First Life

The very first life form on earth. What was it? What did it look like? When did it appear? How did it come to be? These are all very good questions. Questions which are usually answered with more imagination than actual science since we weren’t there to observe of course. But the biggest question has to be the “how.” It is the “how,” that plagues the scientist’s mind when it comes to the first life.

There are only two means by which the first life could have appeared: natural origins or supernatural origins. Natural origins means the life came from non-living chemicals. Supernatural origins means the life came from an Intelligent Designer, a Creator God. Now immediately science throws out supernatural origins because it is of course not natural, and therefore, in the minds of most scientists, not science. Yet science itself cannot seem to yield any satisfying answers to the origin of life on earth. If life came from non-life, this brings with it a wide variety of problems and dead ends.

The Environment Problem

As much as we understand this planet to be hospitable for life, it is only hospitable for life fitted to live on it. For example, oxygen and water are required for life to exist, but are also detrimental to the internal components of an organism.

Let us take oxygen for example: It is a poisonous gas that oxidizes organic material.[1] The only way organisms can tolerate it is because they are already capable of tolerating it, with membranes that protect oxygen from damaging internal components of the cell. Therefore there is no way the organisms could have evolved from non-living material unless protective membranes were already present to protect the vulnerable internal organelles from oxidization. What are the odds that the first life form ever just so happened to have a protective membrane already in place?

Some evolutionists argue that this is not a problem because it assumes oxygen was not present in the early atmosphere of earth, and therefore not a threat. But the evidence does not support this claim. Even earth’s oldest rocks contain evidence of formation in an oxygen rich atmosphere.[2] Atmospheric physicists believe the earth has been fully oxidized for at least 4 billion years.[3] A fairly recent article published on crystals dated to 4.4 billion years ago show heavy evidence of oxidation.[4] Additionally, oxygen is needed for life as protection from harmful UV rays which we have via from the ozone layer, which is made out of oxygen![5] If there was no oxygen UV rays would eradicate all early life forms. Biochemist and molecular biologist Michael Denton writes, “What we have is sort of a ‘Catch 22’ situation. If we have oxygen we have no organic compounds, but if we don’t have oxygen we have none either.”[6]

To get around this concern of oxidization, scientists propose life formulated in the oceans and therefore was not subjected to oxygen initially. But just as with oxygen, water is hazardous to life as well. Organic molecules would be destroyed through the process of hydrolysis (also called “water splitting”) in which water bonds between two molecules causing them to split apart.[7] Any amino acid trying to form a protein would have its bond broken in a short matter of time. The US National Academy of Sciences confirms, “In water, the assembly of nucleosides from component sugars and nucleobases, the assembly of nucleotides from nucleosides and phosphate, and the assembly of oligonucleotides from nucleotides are all thermodynamically uphill in water. Two amino acids do not spontaneously join in water. Rather, the opposite reaction is thermodynamically favored at any plausible concentrations: polypeptide chains spontaneously hydrolyze in water, yielding their constituent amino acids.”[8] Physicist Richard Morris concurs, “… water tends to break chains of amino acids. If any proteins had formed in the ocean 3.5 billion years ago, they would have quickly disintegrated.”[9] Thus, the first life form would have needed a protective membrane already in place to protect it from oxygen and water. Yet, where did this membrane come from?

Additionally, the cytoplasm of living cells contain essential minerals of potassium, zinc, manganese and phosphate ions. If cells manifested naturally, these minerals would need to be present nearby. But marine environments do not have widespread concentrations of these minerals.[10] This has lead researchers to propose that life originated not in oceans, and not in locations exposed to oxygen, but instead in geothermal pools, geysers and mudpools, much like the primordial soup Darwin proposed. Yet all these geothermal features have one thing in common: They are incredibly acidic.[11] They also tend to be very hot, which would destroy many vital amino acids.[12] How did the cell develop protection from this acidity and from this heat? Without such protection initially it could have never come together.

Some speculate that natural selection of non-living chemicals provided such protective features. This is, however, a common error some scientists make in this arena when they propose natural selection occurred for these protective systems to be in place. As Chemist Dr. Jonathan Sarfati points out, “…when it comes to the origin of first life, natural selection cannot be invoked, because natural selection is differential reproduction. That is, if it worked at all, it could only work on a living organism that could produce offspring. By its very definition, it could not work on non-living chemicals. Therefore, chance alone must produce the precise sequences needed, so these simulations do not apply.”[13]

A significant problem with proposing life arose spontaneously via natural means is that in order to do so, the components of the cell would have to be naturally nearby. In other words, the cell’s chemical makeup would have to be harmonious with the environment’s chemical make up. UniversityCollegeof Londonbiochemist Nick Lanepoints out the problem with this, “To suggest that the ionic composition of primordial cells should reflect the composition of the oceans is to suggest that cells are in equilibrium with their medium, which is close to saying that they are not alive. Cells require dynamic disequilibrium — that is what being alive is all about.”[14] This is a tough fact to accept, but undoubtedly true. How could the first life form have naturally manifested via chemical means with a chemical make up so different and unique from the environment it is within?

The Homochirality Problem

Moving forward brings forth a new set of problems when amino acids are discussed. Often amino acids are discovered in locations where it is suggested they are naturally produced (like being found in meteorites). When this happens there is usually a hype of excitement over uncovering the source of the origin of life via natural means. But simply having amino acids around doesn’t solve the origin of life problem. There is an issue of handedness with amino acids. Out of the twenty amino acids used for life, the atoms that build them formulate two different shapes; right handed and left-handed amino acids. Just like a human hand, they’re slightly different. Your thumb is on the left side on one hand, but on the right side on the other. Amino acids are likewise mirror images of each other and are therefore called chiral.

But this creates a problem. Just like hands clasping together, right and left handed amino acids want to bond, canceling each other out. Yet, the amino acids found in proteins are 100% left handed, where as right handed amino acids are never found in proteins![15] Research indicates that right handed amino acids could never form a functioning protein. The fact that only left handed amino acids can create life is called homochirality. Yet any natural process of creating amino acids would create and equal amount of both left handed and right handed amino acids called racemates.[16]

 

One of the most influential chemist/biochemists of the 20^th century, Linus Pauling, writes, “This is a very puzzling fact… All the proteins that have been investigated, obtained from animals and from plants from higher organisms and from very simple  organisms- bacteria, molds, even viruses- are found to have been made of L-amino acids.”[17] This is puzzling of course because what natural process only produces one type of amino acid, and not the other amino acid detrimental to life? The late Robert Shapiro, professor emeritus of chemistry at New York University writes, “The reason for this choice [only L-amino acids] is again a mystery, and a subject of continued dispute.”[18] Biochemist and head of the Department of Nuclear Medicine and Director of Clinical Research at the Singapore General Hospital, Dr. Aw Swee-Eng, is more direct on the subject, “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 life’s “handedness” there is no selective mechanism that it can plausibly endorse.”[19]

The Concept of Information

One factor that is sometimes left out in origin of life talks, that is in my opinion, critical, is the concept of information. All living organisms contain within their DNA information, and not just a little, but a lot! Former physics professor and director of information processing at the Instituteof Physicsand Technology in Braunschweig Germany, Dr. Werner Gitt, writes, “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.”[20] This information leads to highly efficient bio-machinery in our cells that complete a vast array of functions. Every biological function that occurs can be traced back to proteins from genes from reading and transcribing RNA that receives the instructions from the information stored in DNA. It doesn’t simply just happen. It is an immensely complex, sophisticated and detailed process occurring non-stop and very rapidly. In fact, the average cell produces a protein through these processes every four minutes.[21]

Any theory or hypothesis to how life originated naturally must take the source of this information into account. Yet, none can be found. Gitt writes, “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.”[22] Biologist Dr. Raymond Bohlin writes, “DNA is information code… The overwhelming conclusion is that information does not and cannot arise spontaneously by mechanistic processes. Intelligence is a necessity in the origin of any informational code, including the genetic code, no matter how much time is given.”[23] Philosopher of Science and founder of the Discovery Institute, Dr. Stephen Meyer, writes, “Our uniform experience affirms that specified information-whether inscribed hieroglyphics, written in a book, encoded in a radio signal, or produced in a simulation experiment-always arises from an intelligent source, from a mind and not a strictly material process.”[24]

Thus, we are left with no natural method or process by which non-living chemicals can produce the informational code found in every life form that as ever existed. Biologist, Chemist and Physiologist Dr. Gary Parker writes, “Imagine that you have just finished reading a fabulous novel. Wanting to read another book like it, you exclaim to a friend, ‘Wow! That was quite a book. I wonder where I can get a bottle of that ink?’ Of course not! You wouldn’t give the ink and paper credit for writing the book. You’d praise the author, and look for another book by the same writer. By some twist of logic, though, many who read the fabulous DNA script want to give credit to the ‘ink (DNA base code) and paper (proteins)’ for composing the code.”[25]

Not Enough Time

With all things considered, many scientists try to jettison out the first life dilemma with the “time” argument. The argument being that given enough time anything can happen! Even the impossible…

The late Nobel prize winning scientist George Wald once wrote, “However improbable we regard this event [evolution], or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once… Time is in fact the hero of the plot… Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait; time itself performs the miracles.”[26]

Now let us logically think about this. Given enough time, anything is possible? First, I feel pressed to point out that there is something irrational in saying that because something is possible, it will occur. Or anything that can happen, will happen. It is possible that in flipping a coin every minute for fifty years you will get heads every time and never tails… but that doesn’t mean it will happen if you tried. Regardless, the notion that given enough time anything can happen is hardly scientific in my opinion, because it flies in the face of observational science. For example, the Law of Biogenesis which firmly points out that life has only been observed coming from existing life, never from non-life. There is also cell theory, which states that cells arise from pre-existing cells. Regardless of the amount of time tacked onto the issue, the law cannot change, and the dimension of time has no characteristic capable of changing this law.

Let us take for example a chair placed in a room. The chair remains in the room for one hundred years, then a thousand years, and eventually billions of years. At any point would that chair become organic or “living” in anyway? Of course not. It would remain just a chair forever. Why? Because there is nothing inherent in non-living molecules that drive them to arrange themselves into living structures. If there were, they’d be doing so to this day at an observable rate. Such is not the case. Life comes from life, and non-life remains non-life everyday.

Another flaw in this argument is the amount of time in question. Such statements like Wald’s seem to have at least a small degree of plausibility in perhaps an infinite time scenario, but time is not infinite. It definitely had a starting point. A starting point which conventional scientists place at 12 to 14 billion years ago. That is a major constraint on how long time is allowed to work its magic. Cosmologist Dr. Hugh Ross writes, “When it comes to the origin of life, many biologists (and others) have typically assumed that plenty of time is available for natural processes to perform the necessary assembly. But discoveries about the universe and the solar system have shattered that assumption. What we see now is that life must have originated on earth quickly.”[27]

This constraint worsens though because conventional geology and biology places the first life forming 3.5 billion years ago, and the earth is only supposedly 4.5 billion years old. So from a naturalist’s or uniformitarian’s point of view there was a billion years from the time earth was formed to the first fossil evidence of life, from which life is said to have manifested. A billion years is a significant time constraint.

Yet, the time constraint worsens further. From a conventional scientist’s perspective adhering to the nebular hypothesis of sun and planet formation, time is further restricted. The first millions of years would have been one of intense meteorite bombardment of earth as the solar system was forming. These intense meteorite bombardments would have eradicated any chance of life forming on earth. By the time these impacts are calculated to have ceased and the time of the first life forms appearing in the fossil record we’re left with a 10 million year gap.[28] That is an enormous time constraint. Additionally, some scientists propose this time frame was shorter because of the “faint sun paradox.” Namely, that the sun was 20 to 30% less luminous when it first existed, creating a very cold inhospitable world.[29] This makes it difficult to apply Ward’s philosophy of an abundance of time making the impossible possible because there is, for lack of a better phrase, hardly any time at all…

In fact, Nobel Prize winning cytologist and biochemist Christian de Duve states, “It is now generally agreed that if life arose spontaneously by natural processes—a necessary assumption if we wish to remain within the realm of science—it must have arisen fairly quickly, more in a matter of millennia or centuries, perhaps even less.”[30] So much for having all the time in the world.

Lastly, I do feel it is necessary to point out the entropy dilemma when it comes to time. The more time that elapses the higher the entropy, so if anything more time doesn’t make anything possible, but in fact, decreases the potential of anything to happen. As biochemist Dr. Royal Truman writes, “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.”[31] Sarfati agrees, “Long time periods do not help the evolutionary theory if biochemicals are destroyed faster than they are formed.”[32]

Panspermia; DNA astronauts

The difficulty with life spontaneously arising via chemical means is such a problematic concept that it lead Nobel Prize winner and DNA founder Francis Crick to instead postulate that life originated someplace else and traveled to earth via meteorite or space craft.[33] He admits, correctly, that this does not solve the origin of life problem, but merely pushes it back to another location, but that is precisely the point. He proposes that another life bearing planet may have had a slightly different environment more hospitable for the natural chemical means for life to originate.[34] This theory relies on the hypothetical existence of other such life bearing planets to which there is no scientific evidence of, period.

There is additionally a whole host of other problems with Panspermia. How do living cells survive an arduously long space flight on a meteorite? Let us not forget how far away the nearest star is much less the nearest hypothetical life bearing planet. Think of how difficult it would be to create and engineer a capsule to keep living cells alive for thousands of years of space flight, yet a random natural meteorite is capable of doing the job? DNA would have succumb to radiation exposure over such a long period of time in space flight. How did the DNA withstand the lethal radiation? So, these same cells that defied death in thousands (if not millions) of years of freezing space exposed to lethal radiation then somehow survived a scorching hot entry into earth’s atmosphere to reproduce on earth’s surface? As chemist Russell Grigg puts it, “All in all, interstellar space travel for living organisms is sheer wishful thinking.”[35]

What about contamination? Many of the meteorites found on earth claimed to have evidence of microbial life could just have easily had been contaminated with microbial life after they landed. Contamination is the number one reason why all these claims have been rejected actually.

To get around these concerns, many scientists instead believe meteorites and comets didn’t have life per se, but had the building blocks of life on them. But this circles back around to the original reason why panspermia was imagined in the first place. The building blocks of life were already present on earth. Adding more to the mix via meteorites doesn’t in anyway increase the likelihood of life arising via chemical means anyways. Ross brings up another good point, “Though comets, meteorites partly composed of carbon, and interplanetary dust particles may carry some prebiotics, they carry far too few to make a difference. In fact, with every helpful molecule they bring, come several more that would get in the way- useless molecules that would substitute for the needed ones.”[36] Life developing from nonliving chemicals is hard enough to prove, but suggesting life was seeded by meteorites from hypothetical life elsewhere in the universe is flat out impossible to prove. Yet, likewise, impossible to disprove… and so many cling to this notion to avoid a supernatural cause.

From Bolts to Boeing 747s

Many scientists additionally fail to properly distinguish the building blocks of life and living organisms themselves. Parker writes, “The pyramids are made of stone, but studying the stone does not even begin to explain how the pyramids were built. Similarly, until evolutionists begin to explain the origin of the ‘orderly mechanism,’ they have not even begun to talk about the origin of life.”[37]Just as there is a huge void between the bolts and small parts of a 747 to them actually all being carefully assembled into a fully functioning 747, likewise, the simple building blocks of life are organized in an immensely complex way in even the most primitive of organisms.

Hoyle writes of this airplane analogy, “What are the chances that a tornado might blow through a junkyard containing all the parts of a 747, accidentally assemble them into a plane, and leave it ready for take off? The possibilities are so small as to be negligible even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards t fill the whole universe!”[38] Botanist Alexander Williams states, “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.”[39]

According to molecular biophysicist Harold Morowitz If you were to take a living cell, break every chemical bond within it so that all you are left with is the raw molecular ingredients, the odds of them all reassembling back into a cell (under ideal natural conditions) is one chance in 10^{100,000,000,000}.[40] Additionally, Morowitz assumed all amino acids were bioactive when calculating these odds.[41] But only twenty different types of amino acids are bioactive, and of those, only left handed ones can be used for life. This further worsens the odds… And with odds like that, time is completely irrelevant because no amount of time could surpass before such an impossible miracle occurred naturally.

Non-theists counter argue that life was not necessarily as complex in the beginning as it is today. Therefore, the odds of a less complex form of life spontaneously assembling are much more probable. The problem with this counter argument is that the earth 3.5 billion years ago was supposedly hardly different at all (environment and atmosphere-wise) than earth today. Meaning the bare necessities required for life to exist on earth today were the same in the past, which is that of great complexity. Additionally minimum complexity presents its own problems in that minimally complex organisms require other larger organisms to survive and are not capable of surviving individually. Thus the first life and its subsequent offspring would have had to have been able to survive independently which requires sophisticated biological features.

Astronomer Michael Hart calculated the odds of DNA spontaneously generating with 100 specific genes (what he declared to be the minimum possible for life) in the most unrealistic yet optimistic conditions over the course of ten billion years. The odds? One in ten to the negative three thousandth power (10^-3,000).[42] The time it would take for 200,000 amino acids to come together by chance to create one human cell would be 293.5 times the estimated age of earth of 4.6 billion years.[43] The Director of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Delaware, Dermott Mullan, calculates that the odds of RNA assembling into a primitive cell over the course of an optimistic 1 billion years is one in 10⁷⁹.[44] Material scientist Dr. Walter Bradley and Chemist Dr. Charles Thaxton calculated that the probability of amino acids forming just one protein is 4.9 x 10^-191.[45] The odds of amino acids coincidentally being in the precise order and folds required to make the all the enzymes required for life is 10^-650.[46] These are all horrible odds for a natural origin of life. Then consider that these statistics are independent of each other; the DNA would have to spontaneously generate, amino acids randomly together to form proteins in a cell, RNA assembling into a cell, etc. It is hard to accept with these odds, that anything that can happen did happen.

The Reproduction Puzzle

The late philosopher Anthony Flew, an ex-atheist, spoke of many of the philosophical troubles he had with the natural origins for life. One of which that was of great concern was reproduction. Life evolving from non-life is already such a statistical impossibility, but if it did happen, this first life would have to be able to reproduce and replicate itself. Information encoded DNA capable of driving life derived from non-living chemicals is already an absurd concept, but to contain information for replication and overall reproduction is astounding. This is from a philosophical standpoint, perplexing. It is too perfect and too coincidental that the very first life, already an impossibility, just so happened to also be able to duplicate itself. Such ability has “design” written all over it, not “chance.”

Error Protection

Even the most primitive cells today have multiple checkpoints in place to protect against errors. Cells have DNA checkpoints, where cell function momentarily pauses for special proteins to repair damaged DNA. There is an apoptosis checkpoint right before mitosis begins where specialized proteins called survivins run a “diagnostics” to determine whether the cell will proceed with mitosis or die through apoptosis. A spindle assembly checkpoint ensures chromosomes are properly bound together. Telomeres burn like fuses every time a cell divides. Once a telomere becomes too short, the cell stops dividing, usually maxing out at fifty divides.[47]  This feature controls cell division. Failure for these mentioned checkpoints to operate leads to a whole host of diseases, most notably cancers.[48]

So how did the first cell protect against errors when it reproduced? Such a capability could not have evolved, because such a capability would have been needed right from the very beginning. Without such a feature, all subsequent life would contain error-prone genetics and would not be able to function or reproduce. Mullan, points out, “A cell formed under these conditions [naturally] would truly be subject to serious uncertainties not only during day to day existence but especially during replication. The cell could hardly be considered robust.”[49] In order to maintain healthy function and reproduction, the first cell would have already needed these specialized checkpoints to guard against errors. The cells could not afford to wait thousands or millions of years for them to evolve. If they did, we wouldn’t be here.

Simultaneous Presence

In order to have fully functioning life at even the most basic kind, functioning RNA, DNA and proteins must be present. Remove any one of these from the picture and life can’t function. For example, transcription, translation and DNA replication all require systems already in place to occur. These functions could not simply have evolved because life requires them in place to begin with. As Ross states, “Thus, for life to originate mechanically, all three kinds of molecules [DNA, RNA, and proteins] would need to emerge spontaneously and simultaneously from organic compounds. Even the most optimistic of researchers agree that the chance appearance of these incredibly complex molecules at exactly the same time and place was beyond the realm of natural possibility.”[50]

Though biologists point out that some RNA has been found to act as enzymes or catalysts to perform functions that DNA or a protein would normally do, this has lead many scientists to propose that all one needs is the spontaneous generation of RNA, and it would take care of the rest. Problems with this theory is that the RNA studied to reveal these abilities was very limited, and could not account for the vast functioning seen in DNA and proteins overall. Furthermore, in order for RNA to function this way it would have to contain just as much information as the DNA and protein itself, so the issue of complexity in even the earliest life isn’t solved with RNA either. Molecular Biologist and professor at the Scripps Research Institute, Dr. Gerald F. Joyce writes, “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 …”[51]

Conclusion

Biologist Jonathan Wells just about sums it up, “So we remain profoundly ignorant of how life originated.”[52] Earth Scientist Casey Luskin writes, “It’s time for a little reality check here: origin-of-life theorists need to explain how a myriad of complex proteins and features arose and self-assembled into a self-replicating life-form by unguided processes, but they are still scraping for mechanisms to explain how an inert primordial soup of organic molecules could have arisen in the first place.”[53] Hoyle writes, “If there were some deep principle that drove organic systems towards living systems, the operation of the principle should easily be demonstratable in a test tube in half a morning. Needless to say, no such demonstration has ever been given. Nothing happens when organic materials are subjected to the usual prescription of showers of electrical sparks or drenched in ultraviolet light, except the eventual production of a tarry sludge,” and “As biochemists discover more and more about the awesome complexity of live, it is apparent that its chances of originating by accident are so minute that they can be completely ruled out. Life cannot have arisen by chance.”[54] Physicist and Information Theorist Dr. Hubet Yockey writes, “The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual machine is in probability. The extremely small probabilities calculated… are not discouraging to true believers . . . [however] A practical person must conclude that life didn’t happen by chance.”[55]

Yockey then goes further to add, “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… 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… There is no reason that this should be different in the research on the origin of life.”[56] Biochemist and head of the Department of Nuclear Medicine and Director of Clinical Research at the Singapore General Hospital, Dr. Aw Swee-Eng, concludes, “The available evidence from the field and the laboratory is not amicable to the theory that life began with the accidental assembly of a self-replicating molecule.”[57]

As it has been clearly demonstrated, there are a wide variety of blockades standing in the way of a natural origins answer for the first life, and no definitive solution has been reached nor can be confidently expected to be reached in the future. Yet, the other option, supernatural origins, is not subject to such obstacles. In fact, every problem a natural origin faces can be satisfactorily answered via supernatural origins. Though many scientists will not appeal to super natural intervention on the grounds that it is not science, and merely a “cut and run” for those who are too impatient to wait for future researchers to provide an adequate natural origins argument.

In response to that notion, Denton answers, “The almost irresistible force of the analogy has completely undermined the complacent assumption, prevalent in biological circles over most of the past century, that the design hypothesis can be excluded on the grounds that the notion is fundamentally a metaphysical a priori concept and therefore scientifically unsound. On the contrary, the inference to design is a purely a posteriori induction based on a ruthlessly consistent application of the logic of analogy. The conclusion may have religious implications, but it does not depend on religious presuppositions.”[58] Therefore, adhering to supernatural cause through rational deduction with proper observational science as support cannot be considered unscientific. Additionally, such a conclusion should not be considered a “cut and run” if the problems faced by natural origins can never be solved via natural means. What discovery (or discoveries) could solve the information, reproduction, environment, homochirality problems?

Physicist H. S. Lipson writes, “If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation [i.e., time, chance, and chemistry], how has it come into being? I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation.”[59] Parker writes, “In a novel, the ink and paper are merely the means the author uses to express his or her thoughts. In the genetic code, the DNA bases and proteins are merely the means God uses to express His thoughts. The real credit for the message in a novel goes to the author, not the ink and paper, and the real credit for the genetic message in DNA goes to the Author of Life, the Creator…”[60] Medical pathologist David Demick, M.D., concludes, “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. This was the law established by the Author of Life, Who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life—Jesus Christ.”[61] Griggs concludes, “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 Scripture, 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 or Creator.”[62]

So we’re left with a choice. Supernatural or natural? One answers all these problems, the other does not. You can hold out for a natural answer if you wish, but I would rather side with a sure thing. Logically, an Intelligent Designer, a God, is in my opinion, the only rational explanation behind the first life.

---

[1] Ward, P. & Brownlee, D., (2000) Rare Earth, Copernicus:New York,NY, pp. 245.

[2] Clemmey, H. & Badham, N., (1982) “Oxygen in the Atmosphere: An Evaluation of the Geological Evidence,” Geology, 10:141.

[3] Thaxton, C.B., Bradley, W.L., & Olsen, R.L., (1984) The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Philosophical Library:New York,NY, pp. 69-98.

[4] Trail, D., Watson, B.E., & Tailby, N.D., (December 2011) “The Oxidation State of Hadean Magmas and Implications for Earth’s Early Atmosphere,” Nature, 480: pp. 79-82.

[5] Riddle, M., (2008) “Can Natural Processes Explain the Origin of Life?” as written in Ken Ham’s The New Answers Book 3, Master Books:Green Forest,AR, pp. 66.

[6] Denton, M., (1985) Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Alder & Alder:Bethesda,MD, pp. 261.

[7] Riddle, M., (2008) “Can Natural Processes Explain the Origin of Life?” as written in Ken Ham’s The New Answers Book 3, Master Books:Green Forest,AR, pp. 66.

[8] As quoted in Casey Luskin’s “More News Sources Admit the ‘Mystery’ of Life’s Origin,” (February 2012) http://www.evolutionnews.org

[9] Morris, R., (2002) The Big Questions, Times Books/Henry Holt:New York,NY, pp. 167.

[10] Switek, B., (February 2012) “Debate Bubbles Over the Origin of Life,” http://www.nature.com

[11] Switek, B., (February 2012) “Debate Bubbles Over the Origin of Life,” http://www.nature.com

[12] Sarfati, J., “15 Loopholes in the Evolutionary Theory of the Origin of Life,” creation.com

[13] Sarfati, J., (2002) Refuting Evolution 2, Master Books:Green Forest,AR, pp. 157.

[14] As quoted in Brian Switek’s  “Debate Bubbles Over the Origin of Life,” (February 2012) http://www.nature.com

[15] Riddle, M., (2008) “Can Natural Processes Explain the Origin of Life?” as written in Ken Ham’s The New Answers Book 3, Master Books:Green Forest,AR, pp. 67.

[16] Ashton, J., (2000) In Six Days, Master Books:Green Forest,AR, pp. 82.

[17] Pauling, L., (1970) General Chemistry, 3^rd Ed., W.H. Freeman & Co.:San Francisco,CA, pp. 774.

[18] Shapiro, R., (1986) Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, Summit Books:New York,NY, pp. 86.

[19] Swee-Eng, A., “The Origin of Life; a Critique of Current Scientific Models,” creation.com

[20] Gitt, W., “Dazzling Design in Miniture: DNA Information Storage,” creation.com

[21] Parker, G., (January 1994) “The Origin of Life: DNA and Protein,” http://www.answersingenesis.org

[22] Gitt, W., (2006) In The Beginning Was Information, Master Books:Green Forest,AR.

[23] Lester, L. & Bohlin, R., (1989) The Natural Limits To Biological Change, Probe Books:Dallas,TX, pp. 157.

[24] Meyer, S., (2009) Signature in the Cell, Harper Collins:New York,NY, pp. 347

[25] Parker, G., (January 1994) “The Origin of Life: DNA and Protein,” http://www.answersingenesis.org

[26] Wald, G., (1954) “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 191 no. 2:48.

[27] Ross, H., (1994) The Creator and the Cosmos, Navpress:Colorado Springs,CO, pp. 137.

[28] Ross, H., (1994) The Creator and the Cosmos, Navpress:Colorado Springs,CO, pp. 138.

[29] Mullan, D., “Probabilities of Randomly Assembling a Primitive Cell on Earth,” http://www.iscid.org

[30] Duve, C., (September-October 1995) “The Beginnings of Life on Earth,” American Scientist, pp. 428.

[31] Truman, R., (December 2001) “The Fish in the Bathtub,” Creation

[32] Sarfati, J., “15 Loopholes in the Evolutionary Theory of the Origin of Life,” creation.com

[33] Morris, J.D., “How Did Life Originate?” http://www.icr.org

[34] Crick, F., (October 1981) “The Seeds of Life,” Discover Magazine

[35] Grigg, R., (September 2000) “Did Life Come to Earth From Outerspace?” Creation, 22:(4), pp. 42

[36] Ross, H., (1994) The Creator and the Cosmos, Navpress:Colorado Springs,CO, pp. 138-139.

[37] Parker, G., (January 1994) “The Origin of Life: DNA and Protein,” http://www.answersingenesis.org

[38] As quoted in Paul E. Little’s Know Why You Believe, 4^th Ed., InterVarsity Press:Downers Grove,IL, pp. 26.

[39] Williams, A., (August 2007) “Life’s Irreducible Structure- Part 1: Autopoiesis,” Journal of Creation, 21:(2) pp. 115.

[40] Shapiro, R. (1986) Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, Summit Books:New York,NY, pp. 128.

[41] Ross, H., (1994) The Creator and the Cosmos, Navpress:Colorado Springs,CO, pp. 141.

[42] Hart, M. H. (1990) “Atmospheric Evolution, the Drake Equation, and DNA: Sparse Life in an Infinite Universe,” Physical Cosmology and Philosophy, MacMillan:New York,NY, pp. 264.

[43] Little, P.E., (2000) Know Why You Believe, 4^th Ed.,InterVarsity Press:Downers Grove,IL, pp. 26.

[44] Mullan, D., “Probabilities of Randomly Assembling a Primitive Cell on Earth,” http://www.iscid.org

[45] Thaxton, C., Bradley, W., & Olsen, R., (1984) The Mystery of Life’s Origins: Reassessing Current Theories, Philosophical Library:New York,NY, pp. 80.

[46] Sarfati, J., “15 Loopholes in the Evolutionary Theory of the Origin of Life,” creation.com

[47] Lewis, R., (2008) Human Genetics; Concepts and Applications, 8^th Ed., McGraw Hill:New York,NY, Pp. 30-31.

[48] Lewis, R., (2008) Human Genetics; Concepts and Applications, 8^th Ed., McGraw Hill:New York,NY, Pp. 355.

[49] Mullan, D., “Probabilities of Randomly Assembling a Primitive Cell on Earth,” http://www.iscid.org

[50] Ross, H., (1994) The Creator and the Cosmos, Navpress:Colorado Springs,CO, pp. 142.

[51] Joyce, G.F.,  (1989) “RNA Evolution and the Origins of Life,” Nature 338: pp. 222-223

[52] Wells, J., (2000) Icons of Evolution, Regnery Publishing:WashingtonD.C., pp. 24.

[53] Luskin, C., (February 2012) “More News Sources Admit the ‘Mystery’ of Life’s Origin,” http://www.evolutionnews.org

[54] Hoyle, F., (1983) The Intelligent Universe, Michael Joseph:London, pp. 251.

[55] Yockey, H.P., (1992) Information Theory and Molecular Biology, CambridgeUniversity Press:UK, pp. 257.

[56] Yockey, H.P., (1992) Information Theory and Molecular Biology, CambridgeUniversity Press:UK, pp. 336.

[57] Swee-Eng, A., “The Origin of Life; a Critique of Current Scientific Models,” creation.com

[58] Denton, M., (1986) Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,3^rd Ed., Alder & Alder, pp. 341.

[59] Lipson, H. S., (May 1980) “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Physics Bulletin, pp. 138.

[60] Parker, G., (January 1994) “The Origin of Life: DNA and Protein,” http://www.answersingenesis.org

[61] Demick, D., (December 2000) “Life From Non-Life… or Not?” Creation 23:1 pp. 41.

[62] Grigg, R., (December 1990) “Could Monkeys Type the 23^rd Psalm?” Creation 13:1 pp. 34

The End of the Junk DNA Theory

“When the first molecular geneticists worked out the details of transcription and translation in the 1960s, they never imagined that only 1.5 percent of human DNA encodes protein. What does the “other” 98.5 percent do? It includes viral sequences, sequences that encode RNAs other than mRNA (called noncoding or ncRNAs), introns, promoters and other control sequences, and repeated sequences… Most of the genome is transcribed- it isn’t ‘junk.’”[1] –Dr. Ricki Lewis, Geneticist and Genetic Counselor for CareNet medical Group

 

 

“When James Watson and Francis Crick solved the structure of DNA in 1953, Crick formulated the “Central Dogma” of molecular biology, often stated as “DNA makes RNA makes protein makes us.” This implies that mutations in protein-coding DNA provide the raw materials for evolution. In the 1960s, however, biologists discovered that about 98% of our DNA does not code for protein. Some — including Crick — called the non-protein-coding DNA “junk” and attributed it to the accumulation of molecular accidents during evolution.

Since the mid 1990s, some defenders of Darwinian evolution — including Richard Dawkins, Kenneth R. Miller, Douglas J. Futuyma, Michael Shermer, Francis S. Collins, Philip Kitcher, Jerry A. Coyne and John C. Avise — have argued that “junk DNA” provides evidence for Darwinian evolution and against intelligent design. (Intelligent design, or ID, is the view that we can infer from evidence in nature that some features of the world, including some features of living things, are better explained by an intelligent cause than by unguided natural processes.)

By 2007, however, it was clear that most of the mammalian genome is transcribed into non-protein-coding RNA. Since organisms struggling for survival would presumably not invest so much energy in producing junk, this implied that most non-protein-coding DNA is probably not junk after all.

Since then, specific biological functions have been discovered for many non-protein-coding RNAs. Although functions have not yet been identified for many parts of our genome, the list of specific functions for so-called “junk DNA” is already long, and it grows longer every week. Defending Darwinism and criticizing ID on the grounds that most of our genome is junk amounts to a “Darwinof the gaps” argument that has to retreat with each new discovery.”[2] –Jonathan Wells, Molecular and Cellular Biologist

“…molecular taxonomists, who have been drawing up evolutionary histories (‘phylogenies’) for everything, are going to have to undo all their years of ‘junk DNA’-based historical reconstructions and wait for the full implications to emerge before they try again. One of the supposedly ‘knock-down’ arguments that humans have a common ancestor with chimpanzees is shared ‘non-functional’ DNA coding. That argument just got thrown out the window.”[3] Dr. Alex Williams, Botanist and Radioecologist

 

“‘Junk’ DNA is thought by evolutionists to be useless DNA leftover from past evolutionary permutations. According to the selfish or parasitic DNA theory, this DNA persists only because of its ability to replicate itself, or perhaps because it has randomly mutated into a form advantageous to the cell. The types of junk DNA include introns, pseudogenes, and mobile and repetitive DNAs. But now many of the DNA sequences formerly relegated to the junk pile have begun to obtain new respect for their role in genome structure and function, gene regulation and rapid speciation. On the other hand, there are examples of what seem to be true junk DNAs, sequences that had lost their functions, either to mutational inactivation that could have occurred post-Fall, or by God-ordained time limits set on their functions.

Criteria are presented by which to identify legitimate junk DNA, and to try to decipher the genetic clues of how genomes function now and in the past, when rates of change of genomes may have been very different. The rapid, catastrophic changes in the earth caused by the Flood may also have been mirrored in genomes, as each species had to adapt to post-Flood conditions. A new creationist theory may explain how this rapid diversification came about by the changes caused by repetitive and mobile DNA sequences. The so-called ‘junk’ DNAs that have perplexed creationists and evolutionary scientists alike may be the very elements that can explain the mechanisms by which God is at work in His creation now and in the past.”[4] –Dr. Linda K. Walkup, Biochemist and Molecular Geneticist

.

“We are now seeing the majority of the rest of the genome is active to some extent… This is a remarkable finding, since most prior research suggested only a fraction of the genome was transcribed.”[5] –Dr. Tim Hubbard, Head of the Human Genome Analysis

 

“A number of studies have now confirmed that this “junk DNA” is functional. A 2004 study suggested that this class of DNA, comprising more than 1/3 of mouse DNA, is involved in controlling the complex sequence of events during embryo development. A study in 2009 showed that retro-transposons are located before and after protein coding genes; they do not occur at random. Ones located before the protein-coding genes enable multiple readings for the genes: the genes can produce different proteins using different starting points in the supposedly “junk” DNA. Some enable genes to be ‘read’ in the opposite direction to normal, again producing an entirely different protein. Ones that follow the genes regulate the gene activity, controlling how much of the protein the cell produces. The researchers found some 23,000 such likely regulatory regions in the ‘junk’. Clearly, the idea of junk DNA is junk science. Not only is evolution bad for theology; it’s bad for science as well.”[6] –Dr. Don Batten, Horticulturist and Plant Scientist

 

 

“It is hoped that studying the non-coding sequences will lead to a greater understanding of disease processes. The likelihood of developing Type 2 diabetes has already been linked to mutations in non-coding sequences… Unfortunately, for many years this notion that non-coding DNA was not functional (“junk”) actually inhibited science.”[7] -Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Geneticist

 

“These new discoveries are prompting scientists to think twice about dismissing such a large portion of the genome as nothing but ‘junk.’”[8] Dr. Leslie Pray, Population Geneticist

---

[1] Lewis, R. (2008) Human Genetics: Concepts and Applications, McGraw-Hill,New York; NY, pp. 208

[2] Wells, J., (October, 2011) “The Receding Myth of ‘Junk DNA,’” Evolution News and Views, www.evolutionnews.org.

[3] Williams, A., (June 2007) “Astonishing DNA Complexity Uncovered,” creation.com

[4] Walkup, L.K., (August 2000) “’Junk’ DNA: Evolutionary Discards or God’s Tools?” Technical Journal, 14(2); pp. 18

[5] (June 2007) “Human Genome Further Unraveled,” BBC News, news.bbc.co.uk

[6] Batten, D., “The Lingering Death of Junk DNA,” creation.com

[7] Purdom, G., (August 2007) “’Junk’ DNA- Past, Present, and Future,” Answers in Genesis, www.answersingenesis.org

[8] Pray, L., (2008) “Transposons, or Jumping Genes: not Junk DNA?” Scitable by Nature Education, http://www.nature.com

 

Human and Chimp DNA

I’ve heard it a hundred times, our DNA is 99% similar with Chimpanzee DNA. The statistic’s purpose is obvious; if our DNA is so similar we must be related and have a common ancestor. Clearly we share evolutionary ties to the chimpanzee. This was further solidified in my mind while taking a course in Human Genetics, in which I learned exactly how this statistic came about. In this article I will present the evolutionary side of this subject as I was taught in my Human Genetics course, then I will present an alternate view of these similarities. So first, let’s begin with how these similarities were first discovered.

In the 1970’s a study of the human genome and chimpanzee genome yielded a repeated estimate that our DNA was 98.7% similar.[1] This was discovered by a process called DNA-hybridization. The hybridization process involves taking DNA from two different species and heating them up so they that they both unwind. Once they unwind, complementary pieces bond together forming hybrid molecules. The higher the temperature that is required in order to separate the hybrid DNA means the more the DNA between the two species were similar, because more bonds would need to be broken. Two species that had very dissimilar DNA would be unable to form as many hybrid bonds and therefore could be unwound at a much lower temperature. This is how the 98.7% statistic is reached.

Another way scientists can measure the similarity and differences between human and chimpanzee DNA is by tracking “indels,” which stands for insertions and deletions. The human genome has additional sequences (insertions), and lacks other sequences (deletions) when compared to the chimpanzee genome. By observing the sequences we share, we are 96.6% similar to the chimpanzee, and via the sequences we don’t share we are 94% similar to the chimpanzee.[2]

However, these statistics are reached by tracking single genes. Single genes can have the ability to cause major distinctions. For example, the ability to speak, opposable thumbs, large frontal lobe of the brain can all be determined by one gene.[3] The speaking gene known as FOXP2 OMIM 605317 is sometimes found missing in people and they have no ability to speak. This same gene is found in Chimpanzees, though the gene is slightly different so the chimpanzees cannot speak. In other words, the chimpanzee may look and behave very dissimilar to humans, but these are merely single gene differences. The FOX P2 protein created by this gene contains 700 amino acids, of which 698 of the amino acids are identical between human and chimpanzees.[4] That’s a 99.7% similarity!

Comparing Chromosomes

When a cell is preparing to split during mitosis the DNA inside the cell coils up tightly to form chromosomes. Our chromosomes can be compared to chimpanzee chromosomes to observe similarities. This was the initial way to observe similarities (outside of fossil comparison) prior to the advent of gene and genome sequencing. Comparing banding patterns on human chromosomes, we are 99+% similar to Chimpanzees, Gorillas and Orangutans, 95% similar to African green monkeys, 35% similar to cats, and 7% similar to mice.[5]

There is also another way to observe similarities in chromosomes, which is done by using FISH analysis. The FISH method involves using DNA probes that are complimentary to particular DNA sequences. These DNA probes will naturally bond to the DNA they’re similar with. But the probes are also attached to a fluorescent molecule, so that once a DNA probe attaches itself it can be seen under proper lighting illuminated. Using the FISH method, similarities in Chromosomes are more precisely found, and between human and chimpanzee DNA, many similarities are in fact found.

Comparing Proteins

Different organisms often use the same or similar proteins. The only difference between the proteins is usually a single different amino acid in the chain. The similarity in proteins and their amino acid composition is often used by geneticists to gauge similarities between different animals. Geneticists recognize that 99% of the proteins used by chimpanzees have identical amino acids to that of human proteins.[6] The most popular being the cytochrome c and homeobox proteins. Taking cytochrome c for example, of the 104 amino acids required for cytochrome c, 20 are identical in all eukaryotic cells. Then as you go from animal to animal, you find more and more amino acid commonality. Compared to humans; yeast shares all but 42 amino acids, fruit flies share all but 24 of their amino acids, a bullfrog shares all but 20 amino acids, a cow shares all but 10 amino acids, a rabbit all but 9 amino acids, but a chimpanzee has all the same amino acids we do used to produce a cytochrome c protein.[7] Homeobox genes are also noted for having commonalities with chimpanzees as they can be swapped from a human genome to a chimpanzee or other animals and the gene still functions though there are often bizarre mutations that occur. These are the most widely known evidences of proteins proving similarities between humans and chimpanzees.

So, when we compile the evidence we see that humans have DNA incredibly similar to the chimpanzee, especially when comparing chromosomes and proteins. That seems pretty concrete right? How could anyone question our relation to monkeys in knowing what was covered here?

An opposing view

When counter arguing the belief that man and chimp share a common ancestor, it’s not that the evidence biologists and geneticists refer to is incorrect, it is that their interpretation of the evidence may be off. They say, “look at the similarities, we’re related!” But someone else could look at all this same evidence and come to quite a different conclusion. The Bible says God created all life. If God created all life, then it is entirely possible that He used similar design and construction in similar animals. Think of it like a car manufacturer such as Ford. The Ford focus, mustang, explorer and expedition all have similar parts because they came from the same automobile manufacturer. But the explorer has more parts in common with the expedition than compared to the mustang and focus. But this is just because they are both SUVs, while the other is a sports car and a compact. In the same way similarities found among humans and chimpanzees could just as easily be explained as similar design from the same Designer.

Humans live in the same world as all other creatures, meaning our environment is the same. Since we all live on the same planet and share the same environment it is only natural that we would discover similarities in our anatomy because we all have similar needs to live on our planet. Animals that have more similar needs would of course have more shared proteins and DNA to carry out those needs. So the similarities between human and chimpanzee DNA being greater than similarities between humans and let’s say a jellyfish, should not be a surprise. Our needs are more similar to that of a chimpanzee than that of a jellyfish.

Even so, the claimed similarities mentioned earlier aren’t exactly all what they’re cracked up to be. So let’s first address the DNA similarities. In order to know the exact ratio of similarities between humans and chimps we’d need to have an even understanding of each genome. This is not the case though. The human genome has been intensely studied and mapped, but the chimpanzee genome has not nearly been studied to the same degree. Meaning we know much more about the human genome than we do about the chimp’s. Without knowing the chimp’s as well as we know the human’s, how can we make an accurate conclusion about how similar they are? Furthermore, DNA comparison between human and chimp DNA is based on observing one gene at a time, not the entire genome.[8] So out of three billion base pairs of DNA found in both our genomes, we study a handful of genes and determine we’re closely related. Not very concrete…

Even if we completely mapped the chimpanzee genome and compared it to the human genome as a whole and discovered that we are in fact over 90% similar, that still doesn’t mean much when you consider the complexity of our DNA. For example, if there was only a 1.23% difference of a single base pair in our DNA, that would lead to over 35 million differences altogether.[9] Compared to a human, the chimp is missing anywhere from 40-45 million base pairs of DNA.[10] When insertions and deletions are considered, that 4% difference mentioned earlier equals 125 million different base pairs that we do not have in common with chimps.[11] To put that in perspective; the average 8.5 x 11 inch piece of paper can hold about 4,000 letters. It would take more than 10,000 pages to record the base pair differences that humans have and chimps do not share. Biologist and urologist Dr. Barney Maddox, “Now the genetic difference between the human and his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6%. That doesn’t sound like much, but calculated out, that is a gap of at least 48,000,000 nucleotides, and a change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal; there is no possibility of change.”[12]

Haldane’s Dilemma

The problem with believing we share a common ancestor with a chimp can also be an issue of time. It is one thing to have millions of different base pairs separating chimps and humans, but if we both came from a common ancestor, that means our differences would have been caused by mutations in our genetic material after we split away from our ancestors. The problem: Per evolutionary models humans and chimps split off about 300,000 generations ago. In order to account for the vast amount of genetic differences between us, we would have to have had experienced about 133 genetic mutations in each generation.[13] That many mutations in such a short amount of time absurd, and is commonly known as Haldane’s Dilemma.

Other Differences

There are many other differences that separate humans and chimps. Telomeres at the end of each chromosome help the body control how often chromosomes can be duplicated during replication of a cell. Chimps and other apes have about 23,000 base pairs of DNA at their telomeres, while humans have about 10,000.[14] When it comes to chromosomes the differences continue on. Though many chromosomes are like that of a chimp, the human’s 4, 9 and 12 chromosomes are very different.[15] The Y chromosomes are also very different between humans and chimps. Humans have 23 chromosomes, chimpanzees have 24. In examining gene families, chimps have 86 genes that humans lack, and humans have 689 genes that chimps lack.[16] As you can see the differences aren’t as small as you’re lead to believe. Percentages may make the differences seem small, but when you consider the enormous complexity of our genetic material, those small percentages make a very big difference!

Remember that FOXP2 gene and protein mentioned before with the 99.7% similarity in amino acids that enables us to speak? Well the two different amino acids are in two different places along the amino acid chain which any geneticist will tell you that even alterations that small can create major changes to the way a protein functions. Many genetic defects found in animals are in fact the result of one misplaced amino acid, which can cause an entire protein to lose function. Like a car which has hundreds of parts all working together, take away one, like a drive shaft or one of the four wheels and now you have a car that can’t be driven. Take away the computer’s extension cord to the outlet and it can’t even turn on. In the same way a protein can be rendered completely useless by one misplaced amino acid even if 99.9% of all the other ones are in place. Case in point; humans and chimps both have the FOXP2 gene, but we can talk, and they cannot.

“FOXP2 demonstrates how a difference in one amino acid can yield a protein that is regulated differently or has altered functions. Therefore, we should not be too quick to trivialize even very small differences in gene sequences.” –Dr. David A. Dewitt, biochemist and neuroscientist.[17]

As said before chromosome banding comparison is also another method by which evolutionists compare animal relatedness. The problem with comparing the chromosome banding of different animals is that a chromosome may have the same band as another animal, but that band can contain different genes altogether. This renders band comparison imprecise.[18] Yet many refer to this to prove animal relatedness.

If we use evolutionist’s method of comparing genetic similarities to show common ancestry we may be excited when we focus on similarities between humans and primates. But you’ll be disappointed when you compare humans to other forms of life. For example, human DNA is 50% similar to the DNA of a banana. What does that say about our ancestry? Humans share the same mutated vitamin C pseudo gene with that of guinea pigs.[19] But per the evolution model we’re not supposed to be related to the guinea pig. When comparing the human genome to that of a pufferfish, its genome is like ours, just missing repeats and introns. As biologist and evolutionist Ricki Lewis PhD states, “It is odd to think that the protein encoding portion of our genome is nearly the same as that of a fish.”[20] Humans share the same hemogoblins found in many plants, does that makes us related to plants? As you can see, we can find genetic comparisons to all kinds of animals, in fact, more than half of our DNA is similar to most animals. So similarities in genetics aren’t as earth shattering as they’re made out to be, but are instead a built up hype. The line is drawn between Creationists and Evolutionists in that creationists say the similarities are what we’d find if we were all created by the same Creator, where as the Evolutionists say it would be what we’d find if we all evolved from the same original organism. The problem for evolutionists is that these similarities jump around from animal to animal regardless of where they stand on the evolutionary tree.

For example: In 1996 an analysis of 88 proteins grouped rabbits with primates and not rodents. In 1998 a study of 13 genes in 14 species of animals linked sea urchins with chordates. A 1998 analysis of 12 proteins places cows closer to whales in relation than horses. Another more recent study of single chain antigen receptor proteins finds sharks in close relation to camels. Bats and dolphin both have a sonar system that is almost identical at a molecular level. These odd commonalities cannot be explained via the evolutionary tree of ancestry. But from a creationist stand point they can be explained via a common Creator.

As Dr. Dewitt concludes, “The similarity between human and chimpanzee DNA really lies in the eye of the beholder. If you look for similarities, you can find them. But if you look for differences, you can find those as well. There are significant differences between the human and chimpanzee genome that are not easily accounted for in an evolutionary scenario. Creationists expect both similarities and differences, and that is exactly what we find.”[21]

---

[1] Ricki Lewis, Human Genetics; Concepts and Applications, Eighth Edition, (New York:NY McGraw-Hill, 2008) Pg 310.

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid

[4] Wolfgand Enard, “Molecular Evolution of FOXP2, A Gene Involved with Speech and Language,” Nature 418 (2002): 869-872.

[5] Ricki Lewis, Human Genetics; Concepts and Applications, Eighth Edition, (New York:NY McGraw-Hill, 2008) Pg 313.

[6] Ibid, Pg 314.

[7] Ibid

[8] Dr. David A. Dewitt, The New Answers Book 3, What about the Similarity Between Human and Chimp DNA? (GreenForest:AR Master Books 2010) Pg. 101.

[9] Ibid, Pg. 102.

[10] Ibid

[11] Ibid

[12] Dr. Barney Maddox, “Human Genome Project, A Disproof of Evolution”

[13] Walter J. ReMine, “Cost Theory and the Cost of Substitution- A Clarification,” TJ 19 no. 1 (2005).

[14] S. Kakuo, K. Asaoka, and T. Ide, “Human Is a Unique Species Among Primates in Terms of Telomere Length,” Biochemistry, Biophysics, Res. Commun. 263 (1999): 308-314.

[15] Ann Gibbons, “Which of Our Genes Makes Us Human?” Science 281 (1998): 1432-1434.

[16] J.P. Demuth, “The Evolution of Mammalian Gene Families,” www.plosone.org, 2006.

[17] Dr. David A. Dewitt, The New Answers Book 3, What about the Similarity Between Human and Chimp DNA? (GreenForest:AR Master Books 2010) Pg. 105.

[18] Ricki Lewis, Human Genetics; Concepts and Applications, Eighth Edition, (New York:NY McGraw-Hill, 2008) Pg 314.

[19] Y. Inai, Y. Ohta, and M. Nishikimi, “The Whole Structure of the Human Nonfunctional L-Gulono-Gamma-Lactone Oxidase Gene – The Gene Responsible for Scurvy – and the Evolution of Receptive Sequences Theron,” Journal of Nutritional Science Vitimol 49 (2003): 315-319.

[20] Ricki Lewis, Human Genetics; Concepts and Applications, Eighth Edition, (New York:NY McGraw-Hill, 2008) Pg 311.

[21] Dr. David A. Dewitt, The New Answers Book 3, What about the Similarity Between Human and Chimp DNA? (GreenForest:AR Master Books 2010) Pg. 108.

Putting a Frog in a Blender

 

What happens when you put a frog in a blender and turn it on? The Frog dies, his body becoming a mish-mash of liquefied flesh, tissue and blood. Kind of gross to think about, right? Now if I take this puréed of frog juice and heat it up, or freeze it, or send 100 volts of electricity through it, will the frog-juice ever reassemble itself back to the frog it once was? Nope. In fact, no matter what you do to the frog-juice, it never reassembles itself back into a frog. But why not?

The following article is based off of questions I’ve had from my Biology 140 class on Human Genetics, and my Biology 100 Lab course. This article contains no theories or conclusions, just facts followed with questions. I’m curious as to what your conclusions are after reading these facts, and what your answers are to my questions.

But back to the frog in the blender; it’s still sitting there in the blender container a mish-mash of frog juice. No frog has yet to emerge… A similar experiment is done by biologists, but not with frogs. A small eukaryotic cell is placed in sterile test tube. The test tube is filled with distilled water, at the perfect temperature and alkalinity for the cell’s environment. The cell’s membrane is then punctured with a needle. With the membrane wall punctured all of the internal components of the cell (organelles) begin to spill out into the test tube water. What happens next? The test tube has within it all the necessary components of a living cell, yet the cell dies. The floating organelles themselves never arrange themselves into another living cell even though all they need to do so is right there in the test tube. Why is this? Why don’t the organelles organize themselves into another living cell?

Let’s look at something smaller though. Let’s look at the basic building block of life; DNA. DNA is the absolute prerequisite for life. The world’s first living thing ever to exist on earth had DNA. In order for a living organism to live (grow and reproduce) its DNA must perform three functions; replication, transcription and translation.[1]

Replication:

In order for an organism to grow its DNA must replicate itself to make more DNA. The DNA unwinds, breaks, builds a new nucleotide chain, and then mends, producing two DNA strands where there was just one before. The DNA is unwound by an enzyme called a helicase which then holds the strand open while another enzyme called a DNA polymerase then guides RNA to the exposed DNA nucleotides. The RNA is primed and another enzyme called Ligase, then seals up the new DNA strand.

 

Enzymes are protein molecules, and protein molecules are made up from amino acids, and amino acids require DNA in order to be organized into a protein. Take note of how many enzymes were needed in order for the basic action of DNA replication to occur. At least three different enzymes are required (more are actually needed, but for sake of space I’ve condensed the DNA replication process listed here). But here’s the problem; in order to replicate DNA needed to build enzymes, enzymes are needed to replicate.[2] So how could the very first DNA have replicated itself to make enzymes, if enzymes are needed to replicate in the first place?

Transcription:

So just how does the DNA build a protein? Well, first the DNA must be transcribed. Just like replication, the DNA strand is again split and unwound by enzymes. Then comes along Ribosomal RNA which is made up of proteins and RNA. The Ribosomal RNA then takes RNA nucleotides and bonds them to the exposed DNA to form a template. This template strand of RNA can then leave the nucleus of the cell to be translated to build a protein.[3]

 

Here we find the same problem. In order for transcription to take place to build a protein, proteins are needed to transcribe. How was the first Ribosomal RNA protein built, when the only process that can build it, Transcription, requires a ribosomal RNA already present?

Translation:

A ribosomal rRNA subunit then attaches to the mRNA, attracting tRNA. The tRNA carries different amino acids based on the code each particular tRNA is. One by one the tRNA match up along the mRNA, fitting like a key in a lock, then they leave behind the particular amino acid they brought with them. The amino acid chain left behind is referred to as a polypeptide chain. This chain of multiple combined amino acids is then folded into a three-dimensional shape by various other proteins called chaperones. Depending on the three dimensional shape it is folded into will determine the function of a brand new protein![4]

 

So as you can see, the processes of replication, transcription and translation requires the involvement and interaction of various different types of proteins; helicases, chaperones, ribosomal rRNA, etc. But the only way proteins are made is via replication, transcription and translation of DNA followed by proper protein folding by other proteins. So how did proteins come to be, if proteins are needed to have already existed to make other proteins?

Amino Acids and Chiralty

To answer the question of origins we learned that amino acids have been found in various places like on meteorites and have been produced in experiments to simulate the early atmosphere of earth, such as the Miller Urey experiment.[5] The conclusion being that amino acids can form naturally from chemicals, and thus life can form from chemicals (non-life). But recall that even one protein requires a specific combination amino acids, followed by proper folding from other proteins. Without other proteins present how could the amino acid polypeptide chain be folded into a protein? Also, both my textbooks failed to mention that there are over 2,000 amino acids found naturally occurring, but only 20 can be used to build proteins.[6] Were the amino acids from the meteorites and lab experiment the correct 20, or were they just a few of the other 1,980 other amino acids that cannot be used to build a protein?

Furthermore there is an even a greater issue with amino acids called Chiralty. I learned about Chiralty from my personal studies outside of school because it also was not mentioned in either of my biology textbooks. I’ve presented that it takes the proper combination of specific amino acids out of thousands followed by the proper folding of amino acids to create just one protein. But there is a fourth and more important perquisite for amino acids in the polypeptide chain. When the atoms that make up the amino acids fuse together they make two different shaped amino acids, left-handed and right-handed. Just like our two human hands which are completely opposite of each other, amino acids are likewise opposite of each other, mirror like-reflections of one another but not identical, allowing them to fuse together. Interestingly enough when a left-handed amino acid fuses to a right-handed amino acid, they become useless for building a polypeptide chain and therefore useless to building a protein, which is known as being racemic.[7] This phenomenon is called chiralty, which is Greek for handedness.[8]

 

Here is where it gets interesting; all amino acids used to build proteins in life are all 100% left-handed. There are no right handed amino acids used in life.[9] Equal amounts of left and right handed amino acids called “racemates,” is the product of chemical production of amino acids, which naturally want to bond together. So here are my questions: If all amino acids found chemically are both right-handed and left-handed which naturally want to fuse together making them useless for building proteins, how is it that all proteins found in living organisms have only left-handed amino acids? If life came from non-life, how did the first amino acids, 20 out of 2,000, only left-handed, manage to get in the right combination, and become properly folded to build the first protein?

 

Law of Biogenesis

Definition: The principle stating that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material.[10] There are many theories, but facts that cannot be refuted are called laws. Take the law of gravity for example. Life has only been observed forming from other life. If life can arise from non-life it should be doing so frequently to this day and should be observable, yet it is not. If there is no evidence of life arising from non-life, then how can we believe it once did in the past?

Reproduction

Another interesting topic regarding the origin of life is reproduction. The first life form would have to have had the capability to reproduce. Obviously if it did not have the capability to reproduce no subsequent life would follow after it. If it couldn’t reproduce, than life would have to “accidentally” start over again and again. Ultimately, the first life form would have to be capable of reproducing from the beginning. Philosophically speaking, how does an accident in living matter also bring about accidental ability to reproduce itself?

As you can see, when you read just the facts and questions with unbiased it becomes evident that life is incredibly complex, the origins of which (in my opinion) can’t be adequately explained via evolution theory. In my opinion, when one studies biology and genetics, it becomes more and more obvious that life has an immensely complicated design.  Here I believe one can make a teleological argument:

Every design has a designer.

Biological life has a very complex design.

Therefore, biological life had a designer.

This outlook becomes even more solidified when one studies the immense amount of information stored in our DNA. How does chemical accident bring forth intelligent information more complex than any computer code ever created by man? Personally, when I read about these things I can’t help but conclude that there is indeed a God who created us and all of life. But in the meantime, the frog juice… has yet to turn back into a frog.

---

[1] Ricki Lewis, Human Genetics; Concepts and Applications, (New York:NY McGraw-Hill, 2008) Eighth Edition, Pg. 174.

[2] Ricki Lewis, Human Genetics; Concepts and Applications, (New York:NY McGraw-Hill, 2008) Eighth Edition, Pg. 174.

[3] Ricki Lewis, Human Genetics; Concepts and Applications, (New York:NY McGraw-Hill, 2008) Eighth Edition, Pg. 184.

[4] Ricki Lewis, Human Genetics; Concepts and Applications, (New York:NY McGraw-Hill, 2008) Eighth Edition, Pg. 190.

[5] It should be noted that the meteorites analyzed had of course been in the ground on earth for some time before being analyzed, so finding amino acids on them should not be surprising considering they were probably contaminated while in the ground. Also, the Miller Urey experiment yields multiple flaws outside of the amino acids it produced.

[6] Mike Riddle, The New Answers Book 2, “Can Natural Processes Explain the Origin of Life?” (), Pg. 67.

[7] The definition of racemic;  “of, relating to, or constituting a compound or mixture that is composed of equal amounts of dextrorotatory and levorotatory forms of the same compound and is optically inactive.” Mw2.merriam-webster.com, medical dictionary.

[8] Mike Riddle, The New Answers Book 2, “Can Natural Processes Explain the Origin of Life?” (), Pg. 67.

[9] Linus Pauling, General Chemistry, 3^rd Edition (San Francisco,CA: W.H. Freeman & Co. 1970) Pr. 774.

[10] http://www.biology-online.org