DNA Confessions From Evolutionists
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.
That is because, as we have already seen, although the DNA chain exists
with its extraordinary information capacity, it serves no purpose on its
own. In order to refer to life, it is essential that the enzymes that
read this DNA chain, copy them and produce proteins, should also exist.
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.
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.
Evolutionist Douglas R. Hofstadter of Indiana University, 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. (Douglas R. Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, New York: Vintage Books, 1980, p. 548)
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. (Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on Earth," Scientific American, Vol.271, October 1994, p. 78)
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,
despite their evident impossibility.
Another evolutionist, Caryl P. Haskins, states how the DNA code could
not have emerged by chance, and that this fact is strong evidence for
But the most sweeping evolutionary questions at the
level of biochemical genetics are still unanswered. How the genetic code
first appeared and then evolved and, earlier even than that, how life
itself originated on earth remain for the future to resolve.... Did the
code and the means of translating it appear simultaneously in evolution?
It seems almost incredible that any such coincidence could have occurred,
given the extraordinary complexities of both sides and the requirement
that they be coordinated accurately for survival. By a pre-Darwinian (or
a skeptic of evolution after Darwin) this puzzle would surely have been
interpreted as the most powerful sort of evidence for special creation. (Haskins, Caryl P., "Advances and Challenges in Science in 1970," American Scientist, vol.59 (May/June 1971), p.305)
In his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, writing of 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! (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, London: Burnett Books, 1985, p. 351)
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 Almighty, who is the Lord of
all the worlds.
Another example of evolutionists' helplessness:
Ever since the start of the 20th century, evolutionists have developed various theories to explain how the first living cell emerged. The Russian biologist Alexander Oparin, who proposed the first evolutionary thesis on the subject, suggested that in the primitive world of hundreds of millions of years ago, a series of coincidental chemical reactions led to first of all proteins, and that cells were then born when these came together. Discoveries made in the 1970s showed that even the most fundamental assumptions of this claim, which Oparin made in the 1930s, were mistaken. Oparin's "primitive world atmosphere" scenario contained the gases methane and ammonia to allow the formation of organic molecules. However, it was realized that the hypothesis of an early methane-ammonia atmosphere is without solid foundation and indeed is contradicted, and that the early atmopherecontained a large amount of oxygen which destroys organic molecules as they form.
This was a big blow to the theory of molecular evolution. Evolutionists then had to face the fact that the "primitive atmosphere experiments" by Stanley Miller, Sidney Fox and Cyril Ponnamperuma and others were invalid. For this reason, in the 1980s evolutionists tried again. As a result, "RNA World" hypothesis was advanced. This scenario proposed that, not proteins, but rather the RNA molecules that contained the information for proteins were formed first. According to this scenario advanced by Harvard chemist Walter Gilbert in 1986, billions of years ago an RNA molecule capable of replicating itself, formed somehow by accident. Then this RNA molecule started to produce proteins, having been activated by external influences. Thereafter, it became necessary to store this information in a second molecule, and somehow the DNA molecule emerged to do that.
When the need is felt for a protein in
a cell, a signal is sent to the DNA molecule. The DNA molecule receiving
the signal understands which protein is needed. Then the DNA makes
an RNA copy carrying specific information for making a protein,
which is called messenger RNA. After receiving the information,
mRNA leaves the nucleus and heads straight for the ribosomes, the
protein production factory. At the same time, another RNA copied
from the DNA, called transfer RNA, carries the amino acids for the
proteins to the ribosomes. Each tRNA is an "adapter" molecule that
can link with a specific amino acid. The tRNA which carries the
amino acid sequence information of the protein to be formed settles
in the production site of the ribosome. The amino acids brought
by the tRNA take their places according to the sequence notified
by the messenger RNA. Then another RNA molecule copied from DNA,
called ribosomal RNA, enables the messenger and transfer RNAs to
join together. Amino acids brought in by the transfer RNAs develop
peptide bonds to form protein chains. The messenger RNAs leave the
ribosome having deposited their loads. The protein that is produced
then proceeds to where it will be used.
Made up of a chain of impossibilities in each and every stage, this scarcely
credible scenario, far from providing any explanation of the origin of
life, only magnified the problem and raised many unanswerable questions:
1. Since 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 particular sequence?
Evolutionist John Horgan admits the impossibility of the chance formation
As researchers continue to examine the RNA-world concept
closely, more problems emerge. How did RNA initially arise? RNA and its
components are difficult to synthesize in a laboratory under the best
of conditions, much less under really plausible ones. (John Horgan, "In the Beginning," Scientific American, Vol. 264, February 1991, p. 119)
When the Urey-Miller experiment was invalidated,
evolutionists had to embark on a new search.
2. Even if we suppose that it formed by chance, how could this RNA consisting
of just 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 would
strain the credulity of even an optimist's view of RNA's catalytic potential. (G.F. Joyce, L. E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," In the RNA World, New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993, p. 13)
3. Even if we suppose that there was 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 one single
protein. For RNA only includes information concerning the structure of
proteins. Amino acids, on the other hand, are raw materials. Nevertheless,
there is no mechanism for the production of proteins. To consider the
existence of RNA sufficient for protein production is as nonsensical as
expecting a car to assemble itself by simply throwing the blueprint onto
a heap of parts piled on top of each other. A blueprint cannot produce
a car all by itself without a factory and workers to assemble the parts
according to the instructions contained in the blueprint;in the same way,
the blueprint contained in RNAcannot produce proteins by itself without
the cooperation of other cellular components which follow the instructions
in the RNA.
The above picture shows protein chains produced in the ribosome.
Proteins are produced in the ribosome factory with the help of many enzymes,
and as a result of extremely complex processes within the cell. The ribosome
is a complex cell organelle made up of proteins. This leads, therefore,
to another unreasonable supposition-that ribosomes, too, should have come
into existence by chance at the same time. Even Nobel Prize winner Jacques
Monod, who was one of the most fanatical defenders of evolution, explained
that protein synthesis can by no means be considered to depend merely
on the information in the nucleic acids:
The code is meaningless unless translated. The modern
cell's translating machinery consists of at least 50 macromolecular components,
which are themselves coded in DNA: the code cannot be translated otherwise
than by products of translation themselves. It is the modern expression
of omne vivum ex ovo [all life from eggs, or idiomatically, what came
first, the chicken or the egg?]. When and how did this circle become closed?
It is exceedingly difficult to imagine.13
How could an RNA chain in the primordial world have taken such a decision,
and what methods could it have employed to make protein production happen
by doing the work of 50 macromolecular components 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 California at San Diego, uses the term "scenario"
for the possibility of "the origination of life through the RNA world."
Orgel described what kind of features this RNA would have had to have
and how impossible these would have been in his article, "The Origin of
Life," published in American Scientist in October 1994:
This scenario could have occurred, 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
As should by now be clear, to expect these two complex and extremely
essential processes from a molecule such as RNA is only possible from
the evolutionist's viewpoint and with the help of his power of imagination.
Concrete scientific facts, on the other hand, make it explicit that the
"RNA World" hypothesis, which is a new model proposed for the chance formation
of life, is an equally implausible fable.