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 multicellular…Schleiden 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
“Protein
– complex molecule
composed of amino acids and necessary for the chemical processes
that occur in living organisms. Proteins
are basic constituents in all living organisms…All 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, Classification – There 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
“Uracil
– Uracil 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 membrane – A
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 systems –
Molecules 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.
“Protein
– complex 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 help –
lots of it –
from 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 nature – All
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 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.
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 information
– Life 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 information
– Life 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…It 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 nature – All
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.
“Protein
– 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
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 compounds…People 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 life – Although
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 multicellular…Schleiden 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.