evidence, right under
their noses, for the unseen designer of life.
World record enzymes

Decarboxylation of orotidine 5-monophosphate (OMP) to uridine 5-phosphate (UMP), an essential precursor of RNA and
DNA, by the enzyme 5-monophosphate decarboxylase.
by Jonathan Sarfati
One vital class of proteins is enzymes, which are catalysts, i.e. they speed up
chemical reactions without being consumed in the process. Without them, many
reactions essential for life would be far too slow for life to exist. Catalysts do not
affect the equilibrium, but only the rate at which equilibrium is reached. They work
by lowering the activation energy, which means decreasing the energy of a
transitional state or reaction intermediate.
Rate enhancement by 1018
Enzyme expert Dr Richard Wolfenden, of the University of North Carolina, showed
in 1998 that a reaction absolutely essential in creating the building blocks of DNA
and RNA would take 78 million years in water, but was speeded up 10 18 times by an
enzyme.1 This was orotidine 5-monophosphate decarboxylase, responsible forde
novo synthesis of uridine 5-phosphate, an essential precursor of RNA and DNA, by
decarboxylating orotidine 5-monophosphate (OMP).2The enzyme has a special
shape, a TIM-barrel. This binds the substrate at the open end of the barrel, while
protein loop movements almost totally surround the substrate. The enzyme has
amino acid residues in just the right places to interact with the functional groups on
the substrate. One lysine is provides a positive charge to interact with the increasing
negative charge as the substrate reacts, and provides a proton which replaces
carboxylate group at C-6 of the product. And the enzyme is structured so that some
hydrogen bonds form and delocalize negative charge in the transition state, lowering
the energy. Interactions between the enzyme and the phosphoribosyl group anchor
the pyrimidine within the active site, helping to explain the phosphoribosyl groups
remarkably large contribution to catalysis despite its distance from the site of decarboxylation. Still other interactions hold
the pyrimidine within the active site, which also contributes greatly to the catalysis although it is far from the site of
decarboxylation.
Rate enhancement by 1021
In 2003, Wolfenden found another enzyme exceeded even this vast rate enhancement. A phosphatase, which catalyzes the
hydrolysis of phosphate dianions, magnified the reaction rate by thousand times more than even that previous enzyme
1021 times. That is, the phosphatase allows reactions vital for cell signalling and regulation to take place in a hundredth of a
second. Without the enzyme, this essential reaction would take a trillion yearsalmost a hundred times even the supposed
evolutionary age of the universe (about 15 billion years)!3
Implications
Wolfenden said,
Without catalysts, there would be no life at all, from microbes to humans. It makes you wonder how natural selection
operated in such a way as to produce a protein that got off the ground as a primitive catalyst for such an extraordinarily slow
reaction.1Actually, it should make one wonder about the faith commitment to evolution from goo to you via the zoo, in the
face of such amazingly fine-tuned enzymes vital for even the simplest life! And natural selection cant operate until there
are already living organisms to pass on the information coding for the enzymes, so it cannot explain the origin of these
enzymes.
Update: in 2008, Dr Wolfenden co-authored a paper on another enzyme, 4 which speeds up another essential reaction that
would take 2.3 billion years. This one is essential to the biosynthesis of hemoglobin and chlorophyll, and it is sped up by a
staggering factor, one thats equivalent to the difference between the diameter of a bacterial cell and the distance from the
Earth to the sun.5
How do the laws of statistics and probability describe the evolutionary claim that life came about by chance?
Could monkeys type the 23rd Psalm?
Editors note: As Creation magazine has been continuously published since 1978, we are publishing some of the articles
from the archives for historical interest, such as this. For teaching and sharing purposes, readers are advised to supplement
these historic articles with more up-to-date ones suggested in the Related Articlesbelow.
by Russell Grigg
Thomas Huxley (left) and Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, the
protagonists at the famous debate on the subject of
evolution at the Oxford meeting of the British Association,
June 30, 1860On 30 June 1860, there occurred an event
which, in the minds of many people, was the turning point
for the public acceptance of the theory of evolution in its
confrontation with the young age model. This event was
the debate between the agnostic Thomas Huxley, who
came to be known as Darwins bulldog, and the Anglican
Bishop of Oxford, Samuel Wilberforce, son of the famous
anti-slavery politician, William Wilberforce. The debate
was held at a meeting of the British Association, Oxford, of
which Bishop Wilberforce was a vice-president, and was
sparked by the publication of Charles Darwins Origin of
Species seven
months
earlier,
in
November
1859.Wilberforce was an experienced and skilful debater.
As well as being a theologian, he was an able naturalist. He had also acquired a first in mathematics in his graduate days at
Oxford. He was also a Fellow of the Royal Society, and had the unusual combination of being both Professor of Theology
and Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford. He was well versed in Darwins theory as, shortly before the
debate took place, he had written a 19,000-word review of theOrigin, which was published in the Quarterly Review, July
1860. When Darwin read this review his comment was:It is uncommonly clever; it picks out with skill all the most conjectural
parts, and brings forward well all the difficulties.1Wilberforce began the debate and, after making several scientific points,

concluded with Paleys argument that a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker, and similarly design in nature implies
the existence of a Designer.Huxley then arose and is said to have put forward his now well-known argument that six eternal
monkeys or apes2typing on six eternal typewriters with unlimited amounts of paper and ink could, given enough time,
produce a Psalm, a Shakespearean sonnet, or even a whole book, purely by chance that is, by random striking of the keys.
In the course of his presentation Huxley pretended to find the 23 rd Psalm among the reams of written gibberish produced by
his six imaginary apes at their typewriters. He went on to make his point that, in the same way, molecular movement, given
enough time and matter, could produce Bishop Wilberforce himself, purely by chance and without the work of any designer.
It seems, from the various accounts of what happened (mostly letters written by Darwins followers, as no report on the
debate was published by the British Association), that the worthy Bishop did not have an answer to this line of reasoning.
This is rather surprising in view of his erudition in the realm of Mathematics. So let us consider some answers to Huxleys
argumentan argument that is still advanced from time to time by modern-day evolutioniststhat chance is a better
explanation for origins than design.
Chance vs. Design
Let us imagine a special typewriter, user-friendly to apes, with 50 keys, comprised of 26 capital letters, 10 numbers, one
space bar, and 13 symbols for punctuation, etc. For the sake of simplicity we shall disregard lower-case letters and settle for
typing all to be in capitals, and we shall disregard leap years.How long would it take an operator, on the average, to correctly
type the 23rd Psalm, by randomly striking keys? To obtain the answer, let us first consider the first verse of the Psalm, which
reads: THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD, I SHALL NOT WANT.According to the Multiplication Rule of Probability (in simplified
form)3 the chance of correctly typing the three designated letters THE from possibilities is 1 in 50 x 50 x 50, which equals
125,000. At a rate of one strike per second, the average time taken to make 125,000 strikes is 34.72 hours.The chance of
randomly typing the eight keys (seven letters and one space) in the right sequence for the two words THE LORD is 1 in 50 x
50 eight times (i.e. 508). This is 1 chance in 39,062 billion. There are 31,536,000 seconds in a year, so the average time
taken in years to make 39,062 billion strikes at the rate of one strike per second would be 1,238,663.7 years.
The time taken on the average to correctly type the whole of verse 1 of the 23 rd Psalm, which contains 42 letters,
punctuation, and spaces, would be 5042 divided by 31,536,000 (seconds in a year), which is 7.2 x 1063 years.And the time
taken on the average to correctly type the whole of the 23 rd Psalm, made up of 603 letters, verse numbers, punctuation, and
spaces, would be 50603 divided by 31,536,000 which is 9.552 x 101016 years.4 If the letter b stands for billion (109), this could
be
written
as
about
one
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb years.By comparison, the evolutionists age of the Earth is (only)
4.6 billion years, and the evolutionists age of the universe is (only) almost 15 billion years.
Probability of a DNA molecule forming by chance
When we apply probability theory to the correct arrangement of a DNA molecule, a similar situation is seen, as per the
following quotation:When we come to examine the simplest known organism capable of independent existence, the
situation becomes even more fantastic. In the DNA chain of the chromosome of the bacterium E. coli, a favourite organism
used by molecular biologists, the [DNA] helix consists of 3-4 million base pairs. These are all arranged in a sequence that is
meaningful in the sense that it gives rise to enzyme molecules which fit the various metabolites and products used by the
cell. This unique sequence represents a choice of one out of 102,000,000alternative ways of arranging the bases! We are
compelled to conclude that the origin of the first life was a unique event, which cannot be discussed in terms of probability.5
Notice that this refers only to the correct arrangement of already formed bases. Harold J. Morowitz, Professor of Biophysics
at Yale University, has taken into account the covalent bond energies required to actually form such a DNA molecule. He
arrives at a probability figure for the spontaneous formation of one complete bacterium of Escherichia coli in the history of
the universe, of less than one chance in 10 to the power 100 billion (which can be written 10 -100,000,000,000).6Such numbers are
far too large for most people to comprehend. However, the late Sir Fred Hoyle , who was Professor of Astronomy at
Cambridge University and was not a creationist, illustrated the point this way: Now imagine 1050 blind persons [thats
100,000 billion billion billion billion billion peoplestanding shoulder to shoulder, they would more than fill our entire
planetary system] each with a scrambled Rubik cube and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at
the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling [random variation] of just one of the many
biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating program of a living cell could
be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.7(Emphasis added.)Another
of Professor Hoyles very expressive analogies is that the chance that even the simplest self-reproducing life forms might
have emerged in this way (i.e. by evolutionary processes) is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a
junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.8 (See also Q&A: Probability).
Some objections countered
What about natural selection?
Lest it be thought that the Darwinian concept of natural selection could increase the chance of forming life (i.e. that with
time, mutations may contribute superior survival value to some members of a species), it should be realised that natural
selection could only work on a living organism that could produce offspring. By its very definition it could not work on nonliving chemicals, as pointed out by leading evolutionist Dobzhansky.8To try to get around these insurmountable difficulties,
some evolutionists are now postulating that the universe is eternal, because if time is eternal, they argue, then theoretically
any event is certain to occur.
Eternal universe?
The idea of an eternal universe cannot be substantiated, however, because the universe is slowly approaching heat death
in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. Heat death will occur when all the energy of the cosmos has been
degraded to random heat energy, with random motions of molecules and uniform low-level temperatures. If the universe
were eternal, this state would have been reached a long time ago. The fact that the universe is not dead is clear evidence
that it is not infinitely old. For more information, see Who created God?
Somewhere, sometime
To overcome this problem, Huxleys modern-day supporters are ready to talk about previous universes before the present
one, and other spaces beyond our space. They then argue that, no matter how small the probability of an event, it will occur
with the probability one (certainty) somewhere, sometime, as long as the probability is not actually zero (impossibility).
Moreover, they claim that the reason we observe the realisation of the totally unlikely event is that it can only be observed by
the sentient beings it produced. However, as Professor A.M. Hasofer (Statistician, University of New South Wales) has
pointed out in a private communication,9 there is a fatal scientific weakness in such reasoning, because such a model fails
Karl Poppers fundamental criterion of scientific acceptability, that it be falsifiable.
Professor Hasofer writes:
The problem [of falsifiability of a probabilistic statement] has been dealt with in a recent book by G. Matheron,
entitled Estimating and Choosing: An Essay on Probability in Practice (Springer-Verlag, 1989). He proposes that a

probabilistic model be considered falsifiable if some of its consequences have zero (or in practice very low) probability. If
one of these consequences is observed, the model is then rejected.The fatal weakness of the monkey argument, which
calculates probabilities of events somewhere, sometime, is that all events, no matter how unlikely they are, have
probability one as long as they are logically possible, so that the suggested model can never be falsified. Accepting the
validity of Huxleys reasoning puts the whole probability theory outside the realm of verifiable science. In particular, it vitiates
the whole of quantum theory and statistical mechanics, including thermodynamics, and therefore destroys the foundations of
all modern science. For example, as Bertrand Russell once pointed out, if we put a kettle on a fire and the water in the kettle
froze, we should argue, following Huxley, that a very unlikely event of statistical mechanics occurred, as it should
somewhere, sometime, rather than trying to find out what went wrong with the experiment!
Reversibilitythe Achilles Heel of biogenesis by chance
There is one other aspect that needs to be consideredyet another fatal flaw in Huxleys reasoning and that of his modernday followerswhen applied to the idea of biogenesis by chance or the formation of living cells from chance combinations of
molecules. Let us consider the situation where time is infinite, and probability equals one. We have just seen that
evolutionists do not have infinite time, but just suppose they did, could Huxleys argument be sustained? In particular, could
chance combinations of molecules produce life (or even Bishop Samuel Wilberforce), if there was no restriction on time?
The idea that life can form spontaneously from non-life involves the formation of proteins 10 from peptides which have formed
from amino acids, (which have formed from the gases in a reducing atmosphere). 11 However, the biochemical reactions
involved in the formation of proteins from peptides and peptides from amino acids are reversiblethey go the other way as
well.12 This is represented below in the simplest reaction of two amino acids forming a dipeptide while releasing a molecule
of water (the R in the table stands for any one of 20 different functional groups. The different R groups are responsible for
the wide variety of proteins, and the precise sequences are very specialised and improbable):
NH2CHR
+ NH2CHRCOOH
NH2CHRCONHCHR
+ H2 O
COOH
COOH
Condensation Reaction
amino acid 1
+ amino acid 2
combine to give
dipeptide
+ water
(reversible dipeptide breaks down in
water)
Under the right conditions, the condensation continues, with a dipeptide reacting with a third amino acid to form a tripeptide
and releasing another water molecule, and so on. Sometimes hundreds or thousands of amino acids link up, with a
corresponding number of water molecules released. For n amino acids in a chain, n-1 water molecules are released.This
means that condensation reactions, like the synthesis of peptides from amino acids, are inhibited by excess water, and the
reverse reaction is favoured. Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith, commenting on this fact, writes:The consequence of this wellknown fact of organic chemistry is important: concentrations of amino acids will combine only in minute amounts, if they
combine at all in a primeval ocean providing excess water, to form polypeptides. Any amounts of polypeptide which might be
formed will be broken down into their initial components (amino acids) by the excess water. The ocean is thus practically the
last place on this or any other planet where the proteins of life could be formed spontaneously from amino acids. Yet nearly
all textbooks of biology teach this nonsense to support evolutionary theory and spontaneous biogenics. It requires a very
great unfamiliarity with organic chemistry not to take into consideration the above-mentioned facts when proposing
postulates for biogenesis13 (Emphasis in the original.) [See also Origin of life: the polymerization problem.]In the case of
biogenesis, these reversible reactions are all in equilibrium with one another, since there is no cell machinery to remove
products selectively. In the body, organic reactions such as the synthesis of proteins and the oxidation of fats occur because
of the intervention of specific enzymes (acting as a type of chemical machinery) 14 acting specifically at each step along the
reaction chain. However, enzymes are proteins, and one cannot claim synthesis for a product if one begins with the product
one is trying to end up with.The purpose of Huxleys typewriter argument was to show that, given enough time, any event is
certain to occur. However, for this argument to be analogous to the idea of the formation of proteins by chance combination
of amino acid molecules, Huxleys typewriters needed to bereversible!With an ordinary typewriter, any words typed by an
ape would stay on the paper and would not get modified into more meaningful combinations, nor would they decompose
into their constituent letters. This means that each word is out of equilibrium with its precursors and has no
postcursors.However, with a reversible typewriter, when the key A (for example) was depressed, the letter A would be
printed on the paper; but when the same key was released, the printed letter A would arise from the paper without leaving a
trace, so that the typewriter would type out just as quickly and effectively as it typed in. All of which means that Huxleys
eternal apes would have typed as much or as little after one second as after a billion years.Furthermore, it would not matter
how many billion apes were typing (or molecules of matter were combining), or how many (billion) times per second this
might have been happening. The result at any time would always be zero, whether it be apes typing reversible typewriters or
amino acids combining in reversible reactions.Another way of saying this is that increased time spans in biological systems
will merely increase the probability of equilibrium being set up, and not the probability of improbable reaction products being
formed.15,16
Conclusion
The concept of somewhere, sometime does not apply, because the probability of forming a stipulated end-product from
reversible reactions in equilibrium is zero.The theory that chance random combinations of living matter could produce the
Bishop of Oxford, a living cell, or even a single functional protein molecule, whether in time or in eternity, therefore fails on
all counts.Life is bristling with machinery, codes and programs, which are not an inherent property of the material substrate
(the information for their construction having been passed on during reproduction). No observation has ever shown such
information-bearing structures arising spontaneously. The obvious inference from science, as well as the obvious
implications of the young age odel, is that the original creation of living things involved the very opposite of chance, namely,
the imposition of external intelligence on to matter by an original Designer.
Addendum: Did Wilberforce really say it?
Writers dealing with the famous debate between Huxley and Wilberforce often repeat the story that the Bishop, towards the
end of his speech, turned to Huxley and asked whether it was through his grandfather or his grandmother that he claimed
descent from an ape? Huxley, in reply, is supposed to have said that he was not ashamed of having an ape as an ancestor,
but he would be ashamed of having as an ancestor a man who used his abilities in a sphere of science with which he had
no real acquaintance and who used aimless rhetoric in an appeal to religious prejudice.J.R. Lucas sums up the evidence for
and against this story in a long article in the Historical Journal,17 summarised in Nature.18 He points out that the audience
was larger than a full House of Commons, which means that, in the noisy and somewhat gladiatorial circumstances of this
debate, not everyone would have correctly heard everything that was said.Of Wilberforces science, as presented in the

debate, Lucas says: These were serious scientific arguments, worthy of a vice-president of the British Association. Darwin
acknowledged their cogency. He goes on to say,
It is doubtful that Wilberforce asked Huxley whether he was descended from an ape. It
makes a good story, but Wilberforce had used the first person plural in his review, and the
Reader feedback to this
use of the first person is borne out by Wilberforces biography and oneadmittedly late
article, together with our
account. What Wilberforce may have asked Huxley in the second person is where he drew
response, can be seen
the line between human descendants and ape-like ancestors, if, as was generally
atMonkeying
with
admitted, the offspring was of the same species as the parents. 19Huxley, however, was
probability.
ready to answer the question he had not been asked. Three months earlier, in the April
issue of the Westminster Review, he had accused critics of Darwin of making him out to be
no better than an ape himself, and since Wilberforce was now criticising him for being a Darwinian, he must be calling him
an ape too.
It would seem therefore that Wilberforce did not try to ridicule Huxley, but rather the reverse was actually what happened. If
so, it gives a very different picture of what really occurred at this famous debate.

Monkey madness
by David Catchpoole
When arguing that life could have arisen by
chance, evolutionists will often state that
given enough timeanything could happen,
regardless of how improbable it might
seem.1 For example, prominent evolutionist
Julian Huxley (18871975) said that, given
enough time, monkeys typing randomly could
eventually type out the complete works of
Shakespeare.2
Since then, others too, such as Stephen
Hawking and Richard Dawkins, have made
similar pronouncements about monkeys
random typing being able to produce one of
Shakespeares sonnets, or at least a sentence
from one of his plays.But when Plymouth
University (UK) researchers installed a keyboard and computer screen in the monkey enclosure at Paignton Zoo, home to
six Sulawesi crested macaques, it didnt result in a nicely typed set of the complete works of Shakespeare. Neither did they
get a sonnet. Nor even a single word of Shakespeare.
No, when the researchers gave six monkeys one computer for a month, what they got was a mess.3

Researchers offered Sulawesi crested macaques at Paignton Zoo an opportunity to type out a Wikimedia
commons/Daily
Shakespearean sonnetbut they didnt get a single word.
Mail
The first thing the lead male did was to find a stone and start bashing the computer with it. Subsequently, the younger ones
came and pressed some of the keys. But most of the macaques time was spent sitting or jumping on the computer, or using
it as a toilet. (The computer was protected by a transparent plastic covering in such a way that the monkeys could
nevertheless hit the keys with their fingers.) After one month, the monkeys had produced five pages of text, composed
primarily of the letter S. But there was not a single recognizable word in sight. The letter A was the only vowel to be used,
and it did not make an appearance until page 4.Despite the outcome being gobbledegook, the combined efforts of monkeys
Elmo, Gum, Heather, Holly, Mistletoe and Rowan have been made available for sale in a limited edition book, bound in the
style of a Shakespearean play, entitled Notes Towards the Complete Works of Shakespeare.4,5Towards Shakespeare?
Hardlyevidence for evolution, the monkeys performance certainly isnt. And, as calculations have shown, even if monkeys
could type randomly at a rate of one key-strike per second, without ever stopping, then to get a simple line of intelligible text
would take many billions of times longer than the assumed evolutionary age of the universe. 1Addressing the idea that time
plus chance could have created life, Sir Fred Hoyle said, Now imagine 10 50 blind persons [thats 100,000 billion billion billion
billion billion peoplestanding shoulder to shoulder, they would more than fill our entire planetary system] each with a
scrambled Rubik cube and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then

have the chance of arriving by random shuffling [random variation] of just one of the many biopolymers on which life
depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in
a primordial soup here on earth is evidently nonsense of a high order. [Emphasis added.]
Huff and Bluff
Can quantum magic save chemical evolution?
by Carl Wieland and Jonathan Sarfati
19 June 2006
Well-known physicist Paul Davies1 says in a recent Nature article2 that the origin of life remains one of the great outstanding
mysteries of science. What he means, of course, is the naturalistic origin of lifei.e. how chemicals could have become
living cells without supernatural design.Addressing what he calls the burning question of astrobiology ,3 he lists only two
possible alternatives: Was the origin of known life a freak accident, or the expected outcome of intrinsically bio-friendly laws
of physics? Creation is excluded from the start. 4The freak accident hypothesis is unattractive, given the astonishing odds of
just one of the many long-chain molecules of life assembling itself in the right sequence by chance.5 Sir Fred Hoyle famously
said that it would be like having the solar system packed shoulder-to-shoulder
with blind men shuffling Rubiks Cubes, and having them all hit upon the
solution by chanceat the very same time. 6 And that molecule would be
useless by itself, anyway.Obtaining the machinery for life is much more than
just having the right building blocks. Living things are choc-a-bloc with
programsi.e.,information. The sequence in which the sub-units of a longchain molecule (e.g. DNA, or a protein) are assembled is what gives them their
properties. I.e., they carry programmed information (including the information
for their own reading machinery). And that order, like the software in a
computer, is not an expected outcome from intrinsically bio-friendly laws of
physics or chemistry. Programs originate either in an intelligent mind, or in
other programs (which themselves originate in mind). 7Davies is well aware of
this. On the same subject, he previously wrote: How did stupid atoms
spontaneously write their own software ? Nobody knows .8
What about the famous MillerUrey experiments? Electrical discharges in a
mixture of gases resulted in some very simple building blocks of life. Davies
rightly dismisses these as a blind alley. He would know they cannot account
for lifes information, any more than a lightning bolt baking a piece of clay soil
can be seen as the first stage in the spontaneous self-assembly of a brick
house. That would take information. As he wrote, there is no known law of
physics able to create information from nothing.8So what does he cling to as a
possible future solution? The vague idea (without specifics) that quantum
mechanics will somehow solve the riddle of life. But no matter how
MillerUrey experiment (click on
sophisticated the language, this is nothing but the purest bluff and bluster.One
image to see higher resolution
of us (JS) has a Ph.D. heavily involving quantum mechanics (QM) [update,
version)
2011: see his paper Should creationists accept quantum mechanics?ed.]. In
reality, everything known about QM actually reinforces Davies pessimism
about finding a non-creation explanation for lifeQM explains the chemical
reactions which we already know move away from life, relentlessly degrading it. 9 His speculative quantum leap is really a
massive quantum bluff.
How Simple Can Life Be?
Jonathan Sarfati
In Darwins day, many people swallowed the theory of spontaneous generationthat life arose from non-living matter. It was
somewhat easier to believe because the cells structure was almost unknown. Ernst Haeckel, Darwins popularizer in
Germany, claimed that a cell was a simple lump of albuminous combination of carbon. 1 (Haeckel was also a notorious fraud
he forged embryonic diagrams to bolster the erroneous idea that the embryos development recapitulated (re-traced) its
alleged evolutionary ancestry)2But modern science has discovered vast quantities of complex, specific information in even
the simplest self-reproducing organism. Mycoplasma genitalium has the smallest known genome of any free-living
organism, containing 482 genes comprising 580,000 bases.3 Of course, these genes are only functional with pre-existing
translational and replicating machinery, a cell membrane, etc. But Mycoplasma can only survive by parasitizing more
complex organisms, which provide many of the nutrients it cannot manufacture for itself. So evolutionists must posit a more
complex first living organism with even more genes.More recently, Eugene Koonin and others tried to calculate the bare
minimum required for a living cell, and came up with a result of 256 genes. But they were doubtful whether such a
hypothetical bug could survive, because such an organism could barely repair DNA damage, could no longer fine-tune the
ability of its remaining genes, would lack the ability to digest complex compounds, and would need a comprehensive supply
of organic nutrients in its environment.4Yet even this simple organism has far too much information to be expected from
time and chance, without natural selection. The information theorist Hubert Yockey calculated that given a pool of pure,
activated biological amino acids, the total amount of information which could be produced, even allowing 109 years as
evolutionists posit, would be only a single small polypeptide 49 amino acid residues long. 5 This is about 1/8 the size
(therefore information content) of a typical protein, yet the hypothetical simple cell above needs at least 256 proteins. And
Yockeys estimate generously presupposes that the many chemical hurdles can be overcome, which is a huge assumption,
as shown by many creationist writers. 6NB: natural selection cannot help, as this requires self-replicating entitiestherefore it
cannot explain their origin.
DAILY
Abiogenesis?
Fantastic claims highlight the scientific absurdity of this recycled philosophy of spontaneous generation
by Renton Maclachlan
Published: 20 December 2014 (GMT+10)

Preamble: The New Zealand Geographic magazine, to which I have long subscribed, is a really excellent production
technically. But not surprisingly for
this type of magazine (much like the
better-known National Geographic),
they also publish articles that drop in
the standard evolutionary lines.New
Zealand
Geographic magazine
article about Abiogenesis with the
heading Cooking with gas.Over the
past 25 years they have graciously
published occasional letters from me
pointing out the lack of evidence for
their evolutionary claims. In the past
few
years,
the
evolutionary
storytelling has intensified. In the
March/April 2014 edition they
published an article by regular
contributor and evolutionary fanatic
Dave Hansford, entitled Cooking
with gas, under a heading LIFE: Abiogenesis. This article, which featured prominently the 1953 Miller/Urey experiment,
was particularly thin in content and substantiation, lacked any real critical thought, and made the outrageous claim, in both
the text and highlighted in a pullout quote:Life is coming into Earth from space all the time. Immediately you walk outside
the house, study leader Dr Milton Wainwright told BBC Radio, youre going to be covered in microrganisms [sic] or
biological entities coming from space. We believe theyve been coming in since year dot.After some amiable exchanges
with the editor, I sent the article below to New Zealand Geographic for publication. During subsequent exchanges, the editor
rejected the article saying that while there are useful elements in your criticism of abiogenesis, your thesis replaces
abiogenesis with an imaginary engineer in the sky; which is hardly a conclusive or well-constructed alternative.I replied that
my articles conclusion was, rather, a logical requirement deriving from the evidence which I outlined briefly, logic and
evidence which apparently you do not want to face.Upon further, later, reflection, I wrote asking for a retraction of the
patently false microorganisms from space claim. In his response, the editor said in part: As your objections are largely
ideological, Im sorry but I cant engage on this matter further.Our discussion was clearly coming to an end, but I thought I
would have one last shot, saying in part:It seems to me that it would logically follow that either you dont think the claim is
false and therefore it doesnt need to be corrected, or you know the claim is false and were comfortable with allowing a
known false claim to be published, or for it to stand now that the falsity of it has been pointed out to you. Either way, your
credibility cant help but be called into question, and not just by those such as myself. I really doubt that many of your fellow
Evos would agree with youat least the knowledgeable ones, if you think the claim is true. It is just so patently false that I
suspect most of them would agree with me, and think its publication is an embarrassment to the cause.The simple way out
of the bind is to publish a correction/disclaimer. That way you would show you dont accept this bizarre claim is true, as well
as showing youre big enough to admit a mistake.To the date of writing, no such disclaimer/retraction has appeared, and
frankly Im not holding my breath. Following is the article submitted to the New Zealand Geographic for publication in
October 2014.1
Abiogenesis?
Spontaneous generation was a mainstream scientific doctrine for a very long time, until proven wrong by Francesco Redi
and Louis Pasteur. Even then it died a slow and painful death. Spontaneous generation basically proposed that given the
right conditions and precursors, life would arise all by itself spontaneously. There were various recipes for this wellestablished fact of science. For example, 17th Century Flemish chemist Jan Baptiste van Helmont wrote, If a soiled shirt is
placed in the opening of a vessel containing grains of wheat, the reaction of the leaven in the shirt with fumes from the
wheat will, after approximately 21 days, transform the wheat into mice. It was also thought that meat left to rot would
spontaneously give rise to maggots and flies. The self-evident fact that rotting meat would before long swarm with maggots
and flies established the belief in spontaneous generation of maggots and flies from rotting meat. Redi proposed an
eminently simple experiment to test the hypothesis: lets cover the meat with some fine material and see what happens! Well
of course no maggots or flies swarmed on the meat as it rotted because no flies could get to the meat to lay their eggs and
thus produce the maggots and flies that were so well known. And so Redi overthrew long-established scientific doctrine and
replaced it with a new doctrine, Life comes from lifewhat became known as the law of biogenesis.Pasteur banged the
final nail in the coffin of spontaneous generation when he carried out his famous swan-necked beaker experiment. He
placed sterilized meat broth in his beaker, then heated the thin neck of the beaker and bent it downward like the neck of a
swan. While the bent neck allowed air to get to the broth, it stopped anything dropping into the broth from the air. His broth
stayed clear for a year, establishing that sterilised broth open to the air, without any protection as per the swan neck, was
contaminated by pre-existing life forms falling into it from the air, even though these were invisible to the naked eye. Again it
was established that Life comes from life, and spontaneous
generation fell into disrepute.But its amazing what a name
change can do to revive a cadaver dead and buried. Political
parties reinvent themselves by name changes. And old
worn-out failed policies, and politicians decked out in new
drag, are dished up to a gullible public as the very latest in
progressive politics. The same happened with spontaneous
generation. T. H. Huxley gave it a new scientific name,
made some cosmetic changes (limiting it to the origin of the
first life), and as a result its been resurrected and made
respectable
again

now
known
as
abiogenesis.Abiogenesis means no biologic origin, in
simple parlance, life from non-life and thus were back to
spontaneous generation, but in new guise given the right
conditions and precursors, life will arise spontaneously. And
this despite attempts by advocates to differentiate between
the terms. And so abiogenesis gets a pass and is promoted
in august scientific journals, and popular magazines such

as New Zealand Geographic (Issue 126, MarchApril 2014, p. 28); even though spontaneous generation has been
thoroughly debunked, and the disproving of it taught as a triumph of careful science over superstition.Further, billion-dollar
expeditions and experiments are conducted to seek to establish that life occurred abiogenically. The main impetus for the
US space program is to search for life in the solar system and beyond. Thus the Mars missions are not just to develop
amazing technologies, designed by the best brains in the industry, to send incredible machines millions of miles through
space to soft land on another planet. Rather, all the effort and the incredible machines are primarily for one purpose, to see
if life has spontaneously arisen and evolved on Mars. When such machines detect evidence of liquid water or organic
compounds, on Mars or anywhere else in the solar system, breathless news stories circulate the globe. They tell of the find
as though life itself had been found, or that given the presence of liquid water or organic compounds, life itself must be very
close at hand, even inevitable.Its as though water, organic compounds, and life are almost equivalent. Of course they are
nothing of the sort, and you dont have to be a rocket scientist to know this. Such media hoopla is reminiscent of the hype
and over-inflated claims which were made and still are, for the famous but totally irrelevant origin-of-life experiments
conducted by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey in 1953. As they slaved over their apparatus, I can just imagine Urey breathing
to Miller as the beakers began to morph green to yellow, If we can just make life in this test tube, well have proved that no
intelligence was required at the beginning. 2The reasoning behind this search for extraterrestrial life is that given life has
spontaneously arisen on earth, why should it not have spontaneously arisen somewhere else alsoin fact, anywhere the
right conditions and precursors exist? And so the multi-billion dollar taxpayer-funded search goes on, assuming that which
has been soundly disproved.And it is not just a search for rudimentary life, but life up to intelligent life. After all, if intelligent
life has evolved here on earth, why should it not have evolved elsewhere? Further, given that it has evolved elsewhere,
perhaps these intelligent aliens have a space program and perhaps they are trying to contact us. Wouldnt it be a
crying shame if we werent listening?! And so radio telescopes scan the skies hoping and praying (well, not praying) that a
coded message will be picked up indicative of ETI (Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence).But is it possible for biologic life, intelligent
or rudimentary, to spontaneously arise over time from material precursors as the advocates of abiogenesis maintain? Well,
no, its not, for a host of reasons. Life runs on coded messages, some of the most complicated messages known to humans.
And we havent gotten anywhere near the bottom of the complexity of it all. Multiple codes, messages running in different
directions with the information multi-layered on the genetic material, self-correction, vast storage mechanisms, postal
systems to deliver the messages thither and yon The list of wonders goes on and on, with more being discovered on a
regular basis.The whole ATP synthase machine with individually manufactured protein subunits each labelled with Greek
letters. H+ ions (protons) flow through a special tunnel in ATP synthase, as the arrow indicates. This induces mechanical
motion, forcing the axle and base to spin together like a turbine. Nearly 100% of the spinning momentum is converted to
chemical energy in the formation of ATP molecules! Three ATPs are produced for every 10 protons.
(Adapted from Kanehisa Laboratories, <www.genome.jp/kegg>)
In all human experience, messages and minds are tied irrevocably together, so that where we find a message we know it is
the product of a mind, of an intelligent source. We know that Bobby loves Bindy written in sand on a beach, is not and can
never be the result of water or wind rearranging grains of sand. This absolute message/mind connection is at the very heart
of the SETI program, the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence.What its hoped the radio telescopes utilised in this
program will find are coded messages of some sort. If such were found the joy of the SETI crowd would be unbounded.
Proof positive of alien intelligence would have been found. But these people have an enormous blind spot. Switch from radio
telescopes to electron microscopes and redirect your gaze from the skies to the innermost recesses of any living cell, and
what do you find? Messages, piled on top of messages, of the most astounding sort known. And not just an isolated one
here or there, (though one would be enough) but messages by the trillions. Thus, proof positive is there for all the world to
see, that biological life comes from an intelligent source. It did not spontaneously arise but is originally the product of
thought, planning, and design.If abiogenesis occurred as is claimed, then raw, undirected chemistry must have given rise to
the highly complex interrelated machines and processes that make biologic life possible. 3 Everyone has heard of the
chicken/egg conundrum; which came first? There are many chicken/egg relationships required for life to exist. Take ATP 4 for
example. ATP is the energy currency of life. Every biologic function is powered by ATP. Stop ATP production and youre
dead, instantly. Thats why cyanide is so lethal, it stops ATP production. ATP is produced by the molecular rotary motor ATP
Synthase, which spins at around 7000 revs a minute with every turn spitting out three ATP molecules. 5 Around 50kg of ATP
is produced in our bodies daily by the over 10 quadrillion ATP Synthase rotary motors in our bodies converting ADP 6 to ATP;
less when resting, more when working hard.But ATP Synthase is coded for on the DNA. So to get ATP Synthase you
have to have the DNA coding for it. But to get the DNA code for ATP Synthase transcribed so as to get ATP Synthase, you
need ATP to drive the transcription process. However, to get ATP to drive transcription, you need ATP Synthase to produce
it. No ATP Synthase = no ATP = no transcription of DNA coding for ATP Synthase = no ATP Synthase = no ATP
To make the issue explicit: The whole interrelated, irreducibly complex DNA/ATP Synthase system has to be fully intact and
functional for it to work. Without it life is not possible, thus it had to come into existence as a going concern from the very
first moment of lifes existence.Its a stranglehold on the obvious that such a system cant have arisen spontaneously, as
required by abiogenesis, neither instantaneously from material sources nor even step by step through random chemical
reactions in a little warm pond hit by bolts of lightning. The impossibility of acquiring this system as the result of chemistry
and physics doing their thing is just one of many insurmountable road blocks in the way of abiogenesis/spontaneous
generation. An engineer of unimaginable genius and creative skill is required. Abiogenesis/spontaneous generation fantasy,
however presented, or whatever term used for it, should be discarded once and for all by rational people.
http://creationwiki.org
Dean Kenyon
Dr Dean Kenyon: making the switch
Dean Kenyon, Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University, was a
committed evolutionist and one of the earlier researchers into the idea of a chemical origin for
life. He co-authored the book Biochemical Predestination in 1969 with fellow evolutionist, Gary
Steinmanm, and it became a standard text on this subject. For many years he taught courses
on evolution and the origin of life. Then he was exposed to some creationist writings and found
them persuasive. He writes:My own initiation into creationist scientific writing came in 1976 with
the geological sections of Whitcomb and Morris The Genesis Flood, and somewhat later, A. E. Wilder-Smiths The Creation
of Life: A Cybernetic Approach to Evolution. It soon became apparent to me that the creationist challenge to evolutionism
was indeed a formidable one, and I no longer believe that the arguments in Biochemical Predestination (Kenyon and
Steinman, McGraw-Hill, 1969) and in similar books by other authors, add up to an adequate defence of the view that life
arose spontaneously on this planet from nonliving matter. 7He is now a fellow of the Discovery Institute, the leading
Intelligent Design organization.

Life at the extremes

Evolution struggles to explain the existence of extremophiles (e.g. the tardigrades)
by David Catchpoole
The red colour of these rocks in the Solfatara volcanic
area near Naples, Italy, is produced by the
extremophile Sulfolobus solfataricus, which can thrive
even in the harsh corrosive acid environment around
volcanic
vents
and
hot
springs.
Credit: NASA, Science@NASA, Great bugs of fire,
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-atnasa/1998/msad16sep98_1, 27 July 2001.Could
anything live in a boiling mudhole? Actually, in recent
years, many new species have been discovered in
many places which were thought to be far too
inhospitable to support life.Not just in boiling mud, but
in steaming volcanic craters, in the rocky chimneys
that grow above deep-ocean volcanic vents spewing
forth hot salty water (black smokers), in areas of
extreme cold in the Antarctic, and even in the hypersalty Dead Sea in Israel, a treasure trove of living
organisms has been revealed. These extremophiles
(Greek -philos = loving) can tolerate astonishing
extremes of temperature, acidity, pressure, dryness
and salinity.1,2,3,4For example, Sulfolobus solfataricus can survive to 88C (190F) near fuming sulfurous volcanic vents (see
photo in Creation magazine p. 42). Pyrococcus furiosus (furious fireball) tolerates 100C (212F). Even more amazing
is Pyrolobus fumarii, which lives within the walls of black smokers, and which not only survives, but can actually grow at
temperatures up to 113C (235F).5 Ferroplasma acidarmanus thrives in acid mine drainage (pH0) 6 in Californiaa brew of
sulfuric acid and high levels of arsenic, cadmium and other toxic chemicals.Although most of these new species are only tiny
microbes, the impact of their discovery has been huge, and the study of extremophiles is now virtually a whole new branch
of science in its own right. 7It has led to the recent upheaval in the way we classify organisms, as scientists categorized
many of the new-found single-celled organisms into a new branch of life, the Archaea, which they elevated to the
overarching rank of domain.8,9,10After the initial discovery of life in the black smokers, further study of such areas revealed
not only other extremophiles, but also new information about life in the broader ocean, in less harsh environments. 11Industry
is copying aspects of the internal chemistry survival kits of extremophiles for use in situations where standard processes
break down. E.g. the enzymes of heat-loving organisms are used in DNA fingerprinting and baking processes. Those of
cold-tolerant ones are used in maturing cheese, and pasteurizing foods while keeping them chilled to thwart the growth of
undesirable bacteria. Alkali-tolerant enzymes are used to lighten and soften the fabric of jeans, giving a stonewashed effect
without having to use actual stones or similar particles to abrade the fabric.The discovery that life can exist in extreme
environments has raised evolutionists hopes that it could exist elsewhere in the universe, prompting astrobiologists and
others to call for increased effort to be put into the search for extraterrestrial life. 12,13Despite such evolutionary
enthusiasm,14 extremophiles in fact raise new difficulties for evolutionists. How does one explain how organisms could have
evolved to survive in such specialized extreme environments as deep-sea rock chimneys, through which superheated
solution as hot as 350C (660F) erupts? Some evolutionists say that it was in just such circumstances that life on this planet
first appearedin the hot, low-oxygen environment of the early oceans, bathed in the mineral-rich fluids gushing from
hydrothermal vents. Thus, the Archaea pursue their peculiar lifestyles in the more extreme environments of Earth, as they
may have done for perhaps 3.5 billion years. 9 But none other than the father of modern origin of life experiments, Stanley
Miller, pointed out that lifes building blocks are too unstable for a hot beginning of life. 15In any case, the notion of remnant
life-forms from billions of years ago is not so easily applied to other extremophiles, such as those that live in the polar ice
caps, in hyper-saline or acidic environments, in parched desert environments or even the super-frigid wastes of dry Antarctic
valleys. And even more telling is the fact that some extremophiles
are known to be able to withstand physical extremes beyond
anything present in the natural environment.
Zap-proof
For example, the bacterium Deinococcus radiodurans (radiationresistant weird-ball) has been identified in cans of meat that had
been sterilized (or so it was thought) with gamma radiation. While
a thousand rads of ionizing radiation is enough to kill a person,
this bacterium can survive 12 million rads!According to the theory
of evolution, an organism will possess only the attributes it needs
to survive. So where did Deinococcus live that it had to withstand
12 million rads of gamma radiation? Natural radiation on Earth is
nowhere more than a small fraction of this level. The best
answer that evolutionists can suggest is that the bacterium
evolved to withstand extreme dryness, and so radiation
resistance is just a fortuitous consequence of that evolutionary
process.16
.Worms of fire, worms of ice
For it is not just primitive single-celled organisms that live in
these harsh environments, but multicellular creatures as well. For
example, the Pompeii worm (Alvinella pompejana) lives in
papery tubes that it builds on the sides of the black smokers
mentioned earlier. The temperature inside these tubes has been
measured at 85C (185F), and there is even a report of one
worm which left its tube and curled itself around the researchers
temperature probe, showing 105C (221F)! 17And another newly
discovered species of worm, Hesiocaeca methanicola, has been

found living on the seafloor in the Gulf of Mexicothe only animal known to colonize methane hydrate ice. This crystalline
mixture of water, methane and other hydrocarbons freezes into a solid only under high pressures andrelatively
low temperaturesssurely one of the most specialized environments in the world.18The worms were observed at a depth of
700 m (2,300 ft) and 6C (43F), where methane hydrate is at the limit of its stability, so even a tiny increase in temperature
will see the worms home disappear in an explosion of bubbles. Though methane ice is as hard as rock, its tendency at this
temperature and depth to fizzle into gas appears to offer the worms the opportunity they need to set up a colony. By wafting
its tiny pink paddle-like feet, a worm is able to slowly use the resulting current of water to burrow into the ice. But isnt that a
lot of effort to go to, just for a home? As one researcher commented, Why worms spurn the good life in the mud for a life on
ice is a puzzle.17
The almost-invincible tardigrades
This water bear (Echiniscus sp.) is about 0.3 mm long. Tardigrades of this type live in moss cushions, e.g. on rooftops
exposed to much sunshine, where temperatures can be over 60C. So they have to frequently convert (possibly every day!)
from their active form to the dry (tun) form. Despite their small size, tardigrades considerable brain enables them to find
their nutrition and their partners even in the most stunningly harsh environments on Earth.But of all the organisms so far
identified to be able to live in harsh environments, the toughest animals on Earth by far are the tardigrades. You can freeze
them, boil them, dry them, starve them and even put them in a vacuumyet they still bounce back.The form of these little
creatures (mostly less than 1 mm (one twenty-fifth of an inch) long) has earned them the nicknames of moss piglets, bear
animalcules and water bears. With their stumpy legs, tiny claws and slow, lumbering gait they really do look like a
microscopic bear.19 Around 700 species of tardigrades have been found in habitats ranging from the freezing peaks of the
Himalayas to the hottest, driest deserts, right down to the deepest ocean trenches of the Pacific.
Slow down, turn off revive, survive!
How do they withstand such environmental extremes? By shutting down their metabolism during unfavourable conditions.
When things become unbearably hot, or cold, or dry, e.g., many tardigrades curl in their head and legs and roll up into a
barrel-like shape called a tun.20They then make the biochemical preparations for shutting everything downeven their
respiration ceases completely. But later, when favourable circumstances return, the tardigrade uncurls itself, again extending
its legs and head, and life goes on as before.The (known) record duration for survival (in this case, without water) is 120
years, for tardigrades taken from dried-out moss kept in a museum in Italy.21And biologists are amazed at the sort of
laboratory treatment that tardigrades can endureoften far worse than any conditions they would ever experience on Earth.
For example, they have revived after having been frozen in liquid helium (-272C, or -458F), just a fraction above absolute
zero (-273.15C, or -459.67F), the lowest temperature possible. 22,23 At the other extreme, they have survived being heated
to 151C (304F). They have survived being zapped with X-rays with an intensity 250 times stronger than that which would
kill a human. Tardigrades can even survive being photographed by an electron microscope, which requires putting them in a
vacuum and bombarding them with electrons.
Bearing up under pressure
At least two species of tardigrades (Macrobiotus occidentalis (order Eutardigrada) and Echiniscus
japonicus (Heterotardigrada) have been shown to be able to survive extraordinarily highhydrostatic pressures, 600 MPa
(6,000 atmospheres), i.e. six times greater than the pressure at the bottom of the deepest ocean on Earth.24,25 To put this in
context, research has shown that when other animals are exposed to high pressures, their cell membranes, proteins and
DNA are damaged. In most micro-organisms, growth and metabolism stops at pressures of around 30 MPa (300
atmospheres), and even among the microbes which are resilient to high pressures, most will die at 300 MPa (3,000
atmospheres). In addition, while there are organisms (other than tardigrades) that can survive very high pressures, a
sudden change can be lethal to thema danger to which human divers must be ever alert. 26 But tardigrades not only can
survive extended periods at 600 MPa (6,000 atmospheres!), but high-speed decompression as well.
Over-engineered?
As creationists have pointed out before, the ability of tardigrades to survive being subjected to such extreme laboratory
treatments (radiation, cold temperature, hydrostatic pressure), far more severe than any Earth environment, poses a very
clear difficulty for evolutionary theory.27 As one scientific writer put it, With such an arsenal of adaptations for survival,
tardigrades appear to be over-engineered.21And, not just tardigradesas this latest surge of exploration and laboratory
research reveals yet more extremophile microbes and other organisms able to withstand far harsher conditions than
anywhere on Earth, the challenge to evolutionary theory becomes even more intractable. This is because natural selection
can only select characteristics necessary for immediate survival. Consequently, evolution cannot be expected to overequip
creatures for a host of environments they have never faced.
Just how do they do it?
How do extremophiles manage to thrive in conditions that are fatal to other organisms? Researchers are slowly gaining
some insights into their various survival mechanisms:Keeping the external environment out. E.g. Cyanidium
caldarium and Dunaliella acidophila live in acidic environments (pH 0.5), while inside the cell remains near-neutral (approx.
pH 7).1 (Of course, the protective molecules of their external skin must be acid-tolerant.) This strategy requires functional
machinery that can quickly remove the problem; heavy-metal-resistant bacteria use an efflux pump to remove zinc, copper
and cobalt before internal levels become toxic.
Special enzymes. Dubbed extremozymes, they often resemble standard enzymes in structure but contain more strong
bonds (e.g. ionic and covalent bonds).2
Stabilized DNA. Extremophiles higher ratio of GC to AT linkages and the presence of MgCl 2 and KCl salts stabilize the
DNA at high (>70C) temperatures.1
Salty cells. Organisms living in a salty environment (e.g. Halobacterium salinarum) ensure their internal cell solution is even
saltier (using, e.g., KCl or glycine betaine), thus retaining water rather than losing it.
Rapid repair of DNA. The incredible radiation tolerance of Deinococcus radiodurans may stem from its highly efficient DNA
repair system. It not only has at least three backup copies of its full DNA sequence (genome), but also limits mutations by
removing damaged DNA from the cell before it can be reincorporated.3Special sugar. When tardigrades facing dry
conditions enter the tun state, levels of a sugar called trehalose increase rapidly. Researchers suggest that trehalose
substitutes for water molecules, thus maintaining membrane fluidity and protecting vital cell components. 4 This inspired
Japanese experiments with trehalose for transplant organ storage (rat hearts were successfully revived after 10 days). 5 (See
also Long-life blood platelets.)Scientists are still trying to decipher the chemical processes involved and how they confer
such spectacular resistance to extremes. The idea that such complex and incredibly fine-tuned mechanisms could be the
result of evolution defies logic.Neither the modern identification of human genetic diseases nor the use of DNA evidence in
law courts would have been realized if the Master Designers handiwork had not been available for studyfor DNA
sequencing only became possible with the discovery of the extremozymes in such super-heat-loving bacteria.

Secular biology class confirms design

by Joseph Benson
The hard facts of science, such as the Law of Biogenesis and
apoptosis (programmed cell death) support design by a designer,
not evolution.Although secular science classes are typically taught
with materialistic assumptions built into the curriculum, the actual
hard science strongly supports creation. There are many
examples, but here are two that I came across.In a recent biology
class I was taught that cells (the most basic unit of life) arise only
from pre-existing cells (called the Law of Biogenesis).1 My
professor openly stated that scientists do not know how the first cell
evolved, though they are constantly searching for an answer to this
problem. From a young age perspective, however, the fact that
the most basic unit of life arises only from already existing life
makes perfect sense. How the first cells arose is thus a problem
only when biology is approached with materialistic, evolutionary
assumptions.Programmed cell death, called apoptosis, presents an
equally puzzling problem for the evolutionist. Of its many important
roles, apoptosis eliminates cells that are damaged lest they
continue to divide and become cancerous.2 Apoptosis instructs the
cell to commit suicide; thus preventing cancer. It is also a part of
normal development in our mothers womb, such as in the
formation of our fingers and toes. 3 Like any human invention, a mechanism that behaves with such specificity indicates
design.Whats more, apoptosis functions in so-called primitive life forms just as it does in humans; so they call it
evolutionarily conserved.4 This simply means that two organisms far apart in the supposed evolutionary tree share very
similar sequences of DNA.5 The remarkable similarity here seems to better support design by a common designer.Indeed,
there is no plausible evolutionary theory to explain how apoptosis arose. Again, from a creation perspective apoptosis
makes sense, being designed by an intelligent designer to serve a specific purpose. Just as with the origin of the cell, the
problems arise when materialism dictates the research.
Conclusion
Evidence of design surrounds us. Undisputed facts about the natural world presented in secular science classes clearly
point to a Designer. Despite the materialistic assumptions that pervade science today, evidence for design cannot be easily
hidden.
Hawking claims that life can form by chance
Aliens probably do exist says top cosmologist
by Dominic Statham
Published: 13 October 2010(GMT+10)
Stephen Hawking
Stephen Hawking was, for thirty years, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at
Cambridge University, and is one of the worlds foremost cosmologists. He regularly
features in popular science television programmes, and his phenomenally successful
book, A Brief History of Time, has over nine million copies in print.1 His latest book The
Grand Design declares that no designer was necessary (see detailed refutation).In one
of his most recent broadcasts, Stephen Hawkings universe,2 he unequivocally
subscribes to the view that extraterrestrials are probably common place. Since our
galaxy is just one of 100 billion, he argues, the numbers alone make thinking about
aliens perfectly rational. Indeed, he claims, Stars Wars and Star Trek may be closer
to reality than we think in our vast, ancient universe, almost any form that is
physically possible is likely to exist or have existed somewhere.Hawking offers two
explanations as to how life might have begun on Earth. The first is that this happened
by accidentthat random collisions of amino acids in a primordial soup, over millions of
years, just happened to produce the right combination of molecules. This he describes
as the ultimate, lucky break that started the chain of life. In making this statement, he
demonstrates that he is unaware of the simple chemical fact that amino acids in a soup
would not spontaneously link up; rather, any chains would break downsee Origin of
life: the polymerization problem. Furthermore, there are other components of any
primordial soup that would block chains from growing or destroy the amino acids. But
this article is concerned mainly with his probability fallacies.Although he accepts that the chance of life arising
spontaneously is very small, he does not feel that this is a problem for this theory. Its like winning a lottery he claims.
Although the odds are astronomical, most weeks, someone hits the jackpot.The second explanation he gives
is panspermiathat life was seeded on earth by asteroidsa view shared by fellow atheist Francis. However, as we have
pointed out many times before, all this does is transfer the problem of lifes origin to another time and place in the universe.
See also Panspermia theory burned to a crisp: bacteria couldnt survive on meteorite.Given Hawkings mathematical
background, his treatment of the probability of life beginning in the way he suggests is astonishing. Moreover, his confusing
the issue with a lottery beggars belief. In a typical lottery, with say a million participants, where each person buys just one
ticket and the winning number is drawn from the numbers purchased, the probability of a particular participant winning is one
in a million. However the probability that there will be a winner is one (a guaranteed certainty!). There is no certainty that life
will arise from a pool of amino acids. Hawking is really just cheating with chance. Other lotteries are organised slightly
differently, and it is possible that the winning number will not have been purchased. However, the fact that most weeks,
someone hits the jackpot shows that there is still a high probability of someone winning.For life to begin through the random
shuffling of chemicals in a primordial soup, many exceedingly unlikely events must take place. Not just one, but many
particular combinations of molecules must be formed. The probability of just one protein forming from amino acids is tiny.
The probability of many forming is too small to be considered credible. Lets have a look at a few simple calculations.As

everyone knows, the probability of tossing a coin and it landing heads up is 1 in 2 (i.e. 0.5). The probability of two coins
landing heads up is 1 in 4 (i.e. 0.52 = 0.25). The probability of three coins landing heads up is 1 in 8 (i.e. 0.5 3 = 0.125). The
probability of a hundred coins landing heads up is 0.5100, that is around 1 in 1030. (1030 is 1 followed by 30 zeroes.) A similar
calculation might be made for amino acids forming proteins (the building blocks of life).
Diagram of chirality.
Amino acids (except the simplest, glycine) come in two forms
left-handed and right-handed. This is known as chirality (see
diagram, right). For a number of amino acids to form a functional
protein, they must all be like-handed (or homochiral). In actual
fact, proteins in living organisms have all left-handed amino
acids. For a short protein of only 100 amino acids, the probability
of this occurring is the same as a hundred coins landing heads
up, i.e. 1 in 1030. (The homochirality problem is even more acute
for RNA and DNA, which contain all right-handed sugars. One
wrong-handed molecule can disrupt replication by terminating the
growing chain.)The minimum number of proteins required to
assemble a working, self-replicating cell is estimated to be at
least 387 (see How simple can life be?). Let us be particularly
generous to evolution theory and say that only 300 are required.
What is the probability of 300 amino acid chains arising with the characteristics outlined above? Again, the calculation is
easy. It is 1 in 10(30 x 300), i.e. 1 in 109,000.But what about Hawkings point that our galaxy is just one of 100 billion? Given the
many, many billions of planets that exist and the alleged 14 or 15 billion years that the universe has been around, surely its
reasonable to believe that life evolved on at least a few of these planets?Let us do some more basic calculations. 1 in
109,000 is the probability of tossing a set of 29,897 coins and all of them landing heads up (because 0.5 29,897 = 109,000, i.e. 1 in
109,000). Supposing every atom in the universe (of which there are an estimated 10 80) turned into a machine capable of
tossing a set of 29,897 coins all at once, a billion times each second. How many sets of 29,897 coins could we toss in the
alleged 15 billion years the universe has existed?The answer is 10 80 x 15 x 109 x 365 x 24 x 60 x 60 x 109 = 5 x 10106, say
10107.The chances of achieving something with a probability of 109,000 when 10107 attempts are made is 109,000 x 10107 = 10
8,893
, i.e. 1 in 1 followed by 8,893 zeroes. This is such an unimaginably small fraction that the idea of proteins forming by
random collisions of amino acids to form a living, self-replicating cell may be seen to be utterly, utterly implausible.Moreover,
this is just the beginning of the problems for these kinds of origin of life scenarios.3 For example, not only do the amino acids
have to be like-handed, they must bond to each other in a particular waythat is, they must form peptide bonds. Even in a
specially prepared protected environment (in a test tube), experiments indicate that there is only a 1 in 2 chance of this
happening with each amino acid. Hence, the probability of 100 amino acids coming together by chance, all having the same
handedness and all forming peptide bonds, is around 1 in 10 60.4 Chemists who make proteins actually block non-peptide
reaction sites with protecting groups, then remove those after the reaction (and they exclude water and any alkali). 5 The
primordial soup didnt have such helpful chemists around. Indeed, evolutionists themselves have admitted that The
activation of amino acids and the formation of peptides under primordial conditions is one of the great riddles of the origin of
life.6Furthermore, there are any one of 20 types of amino acid that could assemble themselves in any of the 100 positions
along the chain. Hence, there are 20 100 = 10130 ways that the protein could form. Only a very small fraction of these would
form the functional proteins needed to get the simplest biological cell going. 7 Further to this, a self replicating cell would
require other complex molecules such as RNA/DNAand there are similar problems with handedness, as mentioned
above, as well as with linking up at all, let alone in the right way, and obtaining the right sequence (see Evolutionist criticisms
of the RNA World conjecture). No wonder the Nobel Prize-winner, Jacques Monod, argued that the probability of life
emerging by random processes is so small that it might be considered to be zero. 8Hawkings conviction that evolution is
true appears to be more intuitive than scientific. In such a massive place as the cosmos, he opines, we only have to look
at ourselves for proof that extremely unlikely things can and do happen all the time. In other words, whatever the difficulties
in explaining evolution, the existence of humans is proof that it can happen. Talk about begging the question! 9Many
evolutionists have now abandoned pure chance as an explanation for lifes origin. They tend to favour the idea that currently
unobserved natural laws exist which caused functional proteins and RNA/DNA molecules to form. They believe that, if they
continue their research, they will discover these laws. 10 But this is a faith, as evolutionary information theorist Hubert Yockey
admitted. Of course, belief in creation is also a faith. However, unlike Hawkings origin of life scenarios, Christianity
is supported by real historical evidence.
Earliest multicellular life?
Claimed 1.5 billion years earlier than previously thought
by Shaun Doyle
Published: 15 July 2010(GMT+10)
From El Albani et al., ref. 2, p. 100

Figure 1. Geologic setting showing the extent

of the Francevillian formation in Gabon. The
fossils were found near Franceville (marked
by star). Note the stratigraphic setting and
massive size of the Franceville formation,
which suggests it was deposited early in the
global Flood rather than more gradually in a
deltaic environment, as the researchers
propose.
Once again, a fossil find has re-written the
evolutionary origins story, or so were told.
Over 250 fossils, supposedly 2.1 billion years
(Ga) old have been found in Gabon, in
western Africa. The big surprise for
evolutionists is their size: they are in the scale
of centimetres long, getting as long as 12 cm.
One report states that the discovery of the
Gabon fossils moves the cursor of the origin
of multicellular life back by 1.5 billion years.1
Is this true? Or are the reports playing fast and
loose with terms such as multicellular life,
and muddying the waters in which multicelled
life supposedly evolved? As is often the case,
the actual research tells a much less
convincing story.2,3
Stratigraphy and age
These fossils are claimed to be about 2.1 Ga
old, and are embedded in the sedimentary
Franceville formation near Gabon in western
Africa, which outcrops over 35,000 km2 and
has a maximum depth of about 2,000 m
(figure 1). The fossils were found closer to the
top of the formation in finer-grained layers
than those that occur underneath, and have
an estimated density at the quarry in which
they were found of 40 fossils/m 2.4Such a large
sedimentary formation (figure 1) with hints of
volcanism is likely to be catastrophically laid
down, possibly during the Inundatory stage of the Flood according to Walkers model 5 and Oards diagnostic criteria.6 The
sedimentary layering and large area suggests the Franceville formation is much too large to be post-Flood, (see below for
creationist issues surrounding the interpretation of Precambrian fossils).The volume of the Franceville formation as a whole,
along with the fine sedimentary layers evidenced especially in the upper, fossil-bearing layers of the formation suggest that
catastrophic burial is a better explanation than slow deltaic inundation.6
What are these fossils?
There is a lot of confusion around what these fossils actually are. El Albani et al. say that the folded radial structure
evidenced in the fossils (figure 2) is too complex for mere inorganic processes. 7 Moreover, the fossils displayed consistently
higher organic carbon (as determined by the 13C content) than the surrounding sediment, suggesting the fossils were
originally organic. Moreover, the surrounding sediment is rich in organic carbon, and contains evidence of eukaryotic
organisms as well.7 El Albani et al. say that the Gabon assemblage is most likely fossilized colonial organisms, and are thus
evidence of multicellular life.8 But what exactly do they mean by multicellular life?
Evidence for the evolution of multicellularity?
The Gabon fossils have been hailed as multicellular life.1,9,10 The researchers have shown, capably I believe, that they have
found true organic macrofossils. However, these fossils would be considered unimportant if it wasnt for the age assigned to
them and that they are called multicellular organisms because of their size. This creates excitement because, at first look, it
seems to make the unsightly problems of the Ediacaran and Cambrian explosions of multicellular diversity less of a
problem for evolutionists. However, as Donoghue and Antcliffe point out, defining multicellularity is a tricky
business:Multicellularity represents one of the principal thresholds in evolutionary history. This threshold has been
exceeded tens of times, perhaps because much of the requisite molecular machinery to facilitate cellcell coordination is a
shared primitive feature of living organisms, but also because some definitions of multicellularity encompass everything from
simple bacterial colonies to badgers. Stricter definitions of multicellularity are met in far fewer instances. 11This ambiguity
creates confusion: when people ordinarily think of multicellular organisms, they think of animals and plants (and fungi).
Therefore, to hear that multicellularity has evolved tens of times gives the impression that it is a simple transition.
Moreover, equating the cellular coordination of the unicellular life 12 or Gabon fossils to those in the Cambrian is misleading
because there is a vast difference in the multicellularity of the organisms these two fossil groups represent:Although the
fossils are macroscopic, they do not seem to represent anything other than the basic type of multicellularity, which occurs
earlier in time in the form of stromatolites.13
From El Albani et al., ref. 2, p. 101

Figure 2. One of the macrofossil specimens. a. Top shows lower

side of the fossil. Bottom is its impression in the black
shale. b. CT virtual reconstruction of fossil. c. Virtual section
close to central part of fossil. Scale bars, 1.0 cm. Based on the
appearance of fossils and their geochemical analysis the
researchers suggest a biogenic origin for the fossils. Note
however the simplicity of the structures, which suggests this and
the other fossils are most likely colonial bacteria rather than true
multicellular life.
There is a fundamental difference between bacterial colonies,
such as what the Gabon fossils most likely represent, and true
multicellularity such as we find in animals, plants and fungi.
Multicellularity as found in these latter organisms has four
essential characteristics:14Genetic sameness throughout the
cellular population to ensure every cell plays by the same rules.
Physical cohesion between the cells such that separating some
cells of from others causes severe injury or death to the
organism.Intercellular coordination mediated through a cellular
differentiation program for the development of the single cell
zygote into a full-fledged multicellular individual.Repair and
maintenance strategies, of which serial cell differentiation is the
primary method, that work to maintain bodily integrity and control
cellular selection throughout the life of the organism.Moreover,
cells and organisms that dont possess true multicellularity
cannot decouple totipotency15 and immortality16 because they
dont already possess a full cellular differentiation program. And
there is a fundamental conflict between cell-level and organismlevel selection because competition for survival between individual cells is incompatible with the intercellular co-dependence
of true multicellularity. All of these parameters and problems combined render the evolution of true multicellularity essentially
impossible.17Bacterial and unicellular eukaryotic colonies show widespread evidence of communication and coordination.
However, like such colonies, there is no evidence of cell differentiation in the Gabon fossils, such as different tissue
structures. Since cellular differentiation is the cornerstone of true multicellularity,18 the Gabon fossils remain mere colonial
organisms and provide no evidence for the evolution of true multicellularity.
Problems with the timing of the fossils
In spite of all the confusion about the evolution of multicellularity regarding the Gabon fossils, Donoghue and Antcliffe
claim:It was Darwins view that absence of organisms in these early intervals of Earths history would prove his theory of
biological evolution wrong. The discovery and continuing elucidation of the Precambrian fossil record has met Darwins
predictions on the extent and structure of evolutionary history.However, the researchers state that there is
some superficial similarity to one dubious Ediacaran fossil. Nevertheless, this is as close as the researchers get to positing
any concrete evolutionary links between the Gabon fossils and multicellular life. The obvious implication of
thesuperficial similarity to a dubious Ediacaran fossil is that the researchers do not believe the Gabon fossils are ancestors
of the Ediacaran biota. Therefore, we are still no closer to identifying the putative ancestors of the Ediacaran or Cambrian
biota.Moreover, these colonies are speculated to have gone extinct after the Great Oxidation Event (GOE) that supposedly
occurred between 2.4 and 2.0 Ga ago. 19 Despite the major problems with such a scenario, 20,21 how does it provide anything
new or exciting for evolutionary history? At best its a failed evolutionary experiment that wasnt successfully replicated for
another 1.5 Ga. At worst its another independent explosion of multicellular diversity with no antecedent evidence, just like
the so-called Ediacaran and Cambrian explosions. 22Finally, colonial bacteria are a far cry from the intricate differentiation
and body planning programs witnessed to in the Cambrian fossils. Therefore we are left with fossils with modern analogues
(modern bacterial colonies) with no links to anything more advanced. Once again, the fossils appear fully formed, with no
evidence of gradual transition in the rocks. This is a far cry from substantiating Darwins claims about the fossil record
rather, they falsify them.23
Creationist implications
Precambrian fossils have been as controversial among creationists as they have been among uniformitarian evolutionists,
though for somewhat different reasons. Creationists have long debated over where to place the pre-Flood/Flood boundary in
the rock record, and Precambrian fossils and organic carbon have been some of the key points of contention. 24 While these
fossils may possibly be examples of macroscopic fossils since they are most likely bacterial colonies and
not nephesh life,25,26 they still remain consistent with an Early Flood interpretation as outlined above.27
Conclusion
These fossils superficially look impressive for evolution, but once you remove the equivocation they prove nothing. They end
up creating more problems than they solve. However, whether these structures are true fossils or merely inorganic
formations, they hardly present any problem for creationists. They present us with a class of organisms for which we have
plenty of examples in the living world (prokaryotic colonial organisms) and we dont need to postulate the multiple,
independent rise of such coordinated complexity by chance. If the concretions are inorganic (which is a possibility 10), then
they obviously say nothing about evolution.
WAS LIFE REALLY CREATED IN TEST TUBE?
Was life really created in a test tube?
by Jonathan Sarfati
Published: 25 May 2010(GMT+10)
Headlines are buzzing with the news of Dr Craig Venters
sensational creation of a synthetic life form. Naturally, one
atheopathic invader of CMIs Facebook fan page gloated:You
can now make life from no life in your own lab, no need for a
God just a Man. So I guess you will suddenly change from
saying cant be done to worrying about morals. There are

deep philosophical ideas that this brings up. I doubt many Young Earth Creationalists [sic] will grasp the significance of this
for quite some time.So what was actually achieved, and what does it mean?In 2002, I wrote about Dr Venters plans to
make new life, in Will scientists create new life formsand what would it prove?, covering not only the above point but
others about playing God, biohazards, and information. Readers might wish to study this article before proceeding further.
My colleague Dr Carl Wieland also wrote an article forCreation magazine 26(3):1617 in 2004, Creating life in a testtube? which is also worth studying for overlapping as well as different points.
What was actually achieved?
The leftist UK newspaper, The Guardian, had a headline Craig Venter creates synthetic life form. But the subheading read:
Craig Venter and his team have built the genome of a bacterium from scratch and incorporated it into a cell to make what
they call the worlds first synthetic life form. This was the culmination of 15 years of research.
Existing cell machinery needed
If I can just synthesize life in the test tube then Ill have proven that no intelligence was necessary to form life in the
beginning.Logic-challenged atheopathic scientistNote very carefully what this said: the DNA was built from scratch, then
placed into an already existing cell before it could work. This shows thats its not enough just to make DNA; it needs
the machinery of a cell before it works. This has long been a vicious circle for chemical evolution (or abiogenesis), or the
origin of life from non-living life: DNA is no use without machinery to translate it, but this machinery is itself encoded in the
DNAsee Self-replicating enzymes? A critique of some current evolutionary origin-of-life models.
DNA sequence is software
In an online video, Dr Venter explains his work:Its pretty stunning when you just replace the DNA software in the cell, and
the cell instantly starts reading that new software, starts making a whole different set of proteins, and within a short while, all
the characteristics of the first species disappear, and a new species emerges from this software that controls that cell going
forward. Life is basically the result of an information process, a software process. Our genetic code is our software, and
our cells are dynamically, constantly reading our genetic code, making new proteins, and the proteins make the other
cellular components. This is now the first time where weve started with information in the computer, built that software
molecule, now over a million letters of genetic code, put that into a recipient cell, and have this process start where that
information converted that cell into a new species.Life is basically the result of an information process, a software process.
Our genetic code is our software, and our cells are dynamically, constantly reading our genetic code.Craig Venter This
lines up with what evolutionist Paul Davies says. He is anti-creationist, but he argues that the living cell is like an incredibly
powerful supercomputer. Thats because the secret of life lies not with the chemical ingredients of DNA, but with their
organizational arrangement. They code for proteins, via the decoding machinery mentioned above. 1 Davies calls the living
cell an information processing and replicating system of astonishing complexity. 2 Davies continued:DNA is not a special
life-giving molecule, but a genetic databank that transmits its information using a mathematical code. Most of the workings of
the cell are best described, not in terms of material stuffhardwarebut as information, or software. Trying to make life by
mixing chemicals in a test tube is like soldering switches and wires in an attempt to produce Windows 98. It wont work
because it addresses the problem at the wrong conceptual level.But this leaves Davies with a problem in explaining how life
could have arisen from non-living chemicals:How did nature fabricate the worlds first digital information processorthe
original living cellfrom the blind chaos of blundering molecules? How did molecular hardware get to write its own
software?Indeed, the chemical interactions between the DNA letters cannot explain their order. In fact, the letters are not
even chemically combined with each other; rather, they form rungs of a ladder comprising deoxyribose and phosphate.
Michael Polanyi (18911976), former chairman of physical chemistry at the University of Manchester (UK) who turned to
philosophy, affirmed this decades ago:As the arrangement of a printed page is extraneous to the chemistry of the printed
page, so is the base sequence in a DNA molecule extraneous to the chemical forces at work in the DNA molecule. It is this
physical indeterminacy of the sequence that produces the improbability of any particular sequence and thereby enables it to
have a meaninga meaning that has a mathematically determinate information content. 3Furthermore, Venter modeled his
software on the known arrangements of the simplest known self-replicating organism, a Mycoplasma. In the abstract of his
paper Creation of a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesized genome published in the journal Science, he and
his co-workers state:We report the design, synthesis, and assembly of the 1.08-Mbp Mycoplasma mycoides JCVI-syn1.0
genome
starting
from
digitized
genome
sequence
information
and
its
transplantation
into
a Mycoplasma capricolum recipient cell to create new Mycoplasma mycoidescells that are controlled only by the synthetic
chromosome. The only DNA in the cells is the designed synthetic DNA sequence, including watermark sequences and
other designed gene deletions and polymorphisms, and mutations acquired during the building process. The new cells have
expected phenotypic properties and are capable of continuous self-replication.That is, he decoded the sequence of one
organism, then used this information to synthesize DNA in that sequence. He made some modifications: adding four
watermarks and extra coding for a substance that would turn blue in the presence of certain drugs. Then it was implanted it
into a bacterium of the same genus.
DNA is chemically difficult to make
Even aside from the informational
content, which is the order of the
chemicals, and the need for
decoding machinery, there is a huge
problem in ordinary chemistry in
getting any large DNA molecule.
Venter explained that ordinary
chemical synthesizers make DNA
only 5080 letters long, so it was
quite a jump to making something
exceeding
amillion letters.
Furthermore, these synthesizers use
very complicated starting materials,
deoxyribonucleotides, which are a
long way from being produced in a
primordial soup (see some of the
tremendous difficulties involved in
making ribonucleotides, required for
the fashionable RNA World ideas,
and Origin of life: instability of
building blocks). Furthermore, they

are chemically activated, so they have the energy to link up into the large molecules (see Origin of life: the polymerization
problem), and all right handed as required, whereas a primordial soup would produce a 50/50 mixture of left-handed and
right-handed molecules (see Origin of life: the chirality problem).Actually, Venter used proteins found in yeast to join large
lengths of DNA.DNA is certainly the most compact information storage and retrieval system known to date (see DNA:
marvellous messages or mostly mess?), but it is chemically unstable, and even physically unwieldy. Viruses are now known
to have a special powerful mini-motor to wind up this extremely long and thin molecular thread.
Summary
Venters work was an amazing scientific achievement, the result of years of research and much ingenuity. There were at
least three problems he had to solve to make his synthetic life; these are listed here, alongside his solutions:Operating
machinery: using an already existing cell Software: obtaining the information of an already existing cell, modifying it, and
synthesizing DNA with this information.Joining up this molecule despite the chemical and physical difficulties. Venter used
proteins from yeast to help.
Did Venter really make new life?
Small wonder that the claims of synthetic life have critics. The Science
News reportGenome from a bottle cited a couple:To some, though, this
man-made genome is not technically artificial. Its a great feat, but I
wouldnt call it an artificial organism, Collins says [bioengineer James
Collins, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator at Boston
University who was not involved in the study]. Synthetic, he contends,
implies designed from scratch, not plagiarized from a natural genome.
Whats more, the experiment required a recipient cell to provide the
cytoplasm to hold the transplanted genome. Its small, but its an important
quibble, he says.To claim the creation of synthetic life, asserts Glenn
McGee of the Center for Practical Bioethics in Kansas City, Mo., the entire
organism must be successfully produced from raw materials.The landmark
achievement has yet to occur, McGee says. What theyve done is theyve
successfully transplanted DNA from one thing to another without noticeably
harming the operation of the old DNA, as best they understand it, from their
definition of its function. When I put it that way, its a hell of a lot less
significant.Anti-creationist geneticist Steve Jones is another critic, as
quoted in a Guardianprofile of Venter:Jones is sceptical about the
hyperbole of breathless headlines. The idea that this is playing God is
just daft. What he has done in genetic terms would be analogous to taking an Apple Mac programme and making it work on
a PC and then saying you have created a computer. Its not trivial, but it is utterly absurd the claims that are being made
about it.
Conclusion
In the 2002 article cited above, we wrote about Venters proposal as follows:Almost as soon as the news broke, we received
a gloating email basically saying that we should be so frightened that we may as well disband CMI, saying:New life forms
can now be produced in a dish. So much for saying man cant create life. Keep defending your deep seated belief though,
people depend on you. CMI has never actually claimed that man cant create life. Rather, we claim that intelligence is
required to generate life, and specifically the literally encyclopedic quantities of information on which life depends. So, as
illustrated by the cartoon on the right, if Venter and Smith succeed, it would actually reinforce our claim! They rely on
meticulous planning, not just throwing a few building blocks into something resembling the hypothetical primordial
soup.Indeed, far from showing that chemical evolution is plausible, Venters achievement shows many reasons why it is not.
The DNA software sequence was planned after analyzing an already existing microbe, the components joined with intricate
chemistry largely based on proteins from living organisms, and the product was read with already-existing cell machinery.
So the critics above have a good point: this wasnt really a synthetic life form.But what if they had not only manufactured the
DNA from its components, but also made proteins from their components to function like the yeast ones, and managed to
make the decoding machines and cytoplasm as well? Venter says that such a feat is years away. Then there might be a real
claim that they had made synthetic life. Would this then be proof against the need for a Designer of life? Not at all. Our 2004
article cited above pointed out:[I]f it were to happen, then in one sense, people should be getting excited, using it as
evidence for creation. if someone were to claim that synthesizing life in a test-tube wipes out the idea of creation, they
would in effect be saying, Synthesizing life in a test-tube proves that it evolved. Now substitute the italicized words in that
phrase with others of identical meaning, and the absurdity of it becomes clear: Using intelligence to make life in a test-tube
proves that it made itself and did not arise through intelligence. say someone, washed ashore on a remote island, sees a
portable battery-operated television set. Never having seen a TV set before, they eventually happen to switch it on and
watch it in amazement. Puzzling about how this device came to be, its discoverer decides to take it apart. Years are spent
studying it and learning all about how it works. Using thousands of hours of mind-power and effort, the person learns how to
make an exact copy of each part, 4 and how to put the parts together in exactly the same way as the original. Finally, the
moment has arrivedthe switch is thrownvoil, it works. Now if such an amazingly brilliant achievement had taken place,
it would obviously be the height of foolishness for such a person to say, excitedly, Wow, now I know for certain that the
device I found made itself!So, as we said years ago, such news is far from a threat to the young age model, but a strong
vindication.
Evolution of multicellularity: what is required?
by Shaun Doyle
All evolution assumes either the augmentation of some prior system to fit a new need, or lateral gene transfer adding
information for the same end. Even systems that seem to require completely new structures (feathers for example) are
assumed to be modified from pre-existing structures. However, there are two significant events in evolutionary history where
far more would have been requiredthe origin of life, and the origin of co-ordinated multicellularity.
Requirements for multicellular evolution
Genetic sameness

Volvox spp. fail to meet the requirements to achieve true

multicellularity.The first requirement for multicellularity to emerge
is that all the cells must contain the same genetic information.
Wolpert and Szathmry provide a good overview of why genetic
sameness is required for a multicellular organism to be viable as
an individual:The first step in the development of a complex
organism is the establishment of a pattern of cells with different
states that can differentiate along different pathways.
[P]atterning processes require signalling between and within
cells, leading ultimately to gene activation or inactivation. Such a
process can lead to reliable patterns of cell activities only if all
the cells have the same set of genes and obey the same
rules [emphasis added].1Without the same genetic blueprint to
work from, there is no guarantee that cells will be able to
communicate properly so as to co-ordinate their actions.
A new level of biological organisation
Evolution requires more than a mere augmentation of an existing
system for co-ordinated multicellularity to evolve; it requires
the ex nihilo creation of an entirely new system of organisation to
co-ordinate cells appropriately to form a multicellular individual.
Nedelcu and Michod concur:The current hierarchical organization of life reflects a series of transitions in the units of
evolution, such as from genes to chromosomes, from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, from unicellular to multicellular
individuals, and from multicellular organisms to societies. During these evolutionary transitions, new levels of biological
organization are created [emphasis added].2Williams talks of the irreducible structure of the cell, and finds a universal
example in autopoiesis (self-making).3 He describes five levels of organisation in all living things that are needed for
autopoiesis to occur:
Perfectly-pure, single-molecule-specific biochemistry
Molecules with highly specific structures
Highly structured molecules that are functionally integrated
Comprehensively regulated information-driven metabolic processes
Inversely-causal meta-informational (information about information) strategies for individual and species survival.
Moreover, each level is greater than the sum of the levels that make it up such that the only way these levels can be
explained is by information.Each level is built upon, but cannot be explained in terms of, the level below it. And between the
base level (perfectly pure composition) and the natural environment, there is an unbridgeable abyss. 4To Williams
autopoietic hierarchy, I wish to add another level of structure found only in multicellular organisms: intercellular coordination. The organism has strategies for arranging and differentiating its cells for survival and reproduction. With this
comes a communication network between the cells that regulates the positioning and abundance of each cell type for the
benefit of the whole organism. A fundamental part of this organisation is cellular differentiation, which is ubiquitous in
multicellular organisms. This level cannot be explained by the sum of the parts, cells, and requires co-ordination from an
organisational level above what exists in individual cells.Biologist Eric Davidson 5 identifies a 4-level hierarchy of control in
multicellular organisms that constitutes a gene regulatory network. This gene regulatory network is essential for the
development of the single cell zygote into a full-fledged multicellular individual. To put it in an approximate Linnaean
framework, the hierarchy consists of kernels6 that roughly determine phylum body plan, plug-ins7 and input/output
linkages8 that approximately determine class, order and family body structure, and differentiation gene batteries9 that carry
out the terminal stages of development and contribute to variation at the genus and species level.
Repair and maintenance strategies
Repair and maintenance strategies are integral for the survival of the adult multicellular individual because cellular selection
operates with cell populations, including multicellular organisms, to select for the most reproductively aggressive cells. This
needs to be controlled at the organismal level to maintain bodily integrity. To do this, most systems in multicellular animals
undergo a process of serial differentiation. 10 In this system, multipotent11 stem cells are essential, though maintained at low
population levels.
Cellular selection vs organismal integrity12
Evolution faces a tough dichotomy to get around if multicellularity is to evolve: cellular selection vs organismal integrity. At
the single cell level, selection will favour cells that reproduce better. But if those cells are allowed to reproduce uncontrollably
in a multicellular organism, they will inexorably destroy organismal integrity, and harm or kill the organism, also causing the
fitter cells to die.13At the organismal level, selection will favour traits that preserve organismal integrity, which tries to control
reproduction of cells beyond what is needed. Pepper et al. agree:Multicellular organisms could not emerge as functional
entities before organism-level selection had led to the evolution of mechanisms to suppress cell-level selection. 14However,
this leads to a mystery for the evolutionist: how do multicellular organisms evolve from single celled creatures when cellular
selection and organism-level selection are totally contradictory to each other? The multicellular organism seeks to control
the reproduction to what is needed at a higher level of organisation; a single cell seeks to reproduce more than its
competitors.It appears that mechanisms for apoptosis (programmed cell death) are necessary for multicellularity, whereby
certain cells are triggered to die during development or because they have gone haywire. Such mechanisms are incredibly
complex and arguably irreducibly complex.15Explaining the
existence of such a mechanism without intelligent design seems
to be a futile exercise.16
Co-operation and colony: halfway there?
Co-operative and colonial organisms are proposed to be the
route through which multicellularity evolved. Cooperative
behaviour
occurs
in
unicellular
organisms.
For
example, Salmonella typhimurium can arrange themselves in two
ranks for invasionthe first rank launches a suicide attack and
the second rank slips through the confusion in the defence
caused by the first wave. 17 Therefore, some communication
between unicellular organisms occurs to allow for cooperation.Many organisms form colonies. However, single cells in
most of these colonies retain the ability to break off from the

colony when circumstances are favourable to doing so. Colonial systems have co-operation, but no regulatory system to
force the cells together as a unit of selection in its own right. Moreover, a colonial organism can be pulled apart without
significantly damaging it, unlike a multicellular organism, which will be severely injured or die if pulled apart. Michod et
al. concur:Such associations and groups may persist and reform with varying likelihood depending on properties of the
group and the component individuals. Initially, group fitness is the average of the lower-level individual fitnesses, but as the
evolutionary transition proceeds, group fitness becomes decoupled from the fitness of its lower-level components. Indeed,
the essence of an evolutionary transition in individuality is that the lower-level individuals must relinquish their claim to
fitness, that is to flourish and multiply, in favor of the new higher-level unit.18
Some colonial organisms, however, do appear to be obligate and show some specialisation, such as some members of the
Volvolaceae family, like Volvox carteri. The point at which colonial organisms fail as true multicellular organisms is their lack
of division of totipotency19 and immortality:20The un-coupling of immortality and totipotency proved not possible in V. carteri:
these traits are express either together and fully (i.e. in the gonidia) or not at all (i.e. in the somatic cells). Immortality and
totipotency are thus still tightly linked inV. carteri, as they are in their unicellular ancestors. In support of this view is the fact
that cancer-like mutant somatic cells, in which immortality but not totipotency is re-gained, are missing in V. carteri. There
are, however mutant forms of V. carteri in which somatic cells re-gain both immortality and totipotency, but in neither of
these mutants are the two traits expressed partially or differentially (e.g. limited mitotic capacity or multipotency). 21This
means that differentiation in the colony could only extend to two different types of cells and no further. Because they are
unable to split totipotency and immortality, volvocine algae cannot create new somatic cells, and are as a result unable to
survive for very long as an organism. In other words, there are no maintenance or repair strategies in volvocine life forms, so
they lack one of the essential features of true multicellularity.
Opportunities for further research
Ive here tried to present some basic requirements that must be met for the evolution of true multicellularity. For true
multicellularity there has to be genetic sameness among all participating cells. Intercellular co-ordination serves as another
level of organisation in life that cant be reduced to the sum of its parts. There is a 4-level hierarchy in the regulatory
architecture that must all be there for a viable developmental plan to proceed. Repair and maintenance requires one or
more pools of undifferentiated, generally multipotent, stem cells. Cellular selection and organismal integrity remain
diametrically opposed, and provide a very tough problem for evolution to overcome. Colonial unicellular organisms dont fit
the bill as multicellular creatures because of the difference between of their lack of this 4-level hierarchy, and the lack of
maintenance and repair mechanisms for the organism.This is a neglected area of creationist research, where there are a
number of opportunities for further investigation.
Origin of oxygen more complex than imagined
by Barry Tapp
Photo by Mike Noren
Cluster of cyanobacteria (see arrow) exhibiting a felt-like appearance.
Cyanobacteria are thought to be the greatest cause of the Great
Oxidation Event postulated by evolutionists.The major ideas in
mainstream science are conveyed into the public arena through the
use of metaphorthe big bang is one such, and evolution another.
These metaphors frequently become entrenched, even within the
scientific community, and mask the numerous problems underlying
the theoretical constructs. Such theories, all based on naturalism in
mainstream circles, are foundational to much scientific endeavour,
providing a base for interpreting data from a wide range of disciplines.
Frequently, contradictory observations do not fit well with the
naturalistic interpretive framework yet there is a reluctance to
question the foundational assumptions.James Kasting, in an article
published in Nature recently concerning the naturalistic origin of
atmospheric oxygen,1illustrates this quite well when he concluded that, all these contradictory observations are stimulating a
lot of creative thinking. The contradictory observations relate to the problem of how and when oxygen originated in the
earths atmosphere.Kasting was commenting on a letter to Nature in the same issue,2 and placing the research within
historical context. He explained thatThe [scientific] consensus for more than 30 years has been that atmospheric oxygen
first reached appreciable levels around 2 billion to 2.4 billion years ago, an occasion referred to as the great oxidation event
(GOE).Naturally, the issue of the timing and origin of the oxygenation of the atmosphere is significant because it is central to
the origin of life and evolution. However, as the article points out, there are two major problems with the timing of this
GOE.First, if oxygen producing bacteria supposedly evolved some 2.7 Ga ago, why then did it take at least 300 Ma, and
possibly up to 700 Ma, before oxygen comprised a significant part of the atmosphere? The significance of this time interval
is that it is potentially longer than the entire timeframe of the fossil record (the Phanerozoic), and is exceeding-ly slow even
by evolutionary standards.The second problem is that carbonate rocks formed before and after the supposed GOE show
the same carbon isotopic signatures. The burial of organic carbon from photosynthesizing organisms should cause the ratio
of 13C to 12C in carbonates to rise. This leads to a huge contradiction as explained in the article: the source of the
atmospheric oxygenorganic-carbon burialseems to have remained constant with time, even though atmospheric oxygen
levels have changed enormously.This problem is arguably overcome if one accepts the contention that a mere 3% increase
in organic-carbon burial would have been enough to trigger the GOE. 1 However, such a small increase is far too small to be
detected in the geological record, as the author admits, which makes the idea geologically untestable and thus wholly
hypothetical.The article outlines various creative ways that researchers have tried to address these problems over the years,
but ends with a rather forlorn conclusion: The ancient atmosphere may have had a more complex evolution than we
imagined.1 In essence the author admits that within an evolutionary framework the data is contradictory, and no resolution of
the contradictions is in sight, hence the need for creative thinking.However, it is the naturalistic evolutionary framework that
is the problem. Within this framework a reducing atmosphere is needed initially if the first cell is to have any possibility of
arising by chance.3 But it must then change into an oxidizing atmosphere to permit the evolution of aerobic bacteria and
multi-cellular life.These problems disappear when the problem is approached from a young age framework. There never
was a great oxidation event because oxygen, at concentrations necessary for life to flourish, was present in the atmosphere
at the beginning. The geological evidence, including sulfur minerals and carbonate rocks, is explained by deposition during
the early part of the global Flood.

Life in a test-tube
by Cheri Williams
For decades, Hollywood has been presenting images of Martians and space creatures through movies such
asIndependence Day and Alien. Behind this is the idea of evolution: if life evolved on earth, then why couldnt it have
evolved on other planets? One famous experiment is widely touted as proof that life could have evolved from non-living
chemicals.
Millers experiment
Click for larger image
In 1953, the same year that DNAs double helix structure was
discovered, a young graduate student named Stanley Miller
sparked some gases and formed amino acids. These are the
building blocks of proteins, a major component of living cells. So
thousands of newspapers worldwide erroneously reported that he
had, in essence, created life in a test-tube. This experiment
became textbook orthodoxy.However, textbooks tend to present
alleged proofs of evolution without critical discussion. Unless
students consult outside sources, they often over-value the
connection between organic molecules and life. Bold claims such
as organic molecules could have arisen on a lifeless Earth tend
to mislead students into believing that organic molecules are life.
However, organic does not mean the molecules are alive, but
simply refers to any molecule that contains the element
carbon.Some of the organic compounds of significance to the
origin of life are amino acids and sugars. For life to exist, these and other non-living components must be arranged in a
special way. The difference between living and non-living things is not so much the substances they contain, but how these
substances areorganized.But can non-living chemicals organize themselves into the sorts of precise sequences that we
observe in living systems today? Did Millers experiment really show that matter has this capability? Thinking in purely
naturalistic terms, lets try to answer that question. How could the first cell have originated in the hypothetical prebiotic
soup? What would have been the first sub-units formed that later might have given rise to the first cell?The Miller
experiments created a few of the more simple amino acids and other simple compounds by discharging electrodes into a
mixture of methane, ammonia, water vapour and hydrogen. Does this mean that perhaps amino acids could have been the
first components of the cell to form? Absolutely not. The first thing to keep in mind is that laboratory experiments often differ
from the real world in a number of ways.
Chemical problems
To begin with, Millers experiment used a flask equipped with a trap to collect the amino acids. In textbook accounts, the trap
is only described in passing, as it was part of the apparatus he used. It is almost never mentioned that the trap served to
protect the amino acids from the same energy that was used to create them.In fact, this energy would be many thousands of
times more effective at destroying these molecules than forming them. Some have proposed that tide pools, lakes or clays
may have served as traps on the early earth. But solving the trap problem would make another problem, because the
molecules that must be protected from energy sources also need that energy to advance to the next stage. Thus the idea of
a trap actually would be fatal to evolutionary theory. 1But what if both amino acids and sugars were somehow able to beat all
the incredible odds and were not only able to exist, but to exist together? Dr Duane Gish, who has extensive experience in
forming proteins, says,2 When amino acids and sugars are together they combine so readily that they cancel each other
out. When an amino acid and sugar bind in this way, the product is neither a sugar nor an amino acid. That is, they
chemically combine and destroy one another. 3 Gish says it is generally assumed that more amino acids than sugars existed
on the early earth. If this is the case, this would not help evolutionists. All the amino acids would react with the available
sugars and there would be no sugars left to create the backbone of the vital coding molecule, DNA.But lets give the
evolutionists the benefit of the doubt. Lets concede that sugars were somehow available and DNA formed. What would
have happened to it? Most evolutionists believe life first appeared in the ocean, says Gish. However, in water, nucleotides
[individual units of DNA] dont come together but break apart through a process called hydrolysis. In this process, energy is
released. This is the opposite of whats needed. To bring a DNA molecule together, tremendous energy must be poured in to
force those chemical bonds to form.But for nucleotides to bond in the right way, they need energy as well as at least 100
enzymes (a type of protein) working together. This presents a catch-22 situation. The enzymes are needed to form DNA by
combining its nucleotides, yet these enzymes cannot be formed unless the DNA codes for them.
To suggest that one or two sub-units could have existed before the presence of a living cell is totally fallacious. Rather, the
living cell functions by an interdependence, where one part depends on another.
Problems ignored
Any search for a naturalistic explanation to the origin of life must confront and try to answer the above unanswerable
obstacles. Not surprisingly, these incredible complications are censored from almost all biology textbooks. If this critical
information was included in biology curricula, the vast majority of students would have to conclude that matter could not
have changed itself into living things.
Furthermore, they would come to this conclusion based on what they know and can see about the properties of matter.
Telling your left hand from your right

of

Another often unmentioned fact of Millers experiments is that

two types of amino acids were createdthey are mirror images
each other, just like your two hands. Living systems are
composed of only left-handed amino acids. However, in Millers
experiment, and in any natural process, a 50:50 mixture of leftand right-handed amino acids is produced. When both types of
amino acids are present, they chemically combine with one
another in ways that make the resultant protein totally inactive.
Left to themselves, the amino acids produced in Millers flask
were nothing but evolutionary dead-ends.Millers experiment

failed to demonstrate how lifes exclusive preference for left-handedness could have been achieved naturalistically. In an
extensive interview, Dr Gish explained how the natural behaviour of organic molecules poses insurmountable problems for a
naturalistic origin of life. Without the presence of DNA to direct the order of amino acids, says Gish, the natural tendency is
that both types of amino acids would combine equally well with one another. There is no tendency for left-handed ones to react
only with left-handed ones.1 By this he meant that the normal tendency would be that perhaps two or three left-handed amino
acids might attach together, then a right one, then maybe a left one and so on. He says the problem with the presence of both
types is that normal proteins contain, on average, 400 amino acids. This means that by chance, 400 or so left-handed amino
acids would have had to come together without any right-handed ones. If we had a protein with 400 amino acids, Gish
explains, the probability of only all left-handed amino acids is times itself 400 times ( 400 ) [or one in 4 x 10 121 , which is a
number so large that it would be written as 4 followed by 121 zeroes]. If just one right-handed amino acid were to bond with any
of the other 400 left-handed amino acids, it would render the whole chain inactive. It becomes inactive because right-handed
amino acids alter the shape of the chain. An enzyme [a special type of protein] must fold in a very precise way in order to allow
a substrate to attach to it. If a substrate cannot attach to the enzyme, it becomes useless.Perhaps such useless proteins would
have had a better chance if DNA had formed first. Perhaps the sugars that have been created in other origin-of-life experiments
could have come together with phosphates and bases to produce the DNA. Like amino acids, sugars occur in left-and righthanded forms. However, only right-handed forms of sugars are found in living systems. The problem with the presence of both
forms is that it would prevent two complementary strands of DNA from coming together. On this particular point, Gish makes a
useful analogy, Imagine a string of right-handed gloves tied end-to-end and you want to insert a series of right hands tied from
end-to-end, but one of the hands was a left hand. The two could never come together. If two complementary strands of DNA
could not be joined, then it would never conform into a double helix shape. Without this shape, DNA could not replicate or
perform any of the functions it now has.
Who wants to be a millionaire?
$1 million prize offered for scientific proof of natural-process origin of life
by Calvin Smith
15 August 2007
An international science-and-education foundation is offering a
$1,000,000 prize to anyone who can explain how genetic code arose
spontaneously!The Origin-of-Life Foundation (OLF) is offering the prize
through the Gene Emergence Project (MD, USA). This group is dedicated
to finding the answer to what biology professor Jack Trevors (a member)
calls the most pressing question in science, The origin of the genetic
instructions in the DNA , pointing out that Genetic instructions dont
write themselves any more than a software program writes itself. 1The OLF
doesnt appear friendly to creationists, stating on their website that The
OLF should not be confused with creation science groups They
describe themselves as a science and education foundation encouraging
the pursuit of natural-process explanations They will not accept
supernatural explanations and emphasize that they have no religious
affiliations of any kind .2A theory submitted for the prize must include
a
thorough
explanation
and mechanism explaining
how natural
events might have given rise to the genetic sign system and a
scenario of sequential, cause-and-effect events explaining how genetic prescriptive information (instruction) arose
naturally sufficient to give rise to current life. 3But documents on their website outlining the criteria for submissions list
many reasons that the origin of life from non-living matter (abiogenesis) appears to be impossible. For example, any theory
submitted must answer; How does an algorithmically complex sequence of codons arise in nature which finds phenotypic
usefulness only after translation into a completely different language (AA sequence)?4OLF has assembled an impressive
range of well-known academics to judge applications for the prize.The foundation points out that commonly cited
mechanisms of evolution cannot help the process. The problem is that natural selection works only at the phenotypic level,
not at the genetic level. Neither physicochemical forces nor environmental selection choose the next nucleotide to be added
to the biopolymer. Mutations occur at the genetic level. But environmental selection occurs at the folding (functional) level,
after-the-fact of already strongly set sequence, and after-the-fact of already established algorithmic function of the folded
biopolymer.5Its good to see such a group publicly admitting what CMI has pointed out for decades: that despite evolutionary
origin of life scenarios being taught as fact, there is not even a working theory of how it supposedly happened. As a matter
of fact there isnt a single example of new, never-before-existing genetic information arising by chance, while everything that
we know about how information is generated supports the observation that it always requires intelligence.Information
specialist Dr. Werner Gitt says in his book In the Beginning Was Information, there is no known law of nature, no known
process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.6
Professor Paul Davies agrees. New Scientist quoted him as saying, Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals
spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell. 7 Emphasizing the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas to account
for the origin of information, Davies writes, How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software ? Nobody
knows .8Davies is an atheist/evolutionist, but the weight of modern scientific evidence is resulting in honest admissions
like his becoming more common.Typical evolutionary teaching shows that materialistic only explanations for life are
scientifically unsound and philosophically biased. Richard Lewontin, evolutionary biologist (Harvard) once said,
materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.9 However, information is nonmaterial, and theOLF
website confirms that information is a necessary prerequisite for life.Jack Trevors and David Abel (a fellow member of the
OLF and an expert in theoretical biology) have published articles revealing that abiogenesis is not only unobservable, it
is unimaginable. Self-organization is without empirical and prediction-fulfilling support. No falsifiable theory of selforganization exists.10So will the million dollar prize be won? Are there any best guesses kicking around? Andrew Vowles
offers: Perhaps it all began not with DNA but with a genetic precursor like RNA, a forerunner that figured out both how to
fold itself like a protein and how to copy itself like genetic material, thus providing fodder for natural selection to work on.
However, there are enormous chemical hurdles to scale before RNA could form in a primordial soup, as even evolutionists
admit. Also, clothes dont fold themselves and documents dont make copies of themselves via random processes. An
intelligent mind is behind such acts. So why would intelligent scientists propose such tasks from lifeless chemicals?
However, since supernatural explanations are automatically disqualified I dont expect to be Canadas newest millionaire.