|
The Question That Demolishes the Theory
of Evolution:
How did the DNA Originate?
The
question of how such an extraordinarily designed molecule as DNA originated
is one of the thousands of impasses evolutionists reach. Seeking to explain
life by means of "coincidence", the theory of evolution can
never explain the source of the extraordinary information so perfectly
and meticulously encoded in DNA. Moreover, the question is not only that of how the
DNA chain originated. Even the existence of the DNA chain with the extraordinary
information capacity it contains, means nothing by itself. In order to
refer to life, it is essential that the enzymes that read this DNA chain,copy
them and produce proteins, also exist. (Enzymes are large molecules that
have certain functions in the cell which they carry out with the precision
of a robot.) Simply put, in order to talk of life, both the data
bank we call DNA, and the machines to carry out production by reading
the data in the bank have to co-exist. To our surprise, enzymes, which read DNA and carry
out production accordingly, are themselves produced according to the codes
in DNA. This means that there is a factory in the cell that both makes
many different types of products, and also manufactures the robots and
machines that carry out this production. The question of how this system,
which would be of no use with a minor defect in any of its mechanisms
originated, is by itself enough to demolish the theory of evolution. German evolutionist Douglas R. Hofstadler, states his
despair in the face of this question: 'How did the Genetic Code, along with the mechanisms
for its translation (ribosomes and RNA molecules), originate?' For the
moment, we will have to content ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe,
rather than with an answer.5 Another evolutionist authority, world renowned molecular
biologist Leslie Orgel, is more outspoken on the subject: It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic
acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in
the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have
one without the other. And so, at first glance, ONE MIGHT HAVE TO CONCLUDE
THAT LIFE COULD NEVER, IN FACT, HAVE ORIGINATED BY CHEMICAL MEANS.6 Saying "life could never have originated by chemical
means" is the equivalent of saying that "life could never have
originated by itself". Recognition of the truth of this statement
results in the realization that life is created in a conscious way. For
ideological reasons, evolutionists, however, do not accept this fact,
clear evidence of which is before their eyes. To avoid accepting the existence
of God, they believe in nonsensical scenarios, the impossibility of which
they are also convinced of.
 In
his book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," about the invalidity
of the theory of evolution, renowned molecular biologist Prof. Michael
Denton explains the unreasonable conviction of Darwinists:
To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes
of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million
bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small
library of one thousand volumes, containing in encoded form countless
thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying, and ordering
the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the
form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is
simply AN AFFRONT TO REASON. BUT TO THE DARWINIST, THE IDEA IS ACCEPTED
WITHOUT A RIPPLE OF DOUBT - THE PARADIGM TAKES PRECEDENCE!7 Indeed, Darwinism is nothing but a totally unreasonable,
superstitious belief. Anyone with any reason would see the evidence for
that great fact by looking at DNA, or any other part of the universe.
Human beings and all living things are created by God, the All-Mighty,
Who is the Lord of all the worlds.
"The RNA World"
The discovery in the 70s that the gasses originally
existing in the primitive world atmosphere rendered amino acid synthesis
impossible was a big blow to the molecular evolutionary theory. It then
was understood that "primitive atmosphere experiments" of evolutionists
such as Miller, Fox and Ponnamperuma were invalid. For this reason, in
the 80s new evolutionist attempts were put forth. As a result, the scenario
of the "RNA World" was advanced, which proposed that it was
not the proteins that were formed first, but RNA molecules that contained
the information for the proteins. According to this scenario advanced by Walter Gilbert,
a chemist from Harvard in 1986, billions of years ago an RNA molecule
that somehow managed to self-replicate, formed by coincidence. Then this
RNA molecule started to produce proteins being activated by external effects.
Thereafter, it became necessary to store this information in a second
molecule, and somehow the DNA molecule emerged.
|
CONFESSIONS FROM EVOLUTIONISTS
Probabilistic calculations make it clear that complex molecules
such as proteins and nucleic acids (RNA and DNA) could not ever
have been formed by chance independently of each other. Yet evolutionists
have to face the even greater problem that all these complex molecules
have to coexist simultaneously in order for life to exist at all.
Evolutionary theory is utterly confounded by this requirement. This
is a point on which some leading evolutionists have been forced
to confession. For instance, Stanley Miller's and Francis Crick's
close associate from the University of San Diego California, reputable
evolutionist Dr. Leslie Orgel says:
It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both
of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same
place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one
without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude
that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.1
The same fact is also admitted by other scientists:
DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the
help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot
form without DNA, but neither can DNAform without proteins.2 How
did the Genetic Code, along with the mechanisms for its translation
(ribosomes and RNAmolecules), originate? For the moment, we will
have to content ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe, rather
than with an answer.3
1 Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on Earth",
Scientific American, vol. 271, October 1994, p. 78
2 John Horgan, "In the Beginning", Scientific American, vol. 264,
February 1991, p. 119
3 Douglas R. Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid,
New York, Vintage Books, 1980, p. 548 |
Being made up of a chain of impossibilities in each
and every stage, this hardly imaginable scenario only magnified the problem
and brought up many inextricable questions rather than providing any explanation
for the origin of life: 1. When it is impossible to explain the coincidental
formation of even one of the nucleotides making up RNA, how can it be
possible for these imaginary nucleotides to form RNA by coming together
in a proper sequence? Evolutionist biologist John Horgan admits the impossibility
of the chance formation of RNA as follows; As researchers continue to examine the RNA-world concept
closely, more problems emerge. How did RNA arise initially? RNA and its
components are difficult to synthesize in a laboratory under the best
of conditions, much less under plausible ones.8 2. Even if we suppose that it formed by chance, how
could this RNA made up of simply a nucleotide chain have "decided"
to self-replicate and with what kind of a mechanism could it have carried
out this self-replicating process? Where did it find the nucleotides it
used while self-replicating? Even evolutionist microbiologists Gerald
Joyce and Leslie Orgel express the desperateness of the situation in their
book titled "In the RNA World": This discussion... has, in a sense, focused on a straw
man:the myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from
a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic
in light of our current understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it should
strain the credulity of even an optimist's view of RNA's catalytic potential.9 3. Even if we suppose that there was a self-replicating
RNA in the primordial world, that numerous amino acids of every type ready
to be used by RNA were available and that all of these impossibilities
somehow took place, the situation still does not lead to the formation
of even a single protein. For RNA only includes information concerning
the structure ofproteins. Amino acids, on the other hand, are raw materials.
Nevertheless, no mechanism exists to produce proteins. To consider the
existence of RNA sufficient for protein production is as nonsensical as
expecting a car to be self-assembled and self-manufactured by simply throwing
its design drawn on paper on thousands of its parts piled upon each other.
In this case, too, production is out of the question since no factory
or workers are involved in the process.
Transfer RNA. It binds to amino acids and
move them into place on the ribosome as needed. Each type of tRNA
binds only a single one of the 20 different amino acids. Amino acids
attach to the appropriate tRNA at one end, which has folded into
a three-dimensional L-shape. Such a perfect harmony taking place
in an area one billionth of a millimeter is clear evidence for Creation.
|
A protein is produced in the ribosome factory with the help of many enzymes
and as a result of extremely complex processes within the cell. Ribosome
is a complex cell organelle made up of proteins. Therefore, this situation
also brings up another unreasonable supposition that ribosome, too, should
have come into existence by chance at the same time. Even Nobel prize
winner Jacques Monod, who is one of the most fanatical defenders of evolution,
explains that protein synthesis can by no means be underestimated so as
to depend merely on the information in the nucleic acids:
The code is meaningless unless translated. The modern
cell's translating machinery consists of at least fifty macromolecular
components which are themselves coded in DNA: the code cannot be translated
otherwise than by products of translation. It is the modern expression
of omne vivum ex ovo. When and how did this circle become closed? It is
exceedingly difficult to imagine.10 How could an RNA chain in the primordial world take
such a decision and what methods could it have employed to realize protein
production by undertaking the job of fifty specialized particles only
on its own? Evolutionists have no answer to these questions.
Dr. Leslie Orgel
|
Dr. Leslie Orgel, one of the associates of Stanley
Miller and Francis Crick from the University of San Diego California,
uses the term "scenario" for the possibility of "the origination
of life through the RNA world". Orgel described what kind of features
this RNA had to have and how impossible this was in her article titled
"The Origin of Life" published in American Scientist in October
1994: This scenario could have occured, we noted, if prebiotic
RNA had two properties not evident today: A capacity to replicate without
the help of proteins and an ability to catalyze every step of protein
synthesis.11 As should be clear, to expect these two complex and
extremely essential processes from a molecule like RNA is only possible
by an evolutionist's power of imagination and viewpoint. Concrete scientific
facts, on the other hand, make it explicit that the thesis of the "RNA
World", which is a new model proposed for the chance formation of
life, is an equally implausible fable.
Life is a Concept Beyond Mere Heaps of Molecules
Let us forget all the impossibilities for a moment
and suppose that a protein molecule was formed in the most inappropriate,
most uncontrolled environment such as the primordial earth conditions.
The formation of only one protein would not be sufficient; this protein
would have to wait patiently for thousands, maybe millions of years in
this uncontrolled environment without sustaining any damage, until another
molecule was formed beside it by chance under the same conditions. It
would have to wait until millions of correct and essential proteins were
formed side by side in the same setting all "by chance". Those
that formed earlier had to be patient enough to wait, without being destroyed
despite ultraviolet rays and harsh mechanical effects, for the others
to be formed right next to them. Then these proteins in adequate number,
which all originated at the very same spot, would have to come together
by making meaningful combinations and form the organelles of the cell.
No extraneous material, harmful molecule, or useless protein chain may
interfere with them. Then, even if these organelles were to come together
in an extremely harmonious and co-operative way within a plan and order,
they must take all the necessary enzymes beside themselves and become
covered with a membrane, the inside of which must be filled with a special
liquid to prepare the ideal environment for them. Now even if all these
"highly unlikely" eventsactually occurred by chance, would this
molecular heap come to life?
|
God... There is no god but Him, the Living, the
Self-Sustaining... Everything in the earth belongs to Him... He
is the Most High, the Magnificent. (Surat al-Baqara: 255)
|
The answer is No, because research has revealed that
the mere combination of all the materials essential for life is not enough
for life to get started. Even if all the essential proteins for life were
collected and put in a test tube, these efforts would not result with
producing a living cell. All the experiments conducted on this subject
have proved to be unsuccessful. All observations and experiments indicate
that life can only originate from life. The assertion that life evolved
from non-living things, in other words, "abiogenesis", is a
tale only existing in the dreams of the evolutionists and completely at
variance with the results of every experiment and observation.
Chandra Wickramasinghe
|
In this respect, the first life on earth must also
have originated from other life. This is a reflection of God's epithet
of "Hayy" (The Alive, The Ever Living). Life can only start,
continue, and end by His will. As for evolution, not only is it unable
to explain how life began, it is also unable to explain how the materials
essential for life have formed and come together. Chandra Wickramasinghe describes the reality he faced
as a scientist who had been told throughout his life that life had emerged
as a result of chance coincidences:
From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly
brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind
of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed. At the
moment, I can't find any rational argument to knock down the view which
argues for conversion to God. We used to have an open mind; now we realize
that the only logical answer to life is creation-and not accidental random
shuffling.12
|
THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS INVALIDATES THE
THEORY OF EVOLUTION
The Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is accepted as one of
the basic laws of physics, holds that under normal conditions all
systems left on their own will tend to become disordered, dispersed,
and corrupted in direct relation to the amount of time that passes.
Everything living or non-living wears out, deteriorates, decays,
disintegrates, and is destroyed. This is the absolute end that all
beings will face one way or another and according to this law, this
unavoidable process has no return.
This is something that all of us have observed. For example if
you take a car to a desert and leave it there, you would hardly
expect to find it in a better condition when you came back years
later. On the contrary, you would see that its tyres had gone flat,
its windows had been broken, its chassis had rusted, and its motor
had decayed. The same inevitable process holds true and even more
quickly for living things.
|
The Law of Thermodynamics holds that
natural conditions always lead to disorder. Evolutionary theory,
on the other hand, is an unscientific theory that utterly
contradicts with this law.
|
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is the means by which this natural
process is defined with physical equations and calculations.
This famous law of physics is also known as "the Law of Entropy".
Entropy is the range of the disorder involved in a system in physics.
A system's entropy is increased as it moves towards a more disordered,
dispersed, and unplanned state from an ordered, organised, and planned
one. The higher a system's disorder, the higher is its entropy.
The Law of Entropy holds that the entire universe unavoidably proceeds
towards a more disordered, unplanned, and disorganised state.
The validity of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or the Law of
Entropy, is experimentally and theoretically established. The most
important scientists of our age agree on the fact that The Entropy
Law will preside as the ruling paradigm over the next period of
history. Albert Einstein, the greatest scientist of our age, said
that it is the "premier law of all of science". Sir Arthur Eddington
also referred to it as the "supreme metaphysical law of the entire
universe".1
Evolutionary theory is an assertion that is advanced by totally
ignoring this basic and universally true law of physics. The mechanism
offered by evolution totally contradicts this law. The theory of
evolution says that disordered, dispersed, and lifeless atoms and
molecules spontaneously came together in time in a certain order
and plan to form extremely complex molecules such as proteins, DNA,
and RNA after which they gradually brought about millions of different
living species with even more complex structures. According to the
evolutionary theory, this supposed process that yields a more planned,
more ordered, more complex and more organised structure at each
stage has formed all by itself under natural conditions. The Law
of Entropy makes it clear that this so-called natural process utterly
contradicts the laws of physics.
Evolutionist scientists are also aware of this fact. J.H. Rush
states:
In the complex course of its evolution, life exhibits a remarkable
contrast to the tendency expressed in the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Where the Second Law expresses an irreversible progression toward
increased entropy and disorder, life evolves continually higher
levels of order.2
The evolutionist scientist Roger Lewin expresses the thermodynamic
impasse of evolution in an article in Science:
One problem biologists have faced is the apparent contradiction
by evolution of the second law of thermodynamics. Systems should
decay through time, giving less, not more, order.3
Another evolutionist scientist, George Stravropoulos states the
thermodynamic impossibility of the spontaneous formation of life
and the unfeasibility of explaining the existence of complex living
mechanisms by natural laws in the well-known evolutionist magazine
American Scientist:
Yet, under ordinary conditions, no complex organic molecule can
ever form spontaneously but will rather disintegrate, in agreement
with the second law. Indeed, the more complex it is, the more unstable
it is, and the more assured, sooner or later, is its disintegration.
Photosynthesis and all life processes, and life itself, despite
confused or deliberately confusing language, cannot yet be understood
in terms of thermodynamics or any other exact science.4
As acknowledged, the Second Law of Thermodynamics constitutes an insurmountable
obstacle for the scenario of evolution in terms of both science and logic. Unable
to put forth any scientific and consistent explanation to overcome this obstacle,
evolutionists can only defeat it in their imagination. For instance, science writer
Jeremy Rifkin notes that evolution is belived to overwhelm this law of physics
with a "magical power":
The Entropy Law says that evolution dissipates the overall available
energy for life on this planet. Our concept of evolution is the
exact opposite. We believe that evolution somehow magically creates
greater overall value and order on earth.5
These words very well indicate that evolution is totally a dogmatic
belief.
THE MYTH OF THE "OPEN SYSTEM"
Confronted by all these truths, evolutionists have had to take
refuge in a mangling of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, saying
that it holds true only for "closed systems" and that "open systems"
are beyond the scope of this law.
An "open system" is a thermodynamic system in which energy matter
flow in and out, unlike a "closed system", in which the initial
energy and matter remains constant. Evolutionists hold that the
world is an open system: that it is constantly exposed to an energy
flow from the sun, that the law of entropy does not apply for the
world as a whole, and that ordered, complex living beings can be
generated from disordered, simple, and inanimate structures.
However, there is an obvious distortion here. The fact that a system
has an energy inflow is not enough to make that system ordered.
Specific mechanisms are needed to make the energy functional. For
instance, a car needs a motor, a transmission system, and related
control mechanisms to convert the energy in gasoline to work. Without
such an energy conversion system, the car will not be able to use
the energy in gasoline.
The same thing applies in the case of life as well. It is true
that life derives its energy from the sun. However, solar energy
can only be converted into chemical energy by the incredibly complex
energy conversion systems in living things (such as photosynthesis
in plants and the digestive systems of humans and animals). No living
thing can live without such energy conversion systems. Without an
energy conversion system, the sun is nothing but a source of destructive
energy that burns, parches, or melts.
As may be seen, a thermodynamic system without an energy conversion
mechanism of some sort is not advantageous for evolution, be it
open or closed. No one asserts that such complex and conscious mechanisms
could have existed in nature under the conditions of the primeval
earth. Indeed, the real problem confronting evolutionists is the
question of how complex energy converting mechanisms such as photosynthesis
in plants, which cannot be duplicated even with modern technology,
could have come into being on its own.
The influx of solar energy into the world has no effect that would
on its own bring order. No matter how high the temperature may become,
amino acids resist forming bonds in ordered sequences. Energy by
itself is not enough to make amino acids form the much more complex
molecules of proteins or for proteins to form the much complex and
organised structures of cell organelles. The real and essential
source of this organization at all levels is conscious design: in
a word, creation.
THE "CHAOS THEORY" EVASION
Quite aware that the Second Law of Thermodynamics renders evolution
impossible, some evolutionist scientists have made speculative attempts
to close the gap between the two so as to render evolution possible.
As usual, even those endeavours show that the theory of evolution
faces an inescapable impasse.
One person distinguished by his efforts to marry thermodynamics
and evolution is the Belgian scientist Ilya Prigogine.
Starting out from the Chaos Theory, Prigogine proposed a number
of hypotheses in which order forms from chaos (disorder). Despite
his best efforts however, Prigogine has been unable to pull off
the wedding. This is clearly seen in what he says:
There is another question, which has plagued us for more than a
century: What significance does the evolution of a living being
have in the world described by thermodynamics, a world of ever-increasing
disorder?6
Prigogine, who knows quite well that theories at the molecular
level are not applicable to living systems, such as a living cell,
stresses this problem: The problem of biological order involves
the transition from the molecular activity to the supermolecular
order of the cell. This problem is far from being solved.7
This is the point most recently arrived at by Chaos Theory and
related speculations. No concrete outcome has been attained that
would support or verify evolution or eliminate the contradiction
between evolution, entropy, and other physical laws.
Despite all these evident facts, evolutionists try to take refuge
in simple subterfuges. Plain scientific truths show that living
things and the ordered, planned, and complex structures of living
things could in no way have come into being by coincidence under
normal circumstances. This situation makes it clear that the existence
of living beings can only be explained by the intervention of a
supernatural power. That supernatural power is the creation of God,
who created the entire universe from nothing. Science has proven
that evolution is still impossible as far as thermodynamics is concerned
and the existence of life has no explanation but Creation.
1 Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: A New World View, New
York, Viking Press, 1980, p.6
2 J. H.Rush, The Dawn of Life, New York, Signet, 1962, p 35
3 Roger Lewin, "A Downward Slope to Greater Diversity", Science, vol.
217, 24.9.1982, p. 1239
4 George P. Stravropoulos, "The Frontiers and Limits of Science",
American Scientist, vol. 65, November-December 1977, p.674
5 Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: A New World View, p.55
6 Ilya Prigogine, Isabelle Stengers, Order Out of Chaos, New York,
Bantam Books, 1984, p. 129
7 Ilya Prigogine, Isabelle Stengers, Order Out of Chaos, p. 175 36 |
|
