The Question That Demolishes
the Theory of Evolution: How Did the DNA Originate?
The question of how such an extraordinarily designed molecule as DNA originated is one of the thousands of impasses evolutionists reach. Seeking to explain life by means of "coincidence", the theory of evolution can never explain the source of the extraordinary information so perfectly and meticulously encoded in DNA.
Moreover, the question is not only that of how the DNA chain originated. Even the existence of the DNA chain with the extraordinary information capacity it contains, means nothing by itself. In order to refer to life, it is essential that the enzymes that read this DNA chain, copy them and produce proteins, also exist. (Enzymes are large molecules that have certain functions in the cell which they carry out with the precision of a robot.)
Simply put, in order to talk of life, both the data bank we call DNA, and the machines to carry out production by reading the data in the bank have to co-exist.
Prof. Micheal Denton
To our surprise, enzymes, which read DNA and carry out production accordingly, are themselves produced according to the codes in DNA. This means that there is a factory in the cell that both makes many different types of products, and also manufactures the robots and machines that carry out this production. The question of how this system, which would be of no use with a minor defect in any of its mechanisms originated, is by itself enough to demolish the theory of evolution.
German evolutionist Douglas R. Hofstadler, states his despair in the face of this question:
'How did the Genetic Code, along with the mechanisms for its translation (ribosomes and RNA molecules), originate?' For the moment, we will have to content ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe, rather than with an answer.5
Another evolutionist authority, world renowned molecular biologist Leslie Orgel, is more outspoken on the subject:
It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, ONE MIGHT HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT LIFE COULD NEVER, IN FACT, HAVE ORIGINATED BY CHEMICAL MEANS.6
Saying "life could never have originated by chemical means" is the equivalent of saying that "life could never have originated by itself". Recognition of the truth of this statement results in the realization that life is created in a conscious way. For ideological reasons, evolutionists, however, do not accept this fact, clear evidence of which is before their eyes. To avoid accepting the existence of God, they believe in nonsensical scenarios, the impossibility of which they are also convinced of.
In his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, about the invalidity of the theory of evolution, renowned molecular biologist Prof. Michael Denton explains the unreasonable conviction of Darwinists:
To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of one thousand volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying, and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply AN AFFRONT TO REASON. BUT TO THE DARWINIST, THE IDEA IS ACCEPTED WITHOUT A RIPPLE OF DOUBT - THE PARADIGM TAKES PRECEDENCE! 7
Indeed, Darwinism is nothing but a totally unreasonable, superstitious belief. Anyone with any reason would see the evidence for that great fact by looking at DNA, or any other part of the universe. Human beings and all living things are created by God, the All-Mighty, Who is the Lord of all the worlds.
"The RNA World"
Stanley Miller.
The discovery in the 70s that the gasses originally existing in the primitive world atmosphere rendered amino acid synthesis impossible was a big blow to the molecular evolutionary theory. It then was understood that "primitive atmosphere experiments" of evolutionists such as Miller, Fox and Ponnamperuma were invalid. For this reason, in the 80s new evolutionist attempts were put forth. As a result, the scenario of the "RNA World" was advanced, which proposed that it was not the proteins that were formed first, but RNA molecules that contained the information for the proteins.
According to this scenario advanced by Walter Gilbert, a chemist from Harvard in 1986, billions of years ago an RNA molecule that somehow managed to self-replicate, formed by coincidence. Then this RNA molecule started to produce proteins being activated by external effects. Thereafter, it became necessary to store this information in a second molecule, and somehow the DNA molecule emerged.
Being made up of a chain of impossibilities in each and every stage, this hardly imaginable scenario only magnified the problem and brought up many inextricable questions rather than providing any explanation for the origin of life:
1. When it is impossible to explain the coincidental formation of even one of the nucleotides making up RNA, how can it be possible for these imaginary nucleotides to form RNA by coming together in a proper sequence? Evolutionist biologist John Horgan admits the impossibility of the chance formation of RNA as follows;
As researchers continue to examine the RNA-world concept closely, more problems emerge. How did RNA arise initially? RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize in a laboratory under the best of conditions, much less under plausible ones.8
Confessions From Evolutionists
Probabilistic calculations make it clear that complex molecules such as proteins and nucleic acids (RNA and DNA) could not ever have been formed by chance independently of each other. Yet evolutionists have to face the even greater problem that all these complex molecules have to coexist simultaneously in order for life to exist at all. Evolutionary theory is utterly confounded by this requirement. This is a point on which some leading evolutionists have been forced to confession. For instance, Stanley Miller's and Francis Crick's close associate from the University of San Diego California, reputable evolutionist Dr. Leslie Orgel says:
It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.1
The same fact is also admitted by other scientists:
DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins.2
How did the Genetic Code, along with the mechanisms for its translation (ribosomes and RNA molecules), originate? For the moment, we will have to content ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe, rather than with an answer.3
1 Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on Earth", Scientific American, vol. 271, October 1994, p. 78
2 John Horgan, "In the Beginning", Scientific American, vol. 264, February 1991, p. 119
3 Douglas R. Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, New York, Vintage Books, 1980, p. 548
Transfer RNA. It binds to amino acids and move them into place on the ribosome as needed. Each type of tRNA binds only a single one of the 20 different amino acids. Amino acids attach to the appropriate tRNA at one end, which has folded into a threedimensional Lshape. Such a perfect harmony taking place in an area one billionth of a millimeter is clear evidence for Creation.
2. Even if we suppose that it formed by chance, how could this RNA made up of simply a nucleotide chain have "decided" to self-replicate and with what kind of a mechanism could it have carried out this self-replicating process? Where did it find the nucleotides it used while self-replicating? Even evolutionist microbiologists Gerald Joyce and Leslie Orgel express the desperateness of the situation in their book titled "In the RNA World":
This discussion... has, in a sense, focused on a straw man: the myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it should strain the credulity of even an optimist's view of RNA's catalytic potential.9
3. Even if we suppose that there was a self-replicating RNA in the primordial world, that numerous amino acids of every type ready to be used by RNA were available and that all of these impossibilities somehow took place, the situation still does not lead to the formation of even a single protein. For RNA only includes information concerning the structure of proteins. Amino acids, on the other hand, are raw materials. Nevertheless, no mechanism exists to produce proteins. To consider the existence of RNA sufficient for protein production is as nonsensical as expecting a car to be self-assembled and self-manufactured by simply throwing its design drawn on paper on thousands of its parts piled upon each other. In this case, too, production is out of the question since no factory or workers are involved in the process.
A protein is produced in the ribosome factory with the help of many enzymes and as a result of extremely complex processes within the cell. Ribosome is a complex cell organelle made up of proteins. Therefore, this situation also brings up another unreasonable supposition that ribosome, too, should have come into existence by chance at the same time. Even Nobel prize winner Jacques Monod, who is one of the most fanatical defenders of evolution, explains that protein synthesis can by no means be underestimated so as to depend merely on the information in the nucleic acids:
Dr. Leslie Orgel
The code is meaningless unless translated. The modern cell's translating machinery consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in DNA: the code cannot be translated otherwise than by products of translation. It is the modern expression of omne vivum ex ovo. When and how did this circle become closed? It is exceedingly difficult to imagine.10
How could an RNA chain in the primordial world take such a decision and what methods could it have employed to realize protein production by undertaking the job of fifty specialized particles only on its own? Evolutionists have no answer to these questions.
Dr. Leslie Orgel, one of the associates of Stanley Miller and Francis Crick from the University of San Diego California, uses the term "scenario" for the possibility of "the origination of life through the RNA world". Orgel described what kind of features this RNA had to have and how impossible this was in her article titled "The Origin of Life" published in American Scientist in October 1994:
This scenario could have occured, we noted, if prebiotic RNA had two properties not evident today: A capacity to replicate without the help of proteins and an ability to catalyze every step of protein synthesis.11
As should be clear, to expect these two complex and extremely essential processes from a molecule like RNA is only possible by an evolutionist's power of imagination and viewpoint. Concrete scientific facts, on the other hand, make it explicit that the thesis of the "RNA World", which is a new model proposed for the chance formation of life, is an equally implausible fable.
Life is a Concept Beyond Mere Heaps of Molecules
Let us forget all the impossibilities for a moment and suppose that a protein molecule was formed in the most inappropriate, most uncontrolled environment such as the primordial earth conditions. The formation of only one protein would not be sufficient; this protein would have to wait patiently for thousands, maybe millions of years in this uncontrolled environment without sustaining any damage, until another molecule was formed beside it by chance under the same conditions. It would have to wait until millions of correct and essential proteins were formed side by side in the same setting all "by chance". Those that formed earlier had to be patient enough to wait, without being destroyed despite ultraviolet rays and harsh mechanical effects, for the others to be formed right next to them. Then these proteins in adequate number, which all originated at the very same spot, would have to come together by making meaningful combinations and form the organelles of the cell. No extraneous material, harmful molecule, or useless protein chain may interfere with them. Then, even if these organelles were to come together in an extremely harmonious and co-operative way within a plan and order, they must take all the necessary enzymes beside themselves and become covered with a membrane, the inside of which must be filled with a special liquid to prepare the ideal environment for them. Now even if all these "highly unlikely" events actually occurred by chance, would this molecular heap come to life?
Chandra Wickramasinghe
The answer is No, because research has revealed that the mere combination of all the materials essential for life is not enough for life to get started. Even if all the essential proteins for life were collected and put in a test tube, these efforts would not result with producing a living cell. All the experiments conducted on this subject have proved to be unsuccessful. All observations and experiments indicate that life can only originate from life. The assertion that life evolved from non-living things, in other words, "abiogenesis", is a tale only existing in the dreams of the evolutionists and completely at variance with the results of every experiment and observation.
In this respect, the first life on earth must also have originated from other life. This is a reflection of God's epithet of "Hayy" (The Alive, The Ever Living). Life can only start, continue, and end by His will. As for evolution, not only is it unable to explain how life began, it is also unable to explain how the materials essential for life have formed and come together.
Chandra Wickramasinghe describes the reality he faced as a scientist who had been told throughout his life that life had emerged as a result of chance coincidences:
From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed. At the moment, I can't find any rational argument to knock down the view which argues for conversion to God. We used to have an open mind; now we realize that the only logical answer to life is creation-and not accidental random shuffling.12
God... There is no god but Him, the Living, the Self- Sustaining... Everything in the earth belongs to Him... He is the Most High, the Magnificent. (Surat al-Baqara: 255)
The Second Law of Thermodynamics Invalidates the Theory of Evolution
The Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is accepted as one of the basic laws of physics, holds that under normal conditions all systems left on their own will tend to become disordered, dispersed, and corrupted in direct relation to the amount of time that passes. Everything living or non-living wears out, deteriorates, decays, disintegrates, and is destroyed. This is the absolute end that all beings will face one way or another and according to this law, this unavoidable process has no return.
This is something that all of us have observed. For example if you take a car to a desert and leave it there, you would hardly expect to find it in a better condition when you came back years later. On the contrary, you would see that its tyres had gone flat, its windows had been broken, its chassis had rusted, and its motor had decayed. The same inevitable process holds true and even more quickly for living things.
The Law of Thermodynamic s holds that natural conditions always lead to disorder. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is an unscientific theory that utterly contradicts with this law.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is the means by which this natural process is defined with physical equations and calculations.
This famous law of physics is also known as "the Law of Entropy". Entropy is the range of the disorder involved in a system in physics. A system's entropy is increased as it moves towards a more disordered, dispersed, and unplanned state from an ordered, organised, and planned one. The higher a system's disorder, the higher is its entropy. The Law of Entropy holds that the entire universe unavoidably proceeds towards a more disordered, unplanned, and disorganised state.
The validity of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or the Law of Entropy, is experimentally and theoretically established. The most important scientists of our age agree on the fact that The Entropy Law will preside as the ruling paradigm over the next period of history. Albert Einstein, the greatest scientist of our age, said that it is the "premier law of all of science". Sir Arthur Eddington also referred to it as the "supreme metaphysical law of the entire universe".1
Evolutionary theory is an assertion that is advanced by totally ignoring this basic and universally true law of physics. The mechanism offered by evolution totally contradicts this law. The theory of evolution says that disordered, dispersed, and inorganic atoms and molecules spontaneously came together in time in a certain order and plan to form extremely complex molecules such as proteins, DNA, and RNA after which they gradually brought about millions of different living species with even more complex structures. According to the evolutionary theory, this supposed process that yields a more planned, more ordered, more complex and more organised structure at each stage has formed all by itself under natural conditions. The Law of Entropy makes it clear that this so-called natural process utterly contradicts the laws of physics.
Evolutionist scientists are also aware of this fact. J.H. Rush states:
In the complex course of its evolution, life exhibits a remarkable contrast to the tendency expressed in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Where the Second Law expresses an irreversible progression toward increased entropy and disorder, life evolves continually higher levels of order.2
The evolutionist scientist Roger Lewin expresses the thermodynamic impasse of evolution in an article in Science:
One problem biologists have faced is the apparent contradiction by evolution of the second law of thermodynamics. Systems should decay through time, giving less, not more, order.3
Another evolutionist scientist, George Stravropoulos states the thermodynamic impossibility of the spontaneous formation of life and the unfeasibility of explaining the existence of complex living mechanisms by natural laws in the well-known evolutionist magazine American Scientist:
Yet, under ordinary conditions, no complex organic molecule can ever form spontaneously but will rather disintegrate, in agreement with the second law. Indeed, the more complex it is, the more unstable it is, and the more assured, sooner or later, is its disintegration. Photosynthesis and all life processes, and life itself, despite confused or deliberately confusing language, cannot yet be understood in terms of thermodynamics or any other exact science.4
As acknowledged, the Second Law of Thermodynamics constitutes an insurmountable obstacle for the scenario of evolution in terms of both science and logic. Unable to put forth any scientific and consistent explanation to overcome this obstacle, evolutionists can only defeat it in their imagination. For instance, the famous evolutionist Jeremy Rifkin notes his belief that evolution overwhelms this law of physics with a "magical power":
The Entropy Law says that evolution dissipates the overall available energy for life on this planet. Our concept of evolution is the exact opposite. We believe that evolution somehow magically creates greater overall value and order on earth.5
These words very well indicate that evolution is totally a dogmatic belief.
The Myth of the "Open System"
Confronted by all these truths, evolutionists have had to take refuge in a mangling of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, saying that it holds true only for "closed systems" and that "open systems" are beyond the scope of this law.
An "open system" is a thermodynamic system in which energy matter flow in and out, unlike a "closed system", in which the initial energy and matter remains constant. Evolutionists hold that the world is an open system: that it is constantly exposed to an energy flow from the sun, that the law of entropy does not apply for the world as a whole, and that ordered, complex living beings can be generated from disordered, simple, and inanimate structures.
However, there is an obvious distortion here. The fact that a system has an energy inflow is not enough to make that system ordered. Specific mechanisms are needed to make the energy functional. For instance, a car needs a motor, a transmission system, and related control mechanisms to convert the energy in gasoline to work. Without such an energy conversion system, the car will not be able to use the energy in gasoline.
The same thing applies in the case of life as well. It is true that life derives its energy from the sun. However, solar energy can only be converted into chemical energy by the incredibly complex energy conversion systems in living things (such as photosynthesis in plants and the digestive systems of humans and animals). No living thing can live without such energy conversion systems. Without an energy conversion system, the sun is nothing but a source of destructive energy that burns, parches, or melts.
As may be seen, a thermodynamic system without an energy conversion mechanism of some sort is not advantageous for evolution, be it open or closed. No one asserts that such complex and conscious mechanisms could have existed in nature under the conditions of the primeval earth. Indeed, the real problem confronting evolutionists is the question of how complex energy converting mechanisms such as photosynthesis in plants, which cannot be duplicated even with modern technology, could have come into being on its own.
The influx of solar energy into the world has no effect that would on its own bring order. No matter how high the temperature may become, amino acids resist forming bonds in ordered sequences. Energy by itself is not enough to make amino acids form the much more complex molecules of proteins or for proteins to form the much complex and organised structures of cell organelles. The real and essential source of this organization at all levels is conscious design: in a word, creation.
The "Chaos Theory" Evasion
Quite aware that the Second Law of Thermodynamics renders evolution impossible, some evolutionist scientists have made speculative attempts to close the gap between the two so as to render evolution possible. As usual, even those endeavours show that the theory of evolution faces an inescapable impasse.
One person distinguished by his efforts to marry thermodynamics and evolution is the Belgian scientist Ilya Prigogine.
Starting out from the Chaos Theory, Prigogine proposed a number of hypotheses in which order forms from chaos (disorder). Despite his best efforts however, Prigogine has been unable to pull off the wedding. This is clearly seen in what he says:
There is another question, which has plagued us for more than a century: What significance does the evolution of a living being have in the world described by thermodynamics, a world of ever-increasing disorder?6
Prigogine, who knows quite well that theories at the molecular level are not applicable to living systems, such as a living cell, stresses this problem:
The problem of biological order involves the transition from the molecular activity to the supermolecular order of the cell. This problem is far from being solved.7
This is the point most recently arrived at by Chaos Theory and related speculations. No concrete outcome has been attained that would support or verify evolution or eliminate the contradiction between evolution, entropy, and other physical laws.
Despite all these evident facts, evolutionists try to take refuge in simple subterfuges. Plain scientific truths show that living things and the ordered, planned, and complex structures of living things could in no way have come into being by coincidence under normal circumstances. This situation makes it clear that the existence of living beings can only be explained by the intervention of a supernatural power. That supernatural power is the creation of God, who created the entire universe from nothing. Science has proven that evolution is still impossible as far as thermodynamics is concerned and the existence of life has no explanation but Creation.
1 Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: A New World View, New York, Viking Press, 1980, p.6
2 J. H.Rush, The Dawn of Life, New York, Signet, 1962, p 35
3 Roger Lewin, "A Downward Slope to Greater Diversity", Science, vol. 217, 24.9.1982, p. 1239
4 George P. Stravropoulos, "The Frontiers and Limits of Science", American Scientist, vol. 65, November-December 1977, p.674
5 Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: A New World View, p.55
6 Ilya Prigogine, Isabelle Stengers, Order Out of Chaos, New York, Bantam Books, 1984, p. 129
7 Ilya Prigogine, Isabelle Stengers, Order Out of Chaos, p. 175
