Home Church Community

Statement of Beliefs

Contact Us

Search Our Site

Bible Study Resource



Printer Friendly Version

Basic Worldview:
103 Science, the Bible,
and Creation



Origins - Section Three: Evolution, Origin of Life

Origins - Section One: Introduction and the Basics
Origins - Section Two: Premature Dismissals
Origins - Section Two: Application of the Basics
Origins - Section Three: Creation
Origins - Section Three: Evolution, Origin of Life
Origins - Section Three: Evolution, Environment for Life 1
Origins - Section Three: Evolution, Environment for Life 2
Origins - Section Three: Evolution, Another Planet
Origins - Section Three: Evolution, Origin of Species
Origins - Section Three: Evolution, Speciation Factors
Origins - Section Three: Evolution, Speciation Rates
Origins - Section Four: Time and Age, Redshift
Origins - Section Four: Philosophical Preference
Origins - Section Four: Cosmological Model 1
Origins - Section Four: Cosmological Model 2
Origins - Section Four: Dating Methods, Perceptions, Basics
Origins - Section Four: Global Flood Evidence
Origins - Section Four: Relative Dating
Origins - Section Four: Dating and Circular Reasoning
Origins - Section Four: The Geologic Column
Origins - Section Four: Radiometric Dating Basics
Origins - Section Four: General Radiometric Problems
Origins - Section Four: Carbon-14 Problems
Origins - Section Four: Remaining Methods and Decay Rates
Origins - Section Four: Radiometric Conclusions, Other Methods
Origins - Section Five: Overall Conclusions, Closing Editorial
Origins - Section Five: List of Evidences Table
Origins Debate Figures and Illustrations


Evolution Theory

Describing the evolution theory and its explanatory mechanisms with regard to the 5 categories of evidence listed in the preceding introduction results in the following summary of the theory. Although some of the items listed as “acknowledged” parts of the theory by the evolutionary community itself may at first seem controversial, the expanded discussion that follows the summary will substantiate each point in detail.

1) What caused the origin of the universe in terms of space, time, matter, and energy is not known or stated even in theory. As a result, several questions are left unaddressed and are even largely regarded as un-addressable. Why did the universe originate a finite time ago rather than an infinite time ago if its origination is due to automatic, routine forces or processes? What automatic, routine forces or processes caused the origin of the universe? Why do those automatic, routine forces or processes exist? Are they eternal or were they caused by something else? How can the insufficiency problem of infinite regress be avoided by the suggestion of automatic, routine forces or processes? How does the suggestion of automatic, routine forces or processes avoid the scientific principle of Occam’s Razor, which prohibits multiplying causes and elements endlessly beyond the bare minimum necessary to explain the observable evidence? Although all such questions are considered un-answerable by evolutionary theory and although they all have essential relevance concerning whether or not automatic, routine forces are sufficient to cause the universe, an automatic, routine force or process that has not been identified or defined is advanced as the cause for the origin of the universe in terms of space, time, matter, and energy.

2) A special location near the center of the universe would be too coincidental to avoid teleology. In order to construct a universe that is feasibly caused by automatic, routine processes, it is assumed that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, meaning that it has uniform distribution and consequently will appear uniformly distributed when viewed in every direction. The formation and distribution of the large-scale structures of the universe such as superclusters, clusters, and galaxies require that 96 percent of the universe is composed of dark matter and energy, which have not been detected or observed and the properties of which are also not known. Furthermore, although neither detected nor observed, different types of dark matter have been theorized, each possessing different properties that are necessary for the formation and distribution of the universe’s large-scale structures. In addition, the exact proportion of respective speculative types of dark matter required to result in the formation and current distribution of these structures is acknowledged to either not work at all or to be “too ideal” to conform to non-teleological, automatic, routine processes. Despite the lack of even a working speculation for how automatic, routine processes could cause the existing structures and their distribution, nevertheless an automatic, routine process is advanced as the cause and it is hoped that a working scenario can be conceived and articulated at some point in the future. Lastly, when selectively filtered, the observed evidence concerning the phenomenon of redshift can be presented to indicate the 10-20 billion-year age of the universe.

3) Two categories of processes are acknowledged to cause the earth’s geologic features, slow, gradual processes (such as erosion) and rapid catastrophes. Although rapid catastrophes have been directly observed to cause major features while slow, gradual processes by definition require to much time for any human to observed, the earth’s geologic features are assumed to predominantly be the result of these slow, automatic, routine processes, which given their slow nature, indicate that it would take a very long time for the earth’s features to be formed. As a consequence, slow, uniform processes then lead to a very old age for the earth. Although in order for a fossil to form, the organism must be buried rapidly, the rock layers, which buried fossilized organisms, were laid down very slowly over tens of thousand to millions of years. And although it is acknowledged that the order in which rock layers are found by its nature cannot denote the rate of their formation, dates and ages separated by many thousands or millions of years are nevertheless assigned to each rock layer. This process is known as relative dating. And even before the onset of radioactive dating methods, it was this practice of assigning hypothetical ages to rock layers that was accepted as disproving the previously established 6-10 thousand year “young age” of the earth asserted in the Bible. Furthermore, these hypothetical ages asserted from relative dating make radioactive dating methods possible and are the first step in radioactively dating any sample. On their own radioactive dating methods, even the most prominent of them, are based upon equations in which the critical factors for age determination are unknown and have to be assumed and adjusted in order for any age calculation to even be possible. And although the relationship between radioactive dating and relative dating is circular, the dates are accepted because they confirm each other and because they conform to expectations for the hypothetical evolutionary time scale for the earth.

4) Various theoretical scenarios are offered for the origin of life. And although each individual scenario is acknowledged to be insufficient due to environmental prohibitions involving chemicals and energy sources, the known geologic history of the earth, and statistical improbabilities particularly those surrounding the arrival of cellular systems that are currently irreducibly functionally interdependent, the origin of life is asserted to be the result of automatic, routine processes, in a yet unobserved environment perhaps even occurring on another planet at an unknown time in the past when conditions and time allotments would be ideal.

5) Although the production of a new or different organism from an existing organism occurs in steps that are too subtle and slow to be observed directly and although the fossil record likewise contains no intermediate or transitional forms, it is advanced that all the varieties of organisms on earth today are not reproductively static, but came into being as generations of offspring from one original organism changed over time into new and different types of organisms. Beneficial gene mutations are acknowledged to be the only potential automatic, routine source for the arrival of these new types of organisms. The frequency of beneficial mutations is acknowledged to be extremely rare. And although there are probability obstacles concerning any theoretical beneficial mutation being passed on through reproduction and accumulating in an order and association necessary for new functions to result, the arrival of every variety of organism, every trait, structure, and organ, and every gene on the planet today are attributed to the automatic, routine process of beneficial mutation.


Expanded Commentary: Evolution Theory

At this point, there are only 3 sections remaining for this article series: this expanded commentary section for evolution theory, an up-close look at 2 particular avenues of evidence that deal with the issue of time, and finally the closing list of all the evidences. No doubt, there might be some controversy concerning the “uncertainty” and lack of specifics implicit in the definition of evolutionary theory offered above. Part of the issue is that the “lack of specifics” in the definitional points above is not simply presented as a function of providing an abbreviated overview of the theory so that its particulars are left out for summary purposes. Instead, the lack of specifics is asserted as part of the current evolutionary theory. That is to say that the definition above is written with the assertion that the theory itself actually lacks specifics, including specific mechanisms, elements, explanations, and even observational evidences on the most central and key points of the discussion.

However, as we will see in the quotes included from evolutionary scientists in these last 3 sections, it is not unlikely that many evolutionists would agree with the inclusion of the present “uncertainty” and lack of specifics in the theory. Our intention in this section as well as the following section, which will focus on time issues, is to establish that this uncertainty and lack of specifics are not a byproduct of a biased description of the theory, but are indeed inherent to the current evolutionary theory as it presently stands and is presented by the evolutionary community itself. Throughout this section of the article we would also draw your attention to the sources listed for the quotes below. They are not creationist sources or authors. Instead, they are common reference sources such as Britannica Encyclopedia, Microsoft Encarta, Worldbook Encyclopedia, as well as notable scientific magazines such as Discover and American Scientists, even the journal Science. And the articles are often written by non-creationist professionals who possess doctorates in the field and teach or work at established, non-creationist institutions, as can be seen particularly at the end of the Worldbook Encyclopedia quotes. Consequently, the components of the definition of evolutionary theory are not being drawn from biased, creationist sources but from secular, evolutionist sources.

In addition, it is necessary to make an important clarifying point about the line of reasoning expressed throughout our discussion of these 5 definitional points of evolutionary theory. As stated above, there is no doubt that our defining points for evolution are articulated in a way that reflects there really is no working evolutionary theory or explanation for the central origins issues, such as the origin of the universe’s structures, the origin of life, and the origin of species. As we use quotes from mainstream secular and evolutionary sources to establish that our definition is accurate in this regard, it must be said that our point is not that the mere presence of disagreement or differing opinions among evolutionists means that their theory is wrong. Disagreement and differing opinions can likewise be found in Judeo-Christianity and creationism. It is not mere disagreement that is the proof or criteria but whether or not any working version of the theory exists at all.

Our contention is that, while there are differing views within Judeo-Christianity on the various doctrines and even differing versions of creation theory, there is one version that is wholly internally consistent, provides a wholly consistent and complete explanation of the evidence, and is wholly corroborated by the evidence. Within Judeo-Christianity and its subtopic of creationism, that working version is also clearly identifiable as well. The working version of Judeo-Christianity and creationism are the earliest forms of them, the orthodox, original, and historical tradition. The multitude of differing opinions and versions are those which sprang up later. Conversely, it is also our contention that there is absolutely no working version of evolutionary theory, not in terms of an identifiable “core” or mainstream or historical version of the theory (as Judeo-Christianity can claim) and not even if we attempt to mix and match differing versions of evolutionary theory to create the best, overall candidate.

So, in short, we are not simply articulating that evolution is invalid because evolutionists disagree on various points, but because among all the versions of evolutionary theory available, it is impossible to construct even one working theory from start to finish or on any of the individual subtopics of evolution. And in contrast, although there is disagreement within the Judeo-Christian tradition and even among creationists, there is one version of Judeo-Christianity and of creationism in particular that does indeed work. Consequently, a view is not disproved by the mere fact that its adherents disagree on some points, but by whether or not that view has any viable, working form at all. In the case of Judeo-Christianity and creationism, we contend that it does and this article series is intended to outline that working form. In the case of evolution, we contend that it does not. And in this article series, we will use quotes from mainstream secular and evolutionary sources to establish the problems facing evolutionary theory remain insurmountable, leaving no version with a working explanation on any key issue. 

It is also important to note that points 1, 2, and 3 above under the definition of evolutionary theory will be addressed in the last 2 remaining sections of the series. That leaves points 4 and 5 to be addressed now in this expanded commentary on evolutionary theory. And this is actually quite fitting since points 4 and 5 largely correspond to the issues under focus in our expanded commentary on creation theory, the closely-related and overlapping issues origin of life and the origin of species. As we saw in the expanded commentary on creation theory, teleology or purposeful, intelligent action is concluded to be the cause for the origin of all forms of life rather than automatic, routine processes. And consequently, all species are likewise concluded to have resulted from such purposeful, intelligent action. Evolutionary theory, when considering the same evidence, reaches the opposite conclusion, asserting that automatic, routine processes without foresight have brought about the origin of life and the eventual emergence of all forms and species of life from one ancestor and this process is referred to generally as “evolution.”

Now, as we begin to examine points 4 and 5, we notice that the definition includes a reference to the “known geologic history” of the earth including its environmental composition as a barrier that so far has unraveled all attempts to offer specific scenarios for how life originated on earth from automatic, routine processes. We further assert that the irreducibly, functionally interdependent relationships of the components of cellular systems is another such barrier. And finally, based upon these 2 acknowledged barriers to the evolutionary origin of life on earth, we included as part of the definition of current evolutionary theory the hypothesis that life originated on another planet where conditions were favorable and then arrived on earth sometime after its origination. Here again, for review is point 4 of our definition.

4) Various theoretical scenarios are offered for the origin of life. And although each individual scenario is acknowledged to be insufficient due to environmental prohibitions involving chemicals and energy sources, the known geologic history of the earth, and statistical improbabilities particularly those surrounding the arrival of cellular systems that are currently irreducibly functionally interdependent, the origin of life is asserted to be the result of automatic, routine processes, in a yet unobserved environment perhaps even occurring on another planet at an unknown time in the past when conditions and time allotments would be ideal.

At this point, we will establish that these points are not a biased description but, in fact, simply the status of the evolutionary theory as it currently stands and as it is presented by the evolutionary scientists and educators themselves. In order to establish that the potentially more controversial elements of our definition are not really controversial, we need to understand evolutionary theory from the ground up, so that we can see why and how those elements are necessary and fit with the larger evolutionary system. First, we will turn to the second barrier, the irreducible functional interdependencies between basic cell components that are necessary for life. Then, we will turn our attention to the barrier of the geologic history of the earth, during which time we will also establish the basic evolutionary understanding for the age of the universe. In this way, this expanded commentary on evolutionary theory really will serve to establish the defining positions of evolutionary theory, from cell components and the origin of life to the geologic history, the timing, and the environment in which evolutionary theory asserts that life emerged.


Evolution on the Origin of Life: Irreducible Functional Interdependencies

The second barrier to the origin of life, which we asserted was recognized and included in the evolutionary theory itself, is the fact that all observable cellular systems are comprised of components that are currently irreducibly functionally interdependent. At this point, it is important to identify some of those basic cell components and how they relate to one another.

Cells are the “the basic unit of which all living things are composed” and “the smallest units retaining the fundamental properties of life.”

Cell – in biology, the basic unit of which all living things are composed. As the smallest units retaining the fundamental properties of life, cells are the “atoms” of the living world. A single cell is often a complete organism in itself, such as abacteriumor yeast.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Cell, The history of cell theory, Formulation of the theory, Early observations – Two German biologists, Theodore Schwann and Matthias Schleiden, clearly stated in 1839 that cells are the “elementary particles of organisms” in both plants and animals and recognized that some organisms are unicellular and others multicellularSchleiden and Schwann's descriptive statements concerning the cellular basis of biologic structure are straightforward and acceptable to modern thought.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Cells are comprised of proteins. Proteins, which are essential to a living cell, are made up of polypetides. Polypeptides are made up of amino acids.

“Genes, made of double-stranded DNA, contain information for making proteins. This genetic code is embodied in long strings of chemical compounds called nucleotides and is copied onto RNA molecules, which then get shipped to ribosomes, biochemical factories where protein molecules are manufactured. Once completed, proteins curl up into complex shapes that let them do the actual work of life. Some proteins give an organism’s body its structure, whether in the cell’s internal skeleton or in a strand of hair. Other proteins, known as enzymes, can grab other proteins, cut them apart, or weld them to other proteins. DNA depends on enzymes to make new copies of its code as well as to translate it into RNA.” – “What Came Before DNA?,” by Carl Zimmer, DISCOVER Vol. 25 No. 06, June 2004, Biology & Medicine

Proteincomplex molecule composed of amino acids and necessary for the chemical processes that occur in living organisms. Proteins are basic constituents in all living organismsAll known enzymes, for example, are proteins…Proteins are sometimes referred to as macromolecular polypeptides because they are very large molecules and because the amino acids of which they are composed are joined by peptide bonds…Amino acids are joined together to form long chains; most of the common proteins contain more than 100 amino acids…The vast majority of the proteins found in living organisms are composed of only 20 different kinds of amino acids, repeated many times and strung together in a particular order. Each type of protein has its own unique sequence of amino acids; this sequence, known as its primary structure, actually determines the shape and function of the protein.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Heredity, The physical basis of heredity, Molecular genetics – It is now known that genes encode instructions for the production of proteins, which are largely responsible for the structure and function of the organism. Proteins are large, complex molecules consisting of one or more polypeptide chains that, in turn, are composed of amino acids linked together by peptide bonds. Proteins play many roles in organisms.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Amino acid – Although more than 100 amino acids occur naturally, only 20 are commonly used in protein synthesis; these are the same in all living organisms, from protozoa to plants and animals…A peptide bond is formed by a condensation (water-loss) reaction between the carboxyl group of one amino acid and the amino group of the next amino acid occurring in a protein. Thus, proteins are formed by the linear arrangement of amino acids in a particular order. Most of the common proteins contain more than 100 amino acids. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) contains the genetic information that dictates the specific sequence of amino acids found in all proteins.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Cells also contain enzymes, which are also required for the basic functions of a living cell.

Life, Life on Earth, Nucleic acids – It is now known that many if not all of the fundamental properties of cells are a function of their nucleic acids, their proteins, and the interactions among these molecules…The specificity of base pairing plays a key role in the replication of the DNA molecule, where each helix makes an identical copy of the other from molecular building blocks in the cell. These nucleic acid replication events are mediated by enzymes, and with the aid of enzymes have been produced in the laboratory…Now DNA, RNA, and the enzymes have a curiously interconnected relation, which appears ubiquitous in all organisms on Earth today.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Enzyme – a substance that acts as a catalyst in living organisms, regulating the rate at which chemical reactions proceed without itself being altered in the process. The biological processes that occur within all living organisms are chemical reactions, and most are regulated by enzymes. Without enzymes, many of these reactions would not take place at a perceptible rate. Enzymes catalyze all aspects of cell metabolism.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Cells also contain DNA and RNA, which are both nucleic acids. Nucleic acids are polynucleotides, which are chains of “many” nucleotides. A nucleotide is a molecule comprised of a sugar (ribose or deoxyribose), a phosphate, and a nitrogen base (DNA: adenine, guanine, cytosine, thymine; RNA: uracil instead of thymine).

“Nucleotide – any member of a class of organic compounds in which the molecular structure comprises a nitrogen-containing unit (base) linked to a sugar and a phosphate group. The nucleotides are of great importance to living organisms, as they are the building blocks of nucleic acids, the substances that control all hereditary characteristics. In the two families of nucleic acids, ribonucleic acid (RNA) and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), the sequence of nucleotides in the DNA or RNA codes for the structure of proteins synthesized in the cell.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Nucleic acid, General considerations, ClassificationThere are two classes of nucleic acids: ribonucleic acids (RNA) and deoxyribonucleic acids (DNA)Basic components – Nucleic acids are polynucleotides, long chain compounds consisting of repeating structural units called nucleotides (Figure 1). They may be composed of more than 1,000,000 of these nucleotides. The nucleotides themselves consist of three subunits. Each of them contains a pentose (or five-carbon) sugar, a purine or pyrimidine base, and a phosphate residue. The pentose sugar is ribose in RNA and 2-deoxyribose in DNA...It was the fact that adenine and thymine are present in approximately equal amounts in DNA, as are guanine and cytosine, together with information from X-ray crystallography of DNA that led Nobel Prize winners J.D. Watson and F.H.C. Crick to postulate that the DNA molecule consists of two chains or strands of polynucleotides coiled around each other to form a double helix, the bases of one helical strand being paired with complementary bases of the other by hydrogen bonds: adenine paired with thymine and cytosine with guanine (see Figure 2).” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

UracilUracil is one of four nitrogenous bases found in the RNA molecule: uracil and cytosine (derived from pyrimidine) and adenine and guanine (derived from purine)...Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) also contains each of these nitrogenous bases, except that thymine is substituted for uracil. During the synthesis of an RNA strand from a DNA template (transcription), uracil pairs only with adenine, and guanine pairs only with cytosine.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Finally, although not all cells have membranes around their nucleus, all cells do have an outer membrane.

Cell, The history of cell theory, Formulation of the theory, Early observations – Schleiden and Schwann's descriptive statements concerning the cellular basis of biologic structure are straightforward and acceptable to modern thought. They recognized the common features of cells to be membrane, nucleus, and cell body and described them in comparisons of various animal and plant tissues.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Membrane – in biology, the thin layer that forms the outer boundary of a living cell or ofan internal cell compartment.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Cell, The plasma membraneA thin membrane, some .005 micrometre across, surrounds every living cell, delimiting the cell from the environment around it.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

What is essential to keep in mind is that evolutionary theory asserts that all of foundational cell components came about and assembled themselves together through automatic, routine processes without the foresight of intelligent agency. Consequently, evolutionary scientists have undertaken experiments designed to corroborate this prediction. For example, experiments using lightning and ultraviolet light have produced amino acids, sugars, and nucleic acids.

“Perhaps the most influential first surfaced four decades ago, when in a dramatic experiment a University of Chicago graduate student named Stanley Miller simulated the creation of life in a laboratory…When Miller analyzed the brew, he found that it contained amino acids, the building blocks of protein…And the simple experiment (It’s so easy to do--high school students now use it to win their science fairs, Miller says) stimulated a rush of studies, with the result that a number of other organic compounds, including adenine and guanine, two of the ingredients of RNA and DNA, were produced by similar procedures.” – “How Did Life Start?,” by Peter Radetsky, DISCOVER, Vol. 13 No. 11, November 1992, Biology & Medicine

Evolution, IX STEPS IN EVOLUTION – Life originated about 3.5 billion years ago, when the earth's environment was very different than it is today. Especially important was the lack of significant amounts of free oxygen in the atmosphere. Experiments have shown that rather complicated organic molecules, including amino acids, can arise spontaneously under conditions that are believed to simulate the earth's primitive environment. Other experiments indicate that concentration of such molecules may have led to the synthesis of complex molecules, such as proteins, nucleic acids, and carbohydrates, and eventually to interactions among these molecules.” – "Evolution," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Life, the origin of life, Production of simple organic molecules – Subsequent experiments have substituted ultraviolet light or heat as the energy source or have altered the initial abundances of gases. In all such experiments amino acids have been formed in large yield…Following such reasoning, a U.S. astrophysicist, Carl Sagan, and his colleagues made amino acids by long wavelength ultraviolet irradiation of a mixture of methane, ammonia, water, and H2S.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Sagan, Carl Edward – Later in the 1960s Sagan built on the work of American chemists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey. In the 1950s Miller and Urey had combined methane, ammonia, water vapor, and hydrogen, the probable components of the earth's early atmosphere, in a flask. They introduced electrical sparks into the mixture to simulate lightning. When they analyzed the contents of the flask, they found that the chemicals had combined to form amino acids and hydroxy acids, the building blocks of the proteins in living things. Sagan followed a similar method, but refined the primordial soup mixture to include methane, ammonia, water, and hydrogen sulfide. He also exposed the mixture to ultraviolet light to simulate the effect of sunlight on the chemicals. His mixture produced amino acids as well as several kinds of sugars and nucleic acids.” – "Sagan, Carl Edward," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

In order to avoid giving the wrong impression concerning the success of these experiments, a few clarifying facts must be stated.

First, we should note that the Miller and Urey experiment described above is now known to have been based upon the wrong natural environment, an environment that was critically way too friendly to the formation of pre-biotic compounds, an environment that was not available on the early earth.

“For example, what if the primordial atmosphere wasn’t anything like the one Miller and Urey imagined? Would it be so easy to produce organics then? The Miller-Urey experiment was a strong foundation because it was consistent with theories at the time, says geochemist Everett Shock of Washington University in St. Louis. The problem is that subsequent research has swept away a lot of those ideas. The Miller-Urey atmosphere contained a lot of hydrogen. But now the atmosphere of the early Earth is thought to have been more oxidized. That makes Miller’s scenario less probable, because it’s a lot harder to make organic molecules in the presence of oxygen. A hydrogen-rich atmosphere is relatively unstable. When zapped by lightning or other sources of energy, molecules in that environment readily tumble together into organic compounds. Not so in a heavily oxidized atmosphere. While an infusion of energy may cause a few simple organics to form, for the most part the results are inorganic gases like carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide. These are the constituents of smog, says Shock. So basically what you’re getting is a lot of air pollution.” – “How Did Life Start?,” by Peter Radetsky, DISCOVER, Vol. 13 No. 11, November 1992, Biology & Medicine

The current understanding of the early atmosphere by evolutionists involves more oxygen than the experimental conditions used by Miller and Urey. One issue is that oxygen is more stable and consequently would tend to inhibit lightning or other sources of energy from assembling pre-biotic compounds, causing other compounds to form instead. Later we will see that oxygen also would cause the breakdown of any pre-biotic compounds that might have somehow been present.

In addition, although these experiments produce amino acids, there are 2 additional issues that prevent them from achieving their goal of demonstrating the emergence of life without foresight from automatic, routine processes. First, as we saw earlier, the most common proteins are 100 amino acids long and require the right amino acids in the right order to function for living processes. So just producing a collection of raw amino acids isn’t far enough along on the road to the origin of life.

Second, the amino acids produced in such laboratory experiments are always a mixture of both right-handed and left-handed mirror-images.

Life, The origin of life, The earliest living systemsMolecules made of the same units can be put together in complementary ways like a left- and right-handed glove. The same building blocks can be used to produce molecules that are three-dimensional mirror images of each other…The laboratory simulation experiments always produce both types.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

However, amino acids in living things are all left-handed and any mixture of amino acids will eventually revert to include right-handed versions. Such a mixture involving both right-handed and left-handed amino acids results in “proteins that no longer function,” which means such amino acids and proteins are useless to the formation of a cell.

Another risk involves changes in the structure of amino acids, a kind of spontaneous twisting known as racemization. Amino acids can exist in either left- or right-twisting versions, but living cells use only left-twisting ones. If a cell becomes completely dormant, it cannot repair proteins that spontaneously flip to the right-twisted form, and these harmful errors can build up. After 3 million years, a revived bacterium would find itself with proteins that no longer function.” – Looking for Life in All the Wrong Places, by Will Hively, DISCOVER, Vol. 18 No. 05, May 1997, Astronomy & Physics

Second, concerning Microsoft Encarta’s comment that “nucleic acids” have been formed in experiments, when found in nature nucleic acids (polynucleotides) themselves are not self-replicating. As far as what is actually observed, replication requires both DNA and RNA along with the presence of specific enzymes, which are proteins.

Proteincomplex molecule composed of amino acids and necessary for the chemical processes that occur in living organisms. Proteins are basic constituents in all living organisms. Their central role in biological structures and functioning was recognized by chemists in the early 19th century when they coined the name for these substances from the Greek word proteios, meaning "holding first place." Proteins constitute about 80 percent of the dry weight of muscle, 70 percent of that of skin, and 90 percent of that of blood. The interior substance of plant cells is also composed partly of proteins. The importance of proteins is related more to their function than to their amount in an organism or tissue. All known enzymes, for example, are proteins and may occur in very minute amounts; nevertheless, these substances catalyze all metabolic reactions, enabling organisms to build up the chemical substances-other proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, and lipids-that are necessary for life.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Since replication is part of the essential definition of life and since the mere production of basic nucleic acids is not sufficient to allow or cause replication, the production of even basic nucleic acids in experiments is itself not sufficient to demonstrate the origin of life by automatic, routine processes nor to resolve the irreducible functional interdependence found between the components in observed cells. Even if simple nucleic acids were produced in experimentation, or even if either DNA or RNA were to be actually produced in experimentation, without the other and without the specific enzymes, this would not be sufficient to demonstrate the origination of life from automatic, routine processes. Furthermore, the nucleic acids formed in such experiments are not as complex as functional DNA and RNA. Ultimately, the nucleic acids (polynucleotides) formed in such experiments have not been self-replicating, nor have they caused amino acids to assemble into proteins, which would be required for the basic self-replication involved in life.

However, evolutionary theory has proposed that at least this aspect of irreducible functional interdependence might be resolved by RNA, itself a polynucleotide or nucleic acid, serving in the role currently performed by enzymes. (As a side note, it must be noted that no such catalytic RNA has been produced in the experiments above by Miller, Urey, or Carl Sagan, in which pre-biotic compounds have been assembled from gases and energy.) Since irreducible functional interdependence is integral to the origins debate and since alternate speculations have been suggested to avert this obstacle, we should take some time to analyze and clarify the issues and evolutionary suggestions concerning these points.

In the following quote, Britannica describes what we have referred to as the “irreducible functional interdependence” between cell components.

Life, the origin of life, the origin of the code  – So far as is known, polynucleotides have no catalytic properties, and proteins have no reproductive properties. It is only the partnership of the two molecules [polynucleotides such as DNA and RNA and proteins, including enzymes] that makes contemporary life on Earth possible. Accordingly, a critical and unsolved problem in the origin of life is the first functional relation between these two molecules, or, equivalently, the origin of the genetic code. The molecular apparatus ancillary to the operation of the code—the activating enzymes, adapter RNAs, messenger RNAs, ribosomes, and so on—are themselves each the product of a long evolutionary history and are produced according to instructions contained within the code. At the time of the origin of the code such an elaborate molecular apparatus was of course absent.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

The universally observed interdependent relationship between such molecules as DNA, RNA, enzymes, and proteins as described above by Britannica has prompted evolutionists to refer to the origin of life in terms of a “chicken and egg dilemma,” which is simply a metaphorical way to refer to what we have called the “irreducible functional interdependence” between certain basic cell components.

Ordinarily, it takes the complex biochemical machinery of a cell to reproduce protein molecules. The building blocks of life simply don't replicate themselves by themselves they need helplots of itfrom enzymes  and above all from information carried in DNA and RNA. How the whole business of molecular replication got started has been and remains one of the central mysteries of the origin of life. The origin of life is a classic "chicken-and-egg" dilemma. In the presumed molecular evolution on primitive Earth, what came first, proteins or the nucleic acids RNA and DNA? And remember that the enzymes necessary to make proteins are themselves proteins, where did they come from?” – “PRIMITIVE LIFE, Self-Reproducing Molecules Reported by MIT Researchers,” By Eugene F. Mallove, Published by the MIT News Office at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.

"The Beginnings of Life on Earth, The RNA World – Whatever the earliest events on the road to the first living cell, it is clear that at some point some of the large biological molecules found in modern cells must have emerged. Considerable debate in origin-of-life studies has revolved around which of the fundamental macromolecules came first—the original chicken-or-egg question. The modern cell employs four major classes of biological molecules—nucleic acids, proteins, carbohydrates and fats. The debate over the earliest biological molecules, however, has centered mainly on the nucleic acids, DNA and RNA, and the proteins. At one time or another, one of these molecular classes has seemed a likely starting point, but which?" – “The Beginnings of Life on Earth,” Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995

“Scientists believe that life on Earth emerged from carbon compounds and other simple chemicals. But it has long been a mystery how those raw materials were transformed into DNA. After all, DNA can’t survive without proteins. So the question has been: What came before DNA? RNA could be the answer.” – “What Came Before DNA?,” by Carl Zimmer, DISCOVER Vol. 25 No. 06, June 2004, Biology & Medicine

Notice that the quote above suggests that RNA “could be” the solution to the chicken and egg dilemma. Even Britannica Encyclopedia reflects the evolutionary theorization that RNA might be able to serve in this capacity.

Enzyme, Chemical natureAll enzymes were once thought to be proteins, but since the1980s the catalytic ability of certain nucleic acids, called messenger RNAs, has been demonstrated, refuting this axiom.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

So, at this point the question arises: does RNA solve the chicken-and-egg dilemma of irreducible functional interdependence between cell components? This question can be answered with clarity once we explore exactly what has been observed about RNA in this regard.

Notice that about midway through the quote below, the author states that “the chicken-or-egg conundrum” disappeared with the understanding that an RNA molecule could “catalyze the synthesis of more like RNA strands,” which became “theoretically possible” due to the discovery by Sydney Altman and Tom Cech of RNA molecules that could “catalytically excise portions of themselves or other RNA molecules.”

"The Beginnings of Life on Earth, The RNA World – Whatever the earliest events on the road to the first living cell, it is clear that at some point some of the large biological molecules found in modern cells must have emerged. Considerable debate in origin-of-life studies has revolved around which of the fundamental macromolecules came first—the original chicken-or-egg question. The modern cell employs four major classes of biological molecules—nucleic acids, proteins, carbohydrates and fats. The debate over the earliest biological molecules, however, has centered mainly on the nucleic acids, DNA and RNA, and the proteins. At one time or another, one of these molecular classes has seemed a likely starting point, but which? To answer that, we must look at the functions performed by each of these in existing organisms…For a while, the only thing RNA did not seem capable of doing was catalyzing chemical reactions. That view changed when in the late 1970s, Sydney Altman at Yale University and Thomas Cech at the University of Colorado at Boulder independently discovered RNA molecules that in fact could catalytically excise portions of themselves or of other RNA molecules. The chicken-or-egg conundrum of the origin of life seemed to fall away. It now appeared theoretically possible that an RNA molecule could have existed that naturally contained the sequence information for its reproduction through reciprocal base pairing and could also catalyze the synthesis of more like RNA strands...In 1986, Harvard chemist Walter Gilbert coined the term "RNA world" to designate a hypothetical stage in the development of life in which 'RNA molecules and cofactors [were] a sufficient set of enzymes to carry out all the chemical reactions necessary for the first cellular structures.' Today it is almost a matter of dogma that the evolution of life did include a phase where RNA was the predominant biological macromolecule.” – “The Beginnings of Life on Earth,” Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995

At first glance, the assertion that “the chicken-or-egg conundrum” disappeared with the understanding that an RNA molecule could “catalyze the synthesis of more like RNA strands,” may make it sound like a self-replicating RNA molecule has been found experimentally. But that is not the case. There are several problems with such a perception.

The first problem centers on the meaning of the word “excise.”

Excise – Function: transitive verb: to remove by or as if by excision.” – Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary

Excision – Function: noun: the act or procedure of removing by or as if by cutting out; especially: surgical removal or resection.” – Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary

Sydney Altman and Tom Cech discovered that RNA could catalyze the removal of portions of itself or other RNA molecules, which is quite different and distant from, and in fact the opposite of, building an RNA molecule. Notice that their discovery is specifically about RNA breaking itself down or “hacking itself apart.”

In the early 1980s Tom Cech, then a young biologist at the University of Colorado at Boulder, uncovered evidence that RNA does more than simply relay messages from DNA to proteins. In an experiment that earned him a Nobel Prize, he found that a single-celled creature named Tetrahymena possessed some RNA molecules that could act like simple enzymes. These molecules, which came to be known as ribozymes, twisted into a complicated snarl that allowed them to hack themselves apart. In other words, RNA could carry information like DNA and carry out biochemistry the way proteins do.” – “What Came Before DNA?,” by Carl Zimmer, DISCOVER Vol. 25 No. 06, June 2004, Biology & Medicine

The quote below from the same article as the one above specifically states that RNA breaking itself down is still a far cry from replicating another RNA. In fact, as the quote states, for life to be based upon RNA only would require RNA to do “a lot more” than the simple deconstruction demonstrated by the experiment

“In a world before DNA, RNA molecules would have had to be a lot more accomplished than the Tetrahymena ribozyme. Most important of all, RNA would have to function as an enzyme (known as a replicase) that could replicate other RNA molecules.” – What Came Before DNA?, by Carl Zimmer, DISCOVER Vol. 25 No. 06, June 2004, Biology & Medicine

The fact that RNA was only found to deconstruct itself rather than assemble itself from new components is also attested to discreetly later on in the American Scientist article when the same author states that all attempts to engineer “an RNA molecule capable of catalyzing RNA replication have failed so far” and that “the idea of RNA molecules coming together by some chance combination of circumstances and henceforth being reproduced…is not tenable.”

"The Beginnings of Life on Earth, Origin and Evolution of the RNA World – On the other hand, it is also surprising since these must have been sturdy reactions to sustain the RNA world for a long time. Contrary to what is sometimes intimated, the idea of a few RNA molecules coming together by some chance combination of circumstances and henceforth being reproduced and amplified by replication simply is not tenable. There could be no replication without a robust chemical underpinning continuing to provide the necessary materials and energy. The development of RNA replication must have been the second stage in the evolution of the RNA world. The problem is not as simple as might appear at first glance. Attempts at engineering--with considerably more foresight and technical support than the prebiotic world could have enjoyed--an RNA molecule capable of catalyzing RNA replication have failed so far." – “The Beginnings of Life on Earth,” Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995

Notice particularly from the quote above the mention of the word “foresight.” As we have seen, foresight is simply a synonym for purposeful intelligence or teleology. Once again, the dividing line between the 2 theories is foresight. And as the quote above states, it has so far been impossible to resolve the chicken-and-egg dilemma using only automatic, routine processes, which proceed without the benefit of foresight.

Furthermore, this fact is highlighted all the more given the likelihood that these “failed experiments” failed while attempting to create far shorter RNA molecules, up to 100 times short than those observed in modern cells, as the following quote from the same article indicates.

Most likely, the first RNA genes were very short, no longer than 70 to 100 nucleotides (the modern gene runs several thousand nucleotides), with the corresponding proteins (more like protein fragments, called peptides) containing no more than 20 to 30 amino acids.” – “The Beginnings of Life on Earth,” Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995

If generating self-replicating RNA that is significantly shorter and less complex is impossible by automatic, routine processes that lack foresight, this only adds to the severe improbability of producing the full-length RNA that we see today without foresight. Consequently, while RNA does in some instances operate with the status of a self-deconstructing molecule, RNA has not ever been observed to operate as a self-replicating or self-constructing molecule.

The second problem with the perception that RNA resolves the chicken-and-egg dilemma and can catalyze replication involves the nature of the experiments themselves. The same American Scientist article that asserts RNA as the solution to this dilemma gives the following disclaimer about the experiments of Miller and Urey as well as perhaps those of Carl Sagan, given the reference to the experimental formation of nucleic acid components and sugars. (For comparative reference, the Microsoft Encarta reference to Sagan’s production of nucleic acids and sugars appears below the American Scientist quote.)

Miller's discovery has sparked the birth of a new chemical discipline, abiotic chemistry, which aims to reproduce in the laboratory the chemical events that initiated the emergence of life on earth some four billion years ago. Besides amino acids and other organic acids, experiments in abiotic chemistry have yielded sugars, as well as purine and pyrimidine bases, some of which are components of the nucleic acids DNA and RNA, and other biologically significant substances, although often under more contrived conditions and in lower yields than one would expect for a prebiotic process.” – “The Beginnings of Life on Earth,” Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995

Sagan, Carl EdwardLater in the 1960s Sagan built on the work of American chemists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey. In the 1950s Miller and Urey had combined methane, ammonia, water vapor, and hydrogen, the probable components of the earth's early atmosphere, in a flask. They introduced electrical sparks into the mixture to simulate lightning. When they analyzed the contents of the flask, they found that the chemicals had combined to form amino acids and hydroxy acids, the building blocks of the proteins in living things. Sagan followed a similar method, but refined the primordial soup mixture to include methane, ammonia, water, and hydrogen sulfide. He also exposed the mixture to ultraviolet light to simulate the effect of sunlight on the chemicals. His mixture produced amino acids as well as several kinds of sugars and nucleic acids.” – "Sagan, Carl Edward," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

As we can see, American Scientists categorizes such experiments as those of Miller, Urey, and Sagan as “often” performed “under more contrived conditions” and “in lower yields” than “one would expect for a prebiotic process” (i.e. for a pre-biotic process in the real world to actually work). Consequently, not only does RNA not function as a self-replicating molecule, only a self-destroying one, but also the experiments that have produced even very basic versions of nucleic acids were unsuccessful even while employing more teleology and intelligence than automatic, routine processes possess.

The third problem with the perception that RNA resolves the chicken-and-egg dilemma and can catalyze replication involves the fact that production of RNA itself is too complex to be considered at all probable. The arrival of RNA capable of functioning for self-replication, is not only hypothetical, but would itself require a long evolution and would have to pass through 3 distinct, hypothetical stages. Britannica explains.

Cell, The evolution of cells, The development of genetic informationLife could not exist until a collection of specific catalysts appeared that could promote the synthesis of more catalysts of the same kind. Early stages in the evolutionary pathway presumably centred on RNA molecules, which not only present specific catalytic surfaces but also contain the potential for their own duplication through the formation of a complementary RNA molecule. It is assumed that a small RNA molecule eventually appeared that was able to catalyze its own duplication. Such an autocatalytic RNA molecule would have multiplied faster than its neighbours, usurping the RNA precursor molecules in the primeval soup. Primitive RNA replication would have been imperfect, so that many variant autocatalytic RNA molecules would have arisen. Any variations that increased the speed or the fidelity of self-replication would have enabled those variant RNA molecules to out multiply their neighbour RNA. Simultaneously, there would have been the natural selection of other small RNA molecules existing in symbiosis with autocatalytic RNA molecules, being replicated in return for catalyzing a useful secondary reaction such as the production of better precursor molecules. In this way, sophisticated families of RNA catalysts would eventually have evolved, in which cooperation between different molecules produced a system that was much more effective at self-replication than a collection of individual RNA catalysts. The next major step in the evolution of the cell would have been the development, in one family of self-replicating RNA, of a primitive mechanism of protein synthesis. Protein molecules cannot provide the information for the synthesis of other protein molecules like themselves. This information must ultimately be derived from a nucleic acid sequence. Protein synthesis is much more complex than RNA synthesis, and it could not have arisen before a group of powerful RNA catalysts evolved. Each of these catalysts presumably has its counterpart among the RNA molecules that function in the current cell: (1) There was an information RNA molecule, much like messenger RNA (mRNA), whose nucleotide sequence was read to create an amino acid sequence; (2) there was a group of adaptor RNA molecules, much like transfer RNA (tRNA), that could bind to both mRNA and a specific activated amino acid; and (3) finally, there was an RNA catalyst, much like ribosomal RNA (rRNA), that facilitated the joining together of the amino acids aligned on the mRNA by the adaptor RNA…It is often assumed that the first cells appeared only after the development of a primitive form of protein synthesis. However, it is by no means certain that cells cannot exist without proteins, and it has been suggested as an alternative that the first cells contained only RNA catalysts. In either case, protein molecules, with their chemically varied side chains, are more powerful catalysts than RNA molecules; therefore, as time passed, cells arose in which RNA served primarily as genetic material, being directly replicated in each generation and inherited by all progeny cells in order to specify proteins. As cells became more complex, a need would have arisen for a stabler form of genetic information storage than that provided by RNA. DNA, related to RNA yet chemically stabler, probably appeared rather late in the evolutionary history of cells. Over a period of time, the genetic information in RNA sequences was transferred to DNA sequences, and the ability of RNA molecules to replicate directly was lost. It was only at this point that the central process of biology—the synthesis, one after the other, of DNA, RNA, and protein—appeared.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Britannica also offers the following summary.

Life, the origin of life, the origin of the code  – The molecular apparatus ancillary to the operation of the code—the activating enzymes, adapter RNAs, messenger RNAs, ribosomes, and so on—are themselves each the product of a long evolutionary history and are produced according to instructions contained within the code.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

And Discover magazine also affirms the impossibility of RNA arising without some preceding, intricate evolutionary process, which of course remains unobserved and wholly speculative.

“But while this proposed RNA world was certainly closer to the origin of life, it clearly wasn’t the beginning. Although much simpler than bacteria, RNA is still a complicated piece of molecular machinery, containing more than 30 atoms connected in an intricate, interlocking fashion. It couldn’t have sprung wholly formed into the primordial landscape. Something preceded it.” – “How Did Life Start?,” by Peter Radetsky, DISCOVER, Vol. 13 No. 11, November 1992, Biology & Medicine

The fourth problem with the perception that RNA resolves the chicken-and-egg dilemma and can catalyze replication is the fact that even if it existed, the most successful self-replicating RNA process would not have led to life or the production of the basic building-blocks of life known as proteins.

Life, the origin of life, the origin of the code  Imagine a primitive ocean filled with nucleotides and their phosphates and appropriate mineral surfaces serving as catalysts. Even in the absence of the appropriate enzyme it seems likely, although not yet proved, that spontaneous assembly of nucleotide phosphates into polynucleotides occurred. Once the first such polynucleotide was produced, it may have served as a template for its own reproduction, still of course in the absence of enzymes. As time went on there were bound to be errors in replication. These would be inherited. A self-replicating and mutable molecular system of polynucleotides, eventually leading to a diverse population of such molecules, may have arisen in this way. Alternatively, the primitive hereditary material may have involved some other molecule altogether, but no concrete suggestion for such a molecule has ever been proposed. In any case, a population of replicating polynucleotides cannot quite be considered alive because it does not significantly influence its environment. Eventually, all the nucleotides in the ocean would have been tied in polynucleotides and the entire synthetic process would then have ground to a halt. So far as is known, polynucleotides have no an catalytic properties, and proteins have no reproductive properties. It is only the partnership of the two molecules that makes contemporary life on Earth possible.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Even if someday self-replicating RNA were produced under automatic, routine conditions in experiments, that would not be sufficient to bring about life unless some other process linked together with RNA replication to cause RNA not only to reproduce itself but to assemble proteins in some functional association.

As we will see in the next segment, the fifth problem with the perception that RNA resolves the chicken-and-egg dilemma and can catalyze replication is that even the purely speculative ability of messenger RNA to function as self-replicating would not overcome the difficulties involved in how (energy) and where (safety from harmful environmental factors) such molecules formed and eventually thrived.

The inability of RNA to construct itself, the overly-contrived nature of even the failed experiments, the improbabilities related to the arrival of RNA itself, and the fact that even a successfully self-replicating RNA would not lead to the metabolic processes that constitute life cause all of the following sources to regard the RNA solution to the chicken-and-egg dilemma as merely presumption, assumption, or speculation at best and as failed at worst.

This is why Britannica, even when discussing the suggestion of RNA as a catalyst only refers to this as a presumptive and speculative prospect.

Cell, The evolution of cells, The development of genetic informationLife could not exist until a collection of specific catalysts appeared that could promote the synthesis of more catalysts of the same kind. Early stages in the evolutionary pathway presumably centred on RNA molecules, which not only present specific catalytic surfaces but also contain the potential for their own duplication through the formation of a complementary RNA molecule. It is assumed that a small RNA molecule eventually appeared that was able to catalyze its own duplicationIt is often assumed that the first cells appeared only after the development of a primitive form of protein synthesis.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

This is why when speculating about RNA’s catalytic abilities, Britannica includes the disclaimer that “so little is known about the enzymatic function of RNA.”

Enzyme, Chemical natureAll enzymes were once thought to be proteins, but since the1980s the catalytic ability of certain nucleic acids, called messenger RNAs, has been demonstrated, refuting this axiom. Because so little is yet known about the enzymatic functioning of RNA, this discussion will focus primarily on protein enzymes.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

This is why, when speaking of what is “known” and fact, Britannica asserts that polynucleotides, such as RNA, “have no catalytic properties.”

Life, the origin of life, the origin of the code  So far as is known, polynucleotides have no catalytic properties, and proteins have no reproductive properties. It is only the partnership of the two molecules that makes contemporary life on Earth possible. Accordingly, a critical and unsolved problem in the origin of life is the first functional relation between these two molecules, or, equivalently, the origin of the genetic code. The molecular apparatus ancillary to the operation of the code—the activating enzymes, adapter RNAs, messenger RNAs, ribosomes, and so on—are themselves each the product of a long evolutionary history and are produced according to instructions contained within the code. At the time of the origin of the code such an elaborate molecular apparatus was of course absent.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

This is why, when discussing what is actually observed, not simply mere speculation, Britannica states plainly that “all known enzymes…are proteins” not polynucleotides.

ProteinAll known enzymes, for example, are proteins and may occur in very minute amounts; nevertheless, these substances catalyze all metabolic reactions, enabling organisms to build up the chemical substances-other proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, and lipids-that are necessary for life.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

And finally, this is why Britannica, when describing the status of observations of living cells, asserts that the irreducible functional interdependence between DNA, RNA, and enzymes is all that is ever observed.

Life, Life on Earth, Nucleic acids – Now DNA, RNA, and the enzymes have a curiously interconnected relation, which appears ubiquitous in all organisms on Earth today.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

“Ubiquitous – Function: adjective: existing or being everywhere at the same time: constantly encountered: widespread.” – Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary

This is why even the scientific magazines asserting the potential for RNA to function for catalyzing replication conclude that this remains purely speculative and all experiments to date attempting to create such RNA by automatic, routine processes that proceed without foresight have failed so far.

“What can we conclude from this scenario, which, though purely hypothetical, depicts in logical succession the events that must have taken place if we accept the RNA-world hypothesis?” – “The Beginnings of Life on Earth,” Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995

“The problem is not as simple as might appear at first glance. Attempts at engineering--with considerably more foresight and technical support than the prebiotic world could have enjoyed--an RNA molecule capable of catalyzing RNA replication have failed so far.” – “The Beginnings of Life on Earth,” Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995

And this is why even Stanley Miller of the famed Miller-Urey experiment sums up the current status and the problematic nature of getting actual self-replicating polymers or RNA in the following way.

When Miller analyzed the brew, he found that it contained amino acids, the building blocks of protein. The lightning had reorganized the molecules in the atmosphere to produce organic compoundsPeople were stunned. Articles appeared in major newspapers across the country, prompting predictions that, like Dr. Frankenstein, researchers would soon concoct living organisms in their labs…Thus emerged the picture that has dominated origin-of-life scenarios. Some 4 billion years ago, lightning (or another energy source, like ultraviolet light or heat) stimulated a hydrogen-rich atmosphere to produce organic compounds, which then rained down into the primitive ocean or other suitable bodies of water such as lakes, rivers, or even a warm little pond, as Charles Darwin once suggested. Once there, these simple compounds, or monomers, combined with one another to produce more complicated organics, or polymers, which gradually grew even more complex until they coalesced into the beginnings of self-replicating RNA. With that came the RNA world and ultimately the evolution into cells and the early bacterial ancestors of life. The picture is powerful and appealing, but not all origin-of-life researchers are convinced. Even Miller throws up his hands at certain aspects of it. The first step, making the monomers, that’s easy. We understand it pretty well. But then you have to make the first self- replicating polymers. That’s very easy, he says, the sarcasm fairly dripping. Just like it’s easy to make money in the stock market--all you have to do is buy low and sell high. He laughs. Nobody knows how it’s done. Some would say the statement applies as well to the first easy step, the creation of simple organic compounds.” – “How Did Life Start?,” by Peter Radetsky, DISCOVER, Vol. 13 No. 11, November 1992, Biology & Medicine

Consequently, it is no surprise that Worldbook Encyclopedia states that the current theory of evolution is “incomplete” with regard to the origin of life from automatic, routine processes.

Life, The origin of lifeAlthough scientists have experimental evidence to support parts of the theory of chemical evolution, many questions remain. One example is the question of how biological molecules could have become organized into cell-like organisms. Biologists are also trying to discover how nucleic acids and proteins became related in such a way that nucleic acids determine the kinds of proteins a cell produces. A complete theory of the origin of life will have to explain this relationship, which is a basic characteristic of life as we know it.” – Worldbook, Contributor: Harold J. Morowitz, Ph.D., Robinson Professor of Biology and Director of Krasnow Institute, George Mason University.

In short, the chicken-and-egg dilemma that arises from the irreducible functional interdependence of basic cell components has not been even theoretically let alone experimentally resolved by evolutionary theory. The probability of these things arriving at the same time and coming together, ready to function as a whole is impossibly small. This is admitted by reference sources and evolutionary scientists themselves. And so far, a cause possessing foresight is the only apparent solution to the existence of such irreducible interdependence.

As we leave this concept and move on in our study, we want to close with a summary of the main cell components that are included in this chicken-and-egg dilemma. We can construct a basic list from the following quotes.

American Scientist lists nucleic acids, proteins, carbohydrates, and fats.

"The Beginnings of Life on Earth, The RNA World – Whatever the earliest events on the road to the first living cell, it is clear that at some point some of the large biological molecules found in modern cells must have emerged. Considerable debate in origin-of-life studies has revolved around which of the fundamental macromolecules came first—the original chicken-or-egg question. The modern cell employs four major classes of biological molecules—nucleic acids, proteins, carbohydrates and fats. The debate over the earliest biological molecules, however, has centered mainly on the nucleic acids, DNA and RNA, and the proteins.” – “The Beginnings of Life on Earth,” Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995

Britannica lists chromosomes, ribosomes, and membranes.

Cell, The history of cell theory, Contribution of other sciences – On the contrary, molecular biology has become the foundation of cell science, for it has demonstrated not only that basic processes such as the genetic code and protein synthesis are similar in all living systems but also that they are made possible by the same cell components—e.g., chromosomes, ribosomes, and membranes.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Membranes are also listed as essential by Carl Deamer of Discover Magazine.

Essential Ingredients – ‘Water is necessary for life,’ says Steven Benner. ‘At some point the nucleotide components had to move into an aqueous environment.’ Also essential are fats, from which cell membranes are constructed. In every organism, genetic material is housed inside a membrane that keeps dangerous substances out while letting in food and other necessary molecules. After the ribose, nucleobases, and phosphate combine to form nucleotides, fats are required to make this membrane.” – “What Came Before DNA?,” by Carl Zimmer, DISCOVER Vol. 25 No. 06, June 2004, Biology & Medicine

All organisms alive today keep their DNA, RNA, and proteins together inside cell membranes. These oily bubbles prevent big molecules from getting out while letting smaller food molecules in.” – “What Came Before DNA?,” by Carl Zimmer, DISCOVER Vol. 25 No. 06, June 2004, Biology & Medicine

As we have seen, elsewhere Britannica lists DNA, RNA, and enzymes as well as specifying at least 2 different varieties of RNA.

Life, Life on Earth, Nucleic acids – Now DNA, RNA, and the enzymes have a curiously interconnected relation, which appears ubiquitous in all organisms on Earth today.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Life, the origin of life, the origin of the code  –So far as is known, polynucleotides have no catalytic properties, and proteins have no reproductive properties. It is only the partnership of the two molecules that makes contemporary life on Earth possible. Accordingly, a critical and unsolved problem in the origin of life is the first functional relation between these two molecules, or, equivalently, the origin of the genetic code. The molecular apparatus ancillary to the operation of the code—the activating enzymes, adapter RNAs, messenger RNAs, ribosomes, and so on—are themselves each the product of a long evolutionary history and are produced according to instructions contained within the code. At the time of the origin of the code such an elaborate molecular apparatus was of course absent.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

This results in a list that includes: nucleic acids of both adapter and messenger RNA as well as DNA in the format of chromosomes, proteins (which are comprised of amino acids) including enzymes, ribosomes, carbohydrates, fats, and membranes all of which are required in order for a cell to function, which constitutes life.

Cell – in biology, the basic unit of which all living things are composed. As the smallest units retaining the fundamental properties of life, cells are the “atoms” of the living world. A single cell is often a complete organism in itself, such as abacteriumor yeast.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Cell, The history of cell theory, Formulation of the theory, Early observations – Two German biologists, Theodore Schwann and Matthias Schleiden, clearly stated in 1839 that cells are the “elementary particles of organisms” in both plants and animals and recognized that some organisms are unicellular and others multicellularSchleiden and Schwann's descriptive statements concerning the cellular basis of biologic structure are straightforward and acceptable to modern thought.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

In this segment we have focused on the irreducible interdependent functionality inherent to even the simlest living cell. We have done so in order to present the inherent difficulties and improbabilities involved in the origin of life from automatic, routine processes without foresight. As a result we have seen that these difficulties and insurmountable improbabilities require foresight in order to be overcome. Beyond this specific focus there is a great deal more information available about how the irreducibly complex aspects of living organisms require a designing intelligence. For more information on this field of scientific study we recommend reading such works as Signs of Intelligence edited by William A. Dembski and James M. Kushiner, Intelligent Design by William A. Dembski, Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe, DNA by Design: The Signature in the Cell, Stephen C. Meyer, The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel.

However, as we will see in the next segment, a source of energy can also be included as a component in this chicken-and-egg dilemma. This leads us to our next topic.


Related Images



Gene Pool
(Figures 1-6)




Defining the
Boundaries of Kinds



Gaps in the
Fossil Record




Britannica
Geologic Column



Misperceptions of
Dating Methods
(Figures 1-8)




Dating Facts



Dating Procedures
(Figures 1-13)




Isotope Dating Chart



Cosmology
Figure 1



Cosmology
Figure 2 (a-d)



Cosmology
Figure 3 (a-f)