How God Reveals Himself Through Science:
Cannot Create Life
altered in any manner, and additional or tighter
copyright restrictions than this are clearly not imposed on it.
Revision 3.9 September 4, 2016.
FREE copy of this booklet is available at
Chapter 1 The
Chapter 2 Why
Natural Processes Cannot Create a Living Cell
Chapter 3 Middle
Chapter 4 Information:
God’s Signature Written in a Cell
Chapter 5 Entropy
and Abiogenetic Disconnects
Chapter 6 Evolution After Chemical Evolution
Chapter 7 Miscellaneous
Chapter 8 What
Chapter 9 God
Chapter 10 Who Is the Creator?
Chapter 11 Glorifying
Abiogenesis is the scientific study
of a natural appearance of life through evolutionary processes over a long
period of time. It appears that every
experiment performed in this field has failed. Not one experiment can
demonstrate a process presumably available in a pre-
produce chemicals useful for an advance towards life. Instead, each has
uncovered and illustrated problems that work to thwart advance. There are many
experiments that look good at first appearance, but actually expose serious
problems when looked at carefully. It appears that Louis Pasteur was correct
about spontaneous generation. It is impossible, period. We will show
this also applies to long term, evolutionary instances, not
just short term ones. Both fail.
Am I making a wild, extravagant
claim? —Have there truly been no successful experiments in abiogenesis, ones
which demonstrate a significant advance towards life? If I am wrong, it should
be trivial to expose my error. After all, there are thousands of experiments
available for ammunition. All one needs to do is to point to a successful
experiment. Since a successful experiment would represent a significant
breakthrough, one would expect it to receive a lot of attention with multiple
independent laboratories confirming it. That is the way science works. Much of
the journal literature in abiogenesis is available on the internet for free
access. So, after sixty years and thousands of experiments, there should be all
kinds of experiments showing successful results which can be referenced by
open, free, internet access. It should be trivial to refute any claim of no
If you disagree with this claim, here is a challenge:
Find and send me the reference information for a journal with free internet
access so that anyone who desires can access it, including me. The article is
to be a report on a successful experiment, where success is defined within the
context of this chapter. My commitment will be to discuss the article openly
and its implications honestly on my internet site, www.creationtruthoutreach.org. Over the past four years over 30,000 free copies of
various versions of the material in this booklet have been distributed on over
40 university campuses, including various branches of the University of
California, The University of Texas at Austin, the University of Minnesota, The
University of Florida, Louisiana State University and many, many others. Lots
of students have promised to send me such a link. To this date, no one has. In
time I have gotten bolder in my claim simply because at this point no one has
taken up the challenge. Yet, if the claim is unfounded, it should be trivial to
expose it as such. If you disagree with me, may you can be the one to expose my
error! As of the date this was printed, no one else has.
This is the proposed sequence of chemical
evolution, which is another name for abiogenesis and emphasizes its
evolutionary foundation: A series of gradual steps start with the chemicals
naturally available on a planet or moon. These combine with each other to form
the building block molecules for life. Over time the molecules steadily
increase in complexity, becoming closer and closer to forming the molecules
characteristic of a living system.
Eventually, the complexity increases to the point that some of the
molecules start copying (replicating) themselves. Some of the time these
are called. Some of the mutations would accidentally present an improvement
over the original replicators. Natural selection would favor copying the ones
with improved characteristics. Mutation and natural selection are the keys to
evolution. This is the reason this field was initially called “chemical
evolution.” Eventually, over time, a fully-
information stored in DNA would appear. Then, eventually these original cells
evolved into you and me and all of the various forms of life we see around us.
This sequence sounds so logical that it has convinced many people that since it
is logical it must be true. However, the facts teach otherwise.
There is a fundamental, basic,
essential assumption in the above argument. However, this assumption is NEVER
discussed with students in the classroom. The assumption is that each step of
the entire sequence will naturally flow into its successor. This is
important, because it would take only a single failed step to thwart the entire
process leading to life-
definition of abiogenesis, it is assumed that no external influence or guidance
is needed for the above progression to take place for every step in its
entirety. Therefore, the
laws of science must so favor each of the steps needed for life
that the proper chemicals will naturally appear as needed by each step for the
entire sequence to flow smoothly from beginning to end.
A successful experiment then becomes
defined as one that can convert its initial, starting chemicals into new
chemicals that can be used exactly as produced as the supply chemicals for the
next stage. The theory is that the entire process is to take place in the wild
under uncontrolled conditions and without interruption from its beginning to
its end. So, it certainly should not be unrealistic to expect a controlled
experiment under idealistic laboratory conditions to be able to do this for
least one step. It is also understood that the processes used must be
reasonable for a pre-
any kind of outside intervention or control —whether directly by human input or
indirectly by automated apparatus designed by humans. So, a major criterion to
count an experiment successful is its ability to produce products which
function satisfactorily as feedstock for a succeeding step of abiogenesis.
Scientists have at their disposal
complete control over the exact ratio of starting chemicals, environmental
conditions, and energy sources to perform any hypothetical step they choose. In
a natural setting, these advantages would not exist. Yet, despite all of these
advantages they still have not been able to demonstrate even one step which
produces the proper chemicals to advance to the next one.
Instead, the chemicals produced
experimentally have been characteristically unsuitable for further use; they
have always resulted in dead ends. Furthermore, the reasons for the dead ends
make sense. We can understand why we get the results that we do. Ultimately,
these reasons lead back to entropy working in tandem with the basic laws of
physics and chemistry. There is no known scientific basis to expect anything
different from what we have actually observed so repeatedly.
There is a simple,
of possible molecules based on carbon atoms is staggering. Beilstein’s
Register lists by name, formula, and basic chemical characteristics over a
million of them. Because of the large number of possibilities, pre-
processes will be capable of producing a broad range of products from their
initial feed stock. The principle of entropy teaches us to expect this to take
place. In fact, the statistical distribution of the products produced will be
consistent with and determined by entropy. Experiment confirms that this,
indeed, is what happens.
This is the key issue: On the
one hand, a broad spectrum of molecules will always be produced in a pre-
setting. The principle of entropy guarantees this. This is predictable
in theory and confirmed experimentally. On the other hand the molecules
needed for life are
1) very specific,
3) very difficult to produce,
4) tend to fall apart
is no connection between the principles that determine which products
are produced by nature in a pre-
that are useful for life. These two sets of principles are completely
independent of each other. As a result, there is nothing to constrain
natural processes to produce the specialized products needed for life. This
observation provides the explanation for the universal failure of experiments
in abiogenesis. It is the fatal flaw.
The task facing the abiogenist is
obvious: show how natural processes reasonably available in a pre-
will naturally produce the kinds of chemicals needed for life. These chemicals
must also appear in a form useful for life. I claim that they do not and that
true science shows us why they cannot.
If this truly is the case, then the
entire field of abiogenesis is false, nothing more than pseudo-
Abiogenesis appears to be the equivalent of an engineer trying to design a
steamship which takes in lukewarm warm water from the ocean and extracts energy
from it to drive a boiler while dumping ice cubes out the back end. Entropy
shows why both are impossible.
There is another serious problem. It
is talked about more in the next chapter. Whenever a mixture
of random organic chemicals are mixed together in an environment
supplying sufficient energy for them to interact, they have a strong tendency
to turn into a gooey, inert tar. As more molecules are added to the tar, fewer
and fewer remain available for any kind of use.
Experiments in abiogenesis characteristically grind to a halt because of
The problem here is the same as
mentioned earlier. For abiogenesis to succeed, it is necessary for the entire
sequence of steps to flow smoothly from beginning to end without any hindrance.
Earlier we saw that the wrong chemicals tend to get produced. However, if the
products ultimately bond together to form a gooey tar mass, then it is
irrelevant whether or not they could have been useful. Tar formation is so
characteristic of concentrated organic molecules in solution that is irrational
to assume that the entire process of abiogenesis could proceed in a natural,
unguided environment without being thwarted by it. (See page 18 for more
discussion). Tar formation is a fatal problem, because natural processes
consistently form it, it overwhelms every thing when
it forms, and there is nothing to prevent its formation. Abiogenists need to
address this honestly. A good place to start would be to include in the journal
report for an experiment the amount of tar formed and how rapidly it formed.
How the Creation Reveals its Creator
1) It is the thesis of this booklet that a living God directly
created the physical life we see around us. 2) He also created it in such a way
that scientific observation shows us why natural processes cannot legitimately
account for its origin. The primary purpose of this booklet is to justify these
statements and discuss their implications.
I have had people tell me that just because we do
not understand how natural processes could create the chemicals of life, that
that does not mean that God did it.
the story does not stop here. The strongest evidence of life being the
handiwork of a living God is provided by the genetic information used to
fabricate and control a living cell (see chapter 4)..
is a mental construct. It is an abstract representation of meaning. For
instance, the word “car” is not a car, it is only a symbol used to represent a
car. There are no laws of physics or chemistry to favor any one symbol over
another in an abstract relationship. Natural processes do not form abstract
relationships and act on them. In a living system they can make use of
them. They cannot form them. These relationships are the product of an
intelligent being inventing a code for one thing to represent something else.
Intelligence is not the only attribute of the Being who created life. He
must also have the power to work within the creation at the atomic level. A
living cell is built using extremely large, extremely complicated, precisely
arranged molecules. A single atom placed incorrectly can frequently destroy the
ability of a huge, complicated molecule to function properly. Yet, natural
processes do not have the capability to select and position correctly the
individual atoms making a living cell until such a cell already exists.
Therefore, the Intelligent Being must have the personal power to do this. He
must be able to select and join individual atoms into a preplanned structure,
that of the first living cell or groups of cells. Hence He is not bound by the
normal laws of physics and chemistry; He is greater than them.
This solution is offensive to an atheist, who will blind
himself to the strength of the evidence to avoid conclusions he detests. Yet,
the evidence is clear, it is based on well-
not difficult to understand. These observations are consistent with the Bible,
which teaches us that there is a living God who expects us to understand that
the creation reveals Him and considers us without excuse if we reject the
message. (Romans 1:18-
Intelligent Being chose to create life at a certain point in time. Therefore,
He has a will. It takes planning to create an information-
because all the fabrication steps and processes must come together in sequence
and accurately. Thus, this Intelligent Being not only has a will, but makes
plans for what he intends to do.
do you call a Being who is intelligent beyond man’s ability to comprehend, is
not limited in His behavior by the laws of science, has a will, and plans
events? You call Him, “God.” In fact,
this is a simple definition of the term “personal God.” God is not just an
impersonal force, but a living Being with
intelligence, power, and a will. He makes plans and carries them out. True
science leads us to Him. We have just seen how. Incidentally, modern science
was founded by men who understood this (see page 56).
You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and
power; for You created all things, and by Your will they exist and were created
created man with the ability to comprehend His existence and to have a living
relationship with Him. Man can understand the meaning of the words in the verse
just quoted above. A computer can’t. Neither can a dog or
cat. God also gave man a will, such that man can choose to know and worship the
Creator God, can worship what the Bible calls a false god or gods, or can set
himself up as his own god. Every man decides for himself the path he will take.
However, there will be eternal consequences to this decision. This will be
further discussed in the final two chapters.
this brings up the next issue: if there is a true God who is the Creator and if
there are also false gods, and if we are capable of knowing and having a living
relationship with the true God, then how do we know who He is or which One He
am a Christian. I believe that the Bible is the Creator God’s verbal revelation
to man. The creation can reveal to us that a personal, living Creator God
exists. However, the creation does not tell us His standards concerning how He
wants us to relate to Him. This comes from the Bible. Chapters 6, 10, and 11 of
this booklet give evidences establishing the Bible as the unique verbal
revelation of God as well as important details of what He expects from us in
our relationship with Him. It is perhaps good to point out that the issue is
not what we want to believe or not believe, but what the evidence shows is
true. It is the position here that the evidence supporting the God of the Bible
as the God of creation is more than sufficient to establish its validity.
Often students on a university
campus will refuse a free booklet such as this when they are offered it. They
will comment, “I am a history major,” or “I am a political science major,” and
then walk off. How unfortunate! The truth is that the material in this and
subsequent chapters is just as relevant to them as it is to a biochemistry
Secular humanism is a philosophy
built on the assumption that a living, personal God does not exist. A number of corollaries follow from this
assumption. Since physical life is nothing more than the end product of natural
processes; then a living man is nothing more than a chance combination of
chemicals; his existence stops when he dies. In such a case the only value of
human life is whatever man chooses to give it. Ultimately, a man has no more
value than a hairbrush, a car, or a computer. Underlying this entire train of
thought is the conviction that man’s own intellect is capable of independently
reasoning through and understanding everything and anything worth knowing.
However, if there is indeed a
living, personal God and if this God truly does intervene into the affairs of
His creation, then humanism is false. In this booklet we show how the tools of
science demonstrate the necessity of a living, personal, Creator God. This in
turn invalidates the foundational premise of humanism, making it irrelevant.
Humanists absolutely hate and detest
creation science, because it provides a very clear rebuttal to their
foundational premise. The hatred of many professors towards the God of creation
is simple. God’s existence testifies against the validity of their personal
The modern university may be viewed
as an attempt to apply the concepts of secular humanism to every field of
study. Therefore, if humanism is a false philosophy, then much of what is
taught in a modern university is false. It is not so much observed facts that
are wrong— facts are facts. However, the normal emphasis in an institution of
higher learning is on the interpretation of facts. Generally, the
only interpretations professors allow are those that are consistent with
humanistic philosophy. Thus, only false interpretations of the observed data
are open for discussion. Whether a student is studying political science,
anthropology, history, or even the moral aspects of business, law, or medicine,
the issue of humanism and its validity is relevant. This makes God’s existence
existence and His working within His creation is the primary focus of this
booklet. A student interested in learning truth and not
mere propaganda should consider understanding the issues discussed here as his
number one priority. This applies whether he is a political science major or
An Absolute Proof of God
Both chemical evolution
(abiogenesis) and Darwinian evolution deny God His glory as the Creator. As a
man looks in awe at the beauty and the detailed organization of the creation,
God expects this awe to result in praise and thanksgiving to Him. When a person
instead rejects the Creator and attributes His handiwork to mindless, random
activity, it offends Him. He states in Isaiah 48:11, “I will not give my glory
to another.” This is serious, because the One who is being offended is One who has the innate power, wisdom, and will to create
galaxies out of nothing. He does not get tired in the process. You do not want
Him angry with the decisions you make. God has stated that He will reward us
for honoring Him, but also will hold us accountable for not properly honoring
Him. The Bible declares, “It is appointed for men to die once, but after this
the judgment" (Hebrews 9:27). It is irrelevant whether a person likes this
or not. The issue is whether it is true and supported by sufficient evidence.
The Bible teaches that it is
possible to prove God’s person and nature. However, this is judicial proof, not
philosophical proof. It is impossible to prove anything to a philosopher,
because his foundational assumptions are subjective and hence always debatable.
Judicial proof is different—it is proof sufficient to convict in a court.
Absolute judicial proof is proof so strong there is no valid legal defense
declaration, “It is appointed for men to die once, but after this the
judgment,” is important. God has set a day in which each man will give an
account for how he has responded to God on this earth. Judicial proof is
relevant here. In Romans 1:20 of the Bible we read,
creation of the world His invisible attributes are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal
power and Godhead—so that they are without excuse.”
In other words God designed the creation for it to reveal Him,
a living, personal God, as its Creator. God counts the evidence so clear that
on the day of judgment, He counts people rejecting it and rejecting Him as without excuse. This
is absolute judicial proof in a court of no appeal, a court whose verdict is
final and eternal. A
grade in a classroom or a promotion at work pale in significance to this.
Understanding the things presented in this booklet should be a person’s top
Chapter 2 Why
Natural Processes Cannot Create a Living Cell
like to eat brownies. Brownies with ice cream are perhaps my favorite dessert.
However, if someone were to attempt to make brownies using one part brownie mix
added to four parts cement mix, he would never get
edible brownies. This is true no matter how many billions of years he might try
and retry and retry the recipe. Billions of years of repetitious effort do not
compensate for bad chemistry. Billions of years of repetitious effort do not
turn bad ingredients into good products.
This is obvious to a cook. It should be obvious to a scientist..
atheists claim that over the course of billions of years, it would be
inevitable for life to form somewhere. The brownie analogy refutes this. If the
laws of chemistry and physics truly work against a natural origin of life, then
billions of years of repeating the same failures will never overcome the
reasons for the failures. Time only insures that the normal laws of chemical
reactions and chemical equilibrium prevail. If these laws work against a
natural origin of life, then no amount of time will be sufficient to overcome
consider the kinds of chemicals needed for life. These are the chemicals that
abiogenesis will need to form from suggested raw starting materials, such as
ammonia, methane, cyanide, and carbon monoxide among others. There are two
major kinds of biochemicals used in a living cell: proteins and nucleic
(in the form of enzymes) perform most of the chemical activity within a cell. A
protein is formed by combining long strings of amino acids together. A
particular amino acid is used at each position in the string from among 20
different kinds available.
other major kinds of biochemicals are called nucleic acids. Nucleic
acids are formed by stringing together certain building block molecules called nucleotides,
with a choice from among four kinds of nucleotides available for each position
in the string. There are two kinds of nucleic acids, RNA and DNA. RNA is formed
first, it is occasionally converted into DNA for
increased stability when used to store genetic information. Genetic information
tells the cell what to do.
first step of a pre-
“soup” of raw materials, such as amino acids and/or nucleotides. The soup needs
to be pure enough for random chemical interactions between amino acids or
nucleotides to form long strings of pure protein or nucleic acids. If the soup
is not extremely pure, then the impurities will combine with the amino acids or
nucleotides and the required proteins and nucleic acids will never appear. It
would be like adding so much cement mix to brownie mix that it becomes
impossible to make an edible brownie. This is an important issue.
natural processes were to bring about the origin of life on our planet or even
somewhere else, the first question is obviously, “How did it start?” In 1953 a
young graduate student at the University of Chicago, Stanley Miller, performed
an experiment that startled the scientific community and is still talked about
to this day. He simulated an atmosphere
supposedly similar to that found on the early planet Earth by placing methane,
ammonia, water, and hydrogen in a closed, evacuated flask. He simulated
lightning as an energy source by inducing a spark across the flask. Amino
acids, which are the building blocks for the proteins found in living systems
today, appeared in a trap connected below the flask.
Let’s consider how Miller’s
experiment operates. The chemicals it starts with are methane, ammonia, water and hydrogen gas. A spark is applied
and acts like a bomb, randomly ripping apart the molecules it contacts. The
fragments produced will rejoin in new, random combinations. As this process is
repeated, any newly formed molecules contacting a spark can be ripped apart
again. This process can be repeated multiple times. Eventually, the starting
chemicals organize into the molecules shown on page 13, with 6 times as much
tar formed as shown in the listed materials.
This would obviously be a very uncontrolled process. With the random ripping apart and
random recombination characteristic of Miller’s Experiment, it is very easy
to understand why the broad mix of chemicals shown on page 13 was formed. It is
also easy to understand why these chemicals are characterized by all of the
problems discussed below.
Carbon and nitrogen along with
hydrogen and oxygen are capable of forming over a million different kinds of
molecules. In fact the Beilstein Database catalogues by number over a
potential to create many of the molecules registered in Beilstein. It makes
sense for many different kinds of molecules to be produced, even as shown in
the Table on page 13. This is what we should expect. The predicted kinds of
products and experimental observation agree.
We should expect that occasionally
and on an incidental basis, chemicals such as amino acids, which are relatively
easy to form, will appear. We should also rarely if ever expect to find
nucleotides, which are extremely difficult to form. Again, prediction and
experiment agree and confirm each other. Nucleotides have never appeared in a
acids can and do, even without intervention.
Proteins can never be formed by
spontaneous combinations using chemicals such as those shown in the Table. Just
because amino acids appear on an incidental basis does not mean that they
appear in a useful mix. It is
amazing how many atheistic chemists refuse to acknowledge this. Yet, it is
chemistry at its most basic level.
The kinds of chemical reactions
available under pre-
products, with too many contaminants for successful abiogenesis. Changing the
energy source from a spark to a high energy ultra-
to a hot water source does not change the underlying process. The energy acts
like a bomb, randomly destroying whatever it interacts with. Changing the raw
source chemicals does not change the process. Neither does changing the
operating temperature or the acidity of the solution. The Beilstein Database is
the natural goal of pre-
It is easy to understand that if
random collisions between molecules are going to combine into long, pure
strings of amino acids or nucleotides, then an extremely pure source of these
will be required. The problem is that there is no connection between the broad
range of products naturally produced and the purity required for abiogenesis. Abiogenetic
Disconnects refers to this lack of connection.
appearance of amino acids in Miller’s trap excited scientists and laymen alike;
Miller apparently discovered a feasible starting point for chemical evolution.
His experiment seemed to open up all kinds of scenarios as possibilities for a
natural origin of life, free from the creative efforts of a Supernatural Being.
It is difficult to find an introductory biology textbook that says anything
We now understand that this excitement was
Six Big Problems
experiment represents a first stage process. It is noteworthy that neither
Miller’s experiment nor any other of the many of variations on it have ever produced the desired target soup of usable
building block molecules. Instead, they
all share in common the following six problems. All but the first is fully
capable of single-
resolved or overcome. After more than sixty years of effort, there has been no
progress towards a solution for any of them, except possibly the first. In
abiogenesis, existing known problems do not get
solved. Instead, as we learn more and more, we just keep finding new ones.
an untypical initial assortment of raw materials. Something seldom discussed
except by creationists is that even from the beginning, Miller’s experiment
represented intelligent intervention into natural order. Miller’s graduate
advisor Harold Urey, a Nobel prize-
atmosphere such as found on Jupiter and the other large planets, might have
been suitable for the origin of life. (Miller S et al. 2004).
reality, Jupiter’s atmosphere is unsuitable for the origin of life. It has
about 300 times as much hydrogen as methane as well as a small amount of
ammonia and smaller amount of water. This much hydrogen would
prevent methane and ammonia from combining into anything else.
a trained chemist Miller knew that this ratio of raw chemicals would not
produce any amino acids. So, he changed it for the experiment. He introduced
equal amounts of methane and ammonia with a small amount of hydrogen in a
chemicals in close to the ideal ratios needed for producing amino acids and he
was able to get some amino acids.
the ratios between the various molecules Miller used in his experiment and the
ratios found on Jupiter, his initial model, were totally unrelated to each
other. If he had copied the actual Jupiter atmosphere, the experiment would
have failed. It took a trained chemist to know how to modify Jupiter’s
atmosphere to one which could work. This represents human intervention.
The composition of the initial raw
materials that appear on a planet will be in accordance with various random
astronomical and terrestrial factors that have nothing to do with the
requirements for abiogenesis. Chemical evolution requires specific initial components
in useful concentrations and in useful ratios with each other. No planet or
moon has ever been observed which has raw materials available which are
suitable for abiogenesis.
Disconnects first appears at this, the starting point of chemical evolution.
There is no principle of physics or chemistry to constrain the composition of
the initial raw materials appearing on a planet or moon to match those suitable
for life. There is a disconnect between natural
products and required products. Because of the sheer number of planets in the
universe, this problem makes abiogenesis unlikely but does not
necessarily prevent it.
produce more contaminants than useful product. The table on page 13 shows that Miller made almost
four times as many contaminants as amino acids. For our purposes a contaminant
is defined as any chemical not actually used in a particular, desired chemical
reaction, but which can interfere with it in some manner and thus prevent it
from taking place.
means that the particular building-
sequence of operations could become contaminants and ruinous for other
sequences. If the goal is to get amino acids to string together and form a
protein, then any products (or even initial raw materials) which can interact
and interfere with the growing chain are contaminants.
This is an important observation:
the excessive contaminants are produced as a result of the basic laws of
nature. They can be predicted from chemical reaction theory and the predictions
are confirmed by experiment. There are no natural workarounds to avoid them.
So, there is a disconnect between the kinds chemicals
produced by natural, pre-
evolution. Abiogenetic Disconnects shows itself again.
The products are produced according
to their probability of formation at any instant. Changing energy sources or
the kinds of raw materials or temperature or pressure will not change the
nature of the results. As a result, a
broad product yield such as what we see in Table 1 is characteristic of all
among a far greater number of contaminants.
The overwhelming concentration of contaminants dominates future steps.
It absolutely prevents the amino acids from ever assembling into proteins. It
is like adding four times as much cement mix as brownie mix to brownie batter.
Good brownies will never be produced. Repeating a bad recipe over and
over does not compensate for bad chemistry.
It is amazing how many supposedly intelligent scientists do not seem to
In truth the discussion stops here.
Because theory is confirmed by experiment under a variety of scenarios, a
person should accept that this is what science teaches us. The only basis for
rejecting this would be to
demonstrate experimentally how useful products can be produced
from raw starting chemicals. At this point there is no basis to assume this is
We will see in the next chapter that
the late Leslie Orgel, Ph.D., one of the leading abiogenists in history and one
of the fathers of the RNA-
conclusion. In the last paragraph of his final journal article, he stated that
the gap must be closed that exists between the complex products supplied by
Otherwise, if the gap is not closed, abiogenesis would not be possible.
Furthermore, he was not impressed by what he had seen of efforts to close the
gap. He compared those efforts to “If pigs could fly…” logic.
Although the disconnect between products
produced by initial processes and products required by subsequent processes is
sufficient in itself to make a natural origin of life impossible, we continue
the discussion just because there is so much more to talk about.
Various kinds of proteins are used in the body
including enzymes, which are used to control chemical processes in the body.
have very complicated three-
twenty amino acids coded for in DNA have a number of varying characteristics
between them—whether they are attracted to water molecules or repelled by them,
whether they have a positive, negative, or neutral electrical charge, whether
they are large or small, and whether they make sulfur bonds or not (sulfur
bonds are much stronger than other bonds).
these characteristics, the most important is its attraction to water molecules.
A typical enzyme needs approximately equal numbers of water-
to perform a specific function. However, since water-
are easier to make than those that are water-
produced 100 times as many of them. Table 1 shows this. This ratio is not even
close to the approximately equal numbers required. Unfortunately for chemical
evolution, though, the naturally occurring ratio would make it statistically
impossible to string together useful enzymes using random processes.
the perspective of chemical evolution, there is nothing to constrain the
factors which determine the ratios of the various products formed to provide
ratios suitable for abiogenesis. This means mismatches such as the above
should be the expected norm. The
relative ratios between the various chemicals produced will always be based on
how easy they are to form from the immediately available chemicals and the
results will in general be unrelated to their usage requirement for chemical
evolution. The disconnect between the products
naturally produced and the requirements of abiogenesis has appeared again. This
is another issue sufficient in itself to stop chemical evolution dead in its
4. Chirality: Origin-
processes make products without regard to required “handedness.” Amino acids and nucleic
acids can exist in two different forms. These two forms are mirror images of
each other. For convenience they are called “left-
This is another serious issue. The
problem is that for proteins and nucleic acids to form their proper shapes,
they need all their constituent molecules to be either left-
string forces proteins and nucleic acids into useless shapes. Since Miller’s
and similar experiments produce products by randomly joining available
molecules to each other, they
inherently produce equal
portions of both left-
serious problem. Chemists first noticed this issue 150 years ago. Current
journal articles still recognize its seriousness and are still trying to figure
out how evolutionary processes could overcome the problem.
the disconnect appears yet again. Natural processes
randomly make both mirror-
more tar than anything else.
molecules dissolved in water will tend to clump together in a gooey mass
frequently referred to as “tar.” Once a molecule is in the interior of the
gooey mass, it no longer interacts with the molecules in solution and is
effectively inert. Tar is the normal product of experiments that simulate
was actually tar—85% of Miller’s starting chemicals turned to tar. If Miller
had not added a trap to remove some of the products, eventually he would have
had 100% tar, not a mixture of building block chemicals ready to form life.
Yet, Miller did not discuss this in his initial journal report. Abiogenists
since him copy his example; they don’t discuss it either. Yet, it is one of the
most significant issues.
is important: simply leaving the power turned on and adding a continual stream
of new raw materials would not have resulted in Miller eventually providing a
soup useful for second stage activity. It would not have resulted in the amino
acids produced assembling themselves into proteins. It would have merely
resulted in a lot more tar on the walls of his equipment. The test apparatus
would become completely clogged with tar, stopping the experiment. Abiogenists understand this problem very
well. They choose to ignore it. For instance, few if any textbooks mentioning
Miller’s experiment talk about how his main product was tar. None talk about
how the same problem is characteristic of origin-
chemicals of life have a natural tendency to make tar. This is a problem at
every stage of development and continues with living cells today. Fortunately,
living cells have an elaborate maintenance system to rid themselves of tar as
it forms and before it destroys them. Otherwise, they could not survive. This
includes us—our own survival depends on effective tar-
forms. This makes a natural origin of life impossible.
provide essential products in adequate concentration. Another
major problem concerns the amount of useful product created. Shortly after Miller first published the
results of his experiment, scientists speculated that the oceans of the earth
could have once been a “soup” of biological building block molecules working
towards the formation of life. Then, a more careful analysis showed that the
earth’s entire atmosphere would not be capable of supplying enough raw material to turn the world’s oceans into useful soup. As
scientists became more realistic in their expectations, the potential size of
the soup kept shrinking in volume. Now it doesn’t actually appear to have
Current opinion is that natural
processes are incapable of directly producing a sufficiently high enough
concentration of products to promote abiogenesis. Therefore, some means of
concentrating them is required. For instance, we read, “Even in the most
optimistic assessments of the sources for pre-
bodies of water existing three to four billion years ago would have been
extremely dilute. Therefore, mechanisms for selecting and concentrating the
essential biomolecules are required” (Hazen 2010).
The bottom line is that there is no
connection between the factors determining the concentration of chemicals
provided by natural processes and the concentration required for the emergence
There is a second factor working
against a useful concentration of the products produced. We have already
discussed how pre-
products. By simple mathematics this means that no particular product will have
a very high concentration. I find it intriguing to consider various journal
articles that show all of the varied molecules that can be formed by pre-
processes and then talk as if this were an advantage. They appear to have the
attitude, “With this many possibilities, surely something available will be
effective.” In truth a wide range of products is a serious disadvantage, not
only because of contamination interference by all of the unused products, but
also because of the resulting low concentration of any useful variants.
As an illustration of this
situation, Benner provides a diagram that shows the overwhelming complexity of
products possible in just a few steps starting with simple raw source
molecules. He thought this was good. I think it is bad. Entropy would prevent
any single one of these from forming preferentially over the others as to allow
it to become a concentrated building-
life. Just because it is needed or
useful is irrelevant. There is no principle of science to form preferentially
the ones needed, apart from the activity of an already living cell. Benner’s
diagram is available free online and worth looking at. (Benner
et al. 2010. FIG 10).
Many abiogenists believe that life
started on clay crystals as a concentrating mechanism. This may work in a lab,
but there are problems in a real-
pollutants. Likewise, it would do the same for the chemicals of abiogenesis.
The following is an excerpt from an article I wrote about this (Stout T.
“It has been observed that there is a natural influx
of suspended clay particles into a lake. As these particles drift throughout
the lake, various pollutants in the lake adhere to the particles’ surfaces.
Then, as the particles settle and are buried by sediment, the pollutants are
buried along with the particles. The influx of clay particles effectively
“sweeps” the lake free of pollutants and buries them, at which point they no longer
interact with the environment. A clear example of this has been reported for
Lake Michigan. Portions of the lake are surrounded by large urban populations
which introduce into it significant quantities of man-
observed to be removed by this sedimentation process, over the course of a few
we should expect the same sedimentation process to remove any pre-
biochemicals from the water in which they are found. Perhaps this explains the
results of this next experiment:
David Deamer is one of the world’s leading scientists in the study of
abiogenesis. He is co-
on abiogenesis which features nineteen articles summarizing current abiogenesis
research (Deamer D and Szostak J. 2010). He and his
colleagues performed a unique experiment which gave unexpected results.
Various observations have led one
camp of biochemists to propose that life might have emerged in hot, thermal
vents in the ocean or hot geothermal sites inland. Their ideas have
traditionally been simulated with experiments done in a laboratory setting.
Deamer and his team decided to go to
a volcanic hot spring, add some amino acids, nucleotides, fats, glycerol, and
phosphate to the water, and see what happened. They would supply the raw
materials of an idealized soup based on their skills as biochemists. The team
was surprised. They had not expected what happened. Some quotes:
“Most of the added organics and phosphate were removed
from solution with half-
“A white scum appeared in the Kamchatka pool within
minutes of adding the organic mixture. The precipitate is probably a mixed iron
and aluminium soap, which would remove the fatty acid as a potential reactant.”
“The phosphate and added amino acids were below
detectable limits in minutes to hours….”
“The observation that organic compounds were below
detection limits so rapidly was surprising.”
“It is significant that most of the clay mineral
apparently bound the added solutes” [this shows how well clay binds
“...The origin of life in a natural setting would have
had a variety of possible fates other than those observed in a laboratory
setting, where pure compounds react in glass containers” (Deamer D. et al. 2006).
The last three quotes taken together
represent perhaps the greatest significance of the entire experiment. Deamer is
one of the foremost biochemists in the world. Yet he was still unprepared for
how much harsher a natural environment is than a laboratory setting. In so many
words he effectively acknowledged that there can be all kinds of unexpected
glitches that would be capable of thwarting abiogenesis in a true-
setting that do not appear in a lab, although he was more discrete in his
wording. This is particularly significant when one considers that even with all
of the advantages of a “laboratory setting, where pure compounds react in
glass containers,” naturally occurring roadblocks have so far thwarted every
effort to provide a clear, successful demonstration of an advance in
abiogenesis at any stage. Yet, in the wild we should expect significantly worse
results than observed in a laboratory, even as the experiment demonstrated.
It is intriguing to do a journal
search for articles discussing the potential role of clay in abiogenesis. There
are very many. It is humorous to see that many of them discuss how well
biomolecules join to clay. This merely insures that when the clay settles out
and is buried as sediment, the biomolecules will be buried along with it. This
is an extremely serious issue that is singlehandedly capable of thwarting
RNA nucleotides, the building blocks
of RNA, have never been fabricated in the lab using a realistic pre-
process. Currently, the best hope for possibly doing this is with what has been
called the “one pot approach” by John Sutherland (Powner M et al.
2009). Sutherland spent 14 years tinkering with it before he
finally stumbled onto a workable process for it to make nucleotides, although
he finally did. However, Steve Benner pointed out that Sutherland’s scenario is
not realistic, still requiring too much human intervention to make it work and
to prevent the production of tar as the major product (Benner S et al.
2012). Human intervention is nothing more than a scientist
constraining a process to give the required results for abiogenesis when nature
doesn’t constrain it.
Abiogenists like to act as if the
problems we have looked at are isolated. They just “put them on the back
burner” until a solution comes forth. If the problems were actually isolated
from each other, this might be acceptable, even if the back burner is rather
crowded. However, the observed “failed results” of the experiments are actually
consistent with expectations from normal chemical behavior. The experiments are
not failures in the sense that they confirm the validity of the normal laws of chemical reactions.
The only “failure” is that normal chemistry does not meet the needs of
It is time to say that enough is
enough. Abiogenetic Disconnects provides a unifying factor for the problems.
This changes the situation. Science now provides a sound reason why natural
processes are incapable of forming life—Abiogenetic Disconnects.
Chapter 3 Middle-
It is in the hypothetical second or
middle stage of abiogenesis that the building block amino acids and nucleotides
formed in the first stage combine into useful chemicals. The goal of this stage
is to provide a series of steps leading to a replicating system of large,
complex molecules capable of evolving through mutation and natural selection.
In the preceding chapter we looked at how the products of a first-
process, as represented by Miller’s experiment, do not provide products useful
for this stage. There are too many contaminants, ratios are wrong,
the desired chemicals are supplied in too low concentration, etc.
The reality of these problems is
illustrated by the procedure scientists use to study middle-
never start with the products of a first-
setting this would be all that was available. Instead, they go to a
chemical supply house and purchase the exact chemicals needed for a particular
test, with laboratory-
proper relative ratios. Despite this advantage over a realistic pre-
assortment of chemicals, their experiments still fail to produce products
suitable for a subsequent step.
Of course, chemical supply houses
did not exist on the pre-
chemical supply houses for their supplies, claiming that it speeds up the
process. The inference is that if Miller’s experiment were to run long enough,
it would eventually supply the desired soup of pure building block molecules in
the right concentrations. They don’t seem to understand that bad chemistry will
always produce bad products. Miller’s experiment will primarily produce tar
along with its characteristic broad mix of products. This will be true no
matter how many times it is repeated, how long it runs, or how the raw
chemicals might be varied from run to run. Cement mix added to brownie mix
never makes good brownies. Abiogenetic Disconnects prevent first-
processes from ever
forming products useful for middle-
When one looks at the results of the
experiments performed at the middle stage, he finds Abiogenetic Disconnects at
work again. The problems listed below are representative; there are many
others. They all are a manifestation of Abiogenetic Defects.
Problem 1. The Great Divide. An interesting
article appeared fairly recently in BioScience
magazine, which is published by the American Institute of Biological Sciences.
Melissa Lee Phillips wrote a feature article titled, “The Origins Divide:
Reconciling Views on How Life Began” (Phillips M. 2010). Although the title
speaks of reconciling the various divergent views on the origin of life, in
truth there was little if any reconciliation in the article. It offered a
history of our understanding of abiogenesis. Whenever someone would offer a
proposal regarding any facet of abiogenesis, there would soon be someone else
giving sound reasons against its viability. This situation continues until the
present. Apart from a statement at the end of the article expressing a hope of
success because of Sutherland’s approach in forming RNA, the article could well
have been written by a creationist, documenting known problems. Of course, we
have already seen that Steve Benner pointed out how Sutherland’s approach still
requires human intervention at certain critical steps.
Here are a few quotes from her
opening paragraphs: “Deep divides in opinion are found in almost all areas of
to be critically honest about what we don’t know.…And
that’s just about everything.” “The questions surrounding life’s origins are
indeed vast and, for the most part, unanswered.” Then, she mentions the large
macromolecules which are so critical to the functioning of living organisms and
comments, “In modern life, all of these molecules and processes are so
intertwined that it’s difficult to imagine how any of them could have arisen
without the others already in place. Chicken-
The major divide is between those
who believe in metabolism first or information first (proteins first or RNA
first). Sadly, which side a person takes seems to be the one which he believes
has the fewest arguments preventing it. Neither side
shows experimentally a working sequence of steps to implement their choice.
Somehow, when a person takes a particular position because it has the fewest
known fatal obstacles preventing its success, it seems he has left science.
I have claimed that there have been
no successful experiments in abiogenesis. This conviction is partly my own
observation from reading various journal articles. However, there are a number
of articles summarizing the current state of abiogenesis similar to this one by
Melissa Lee Phillips. They all only seem to talk about problems. One gets the
feeling that if they could just point to one truly successful experiment, they
would puff it up to the fullest extent possible. They just don’t seem to have
anything to puff up.
Problem 2. Amino acids preferentially break apart, not join together. Proteins need to form in water in order to get their
proper shape. Their shape determines their chemical action. However, when two
amino acids join, a water molecule is released. In an aqueous environment, the
natural action is for water to split joined amino acids, not for separated
amino acids to join and release a water molecule to the already high
concentration of water. So, the normal chemical reaction—splitting—is opposite
of that required for life—joining.
Various attempts are made by
abiogenists to work around this. Typically, this is by increasing the
concentration of amino acids by evaporation or by causing them to adhere to a
clay surface. Both proposed solutions
Evaporation is an unstable process,
dependent on widely varying geological and weather conditions. It is
unrealistic to expect this to be a consistent, reliable process for the
millions of years required for abiogenesis. RNA is particularly sensitive to
decay. Under some conditions it lasts only days before it falls apart. It would
not take much of an extended dry period to permanently undo any progress.
Conversely, extended wet times would keep the raw materials too
dilute for usefulness long enough for the RNA to spontaneously decay. In
general one should expect varying climatic conditions to occasionally produce
an excessive number of dry times and wet times over the course of several
million years. This is a significant potential natural barrier against the
effectiveness of wetting and drying cycles as they occur in nature as a
required process for RNA.
Clay presents a different set of
problems. Typically, there will be more clay surface than biochemicals. In the
previous chapter we saw how seasonal mud flows into a lake tend to bury all
organic molecules. Buried organic molecules do not interact, so burial would
prove fatal to abiogenesis. We also saw how Deamer ran into this problem
headlong when he performed an abiogenesis experiment in a natural hot
spring. The mud quickly adsorbed all of
Thus, concentrating a solution in
order to encourage building block molecules to join into proteins or nucleic
acids does not appear to be a practical way to solve the problem.
Problem 3. Side
Chains. The utility of amino acids comes from their ability
to join together to form proteins, which are long strings of typically 100 to
1,000 amino acids chained together. In order for a string to form properly, the
amino acids must join end to end. It then folds into various combinations of
coils and sheets and in the process takes on the shape of a specific protein.
The shape determines its activity.
However, the end of one amino acid
can easily connect to the side of another amino acid, forming what is called a
side chain. Side chains force a string into a new shape, thus destroying its
ability to function properly.
A living cell uses a ribosome and a
group of supporting molecules to force the amino acids to join together in proper
sequence and without side chains. This
is a cumbersome process, requiring many complicated components. However, it has
been observed experimentally that without a ribosome, long strands of amino
acids in solution do not form spontaneously and any joining that does take place
is characterized by multiple side chains. We understand how this is the result
of the normal laws of chemistry. It is not circumvented by blindly repeating
the process over and over.
A ribosome is an extremely
complicated molecule. It also requires a controlled energy source for its
operation. It depends on a group of support molecules such as transfer RNAs and
synthetases for its operation. It is also an information-
cannot function properly without information from messenger RNA being fed to
it. So, a living cell has access to and uses an extremely complex system of
components and information to constrain amino acids to join together with the
proper structure and the proper sequence to form a protein. Pre-
amino acids in solution do not have the proper constraints to get the proper
results. As a result, in a free solution the natural behavior is contrary to
that required for life. There is a disconnect between the products needed for
life and the products
normally produced by pre-
Problem 4. Enzyme
specificity. Here is a
et al said, “Large molecules such as proteins and nucleic
acids are crucial for life, yet their primordial origin remains a major puzzle.
The production of large molecules, as we know it today, requires good
catalysts, and the only good catalysts we know that can accomplish this task
consist of large molecules. Thus the origin of large molecules is a chicken and
egg problem in chemistry” (Giri V et
to develop a computer simulation of a proposed solution. However, simulations
are nothing more than hypothetical speculation unless they are simulating
experimentally confirmed results along with the factors which affect them.
The true problem is that one needs
to have these results appear as a continuation of Miller’s experiment or the
equivalent without any human tinkering. We have never come close to showing how
this could even be possible—it would require overcoming all six problems
mentioned in the previous chapter plus the new ones of this chapter. Yet, this
would be only the second step of a long journey.
The problem of getting large
molecules was discussed by the late Leslie Orgel in his final journal article,
published in 2008. Orgel was a giant in abiogenesis. He was one of the few
people to see the Watson-
the model to the world. He wrote journal articles in chemistry for over 50
years before passing away in 2007. He had a unique understanding of
abiogenesis, that of one who had lived it from its beginnings until his recent
death over 50 years later. He was head of the Chemical Evolution Laboratory at
Scripps Institute in San Diego, California, one of the premier laboratories of
the world in his field. He shared an office with Crick for many years at
Scripps. He and Crick were the fathers of the RNA World hypothesis. At the time
of his death, Orgel was not impressed with the state of abiogenetic
The final paragraph of Orgel’s final journal article is significant. Basically, he acknowledges the validity and
seriousness of the problems we have been discussing. He says in a somewhat cryptic statement,
“The prebiotic syntheses that have been investigated
experimentally almost always lead to complex mixtures. Proposed polymer
replication schemes are unlikely to succeed except with reasonably pure input
polymers. No solution to the origin-
gap between the two kinds of chemistry is closed….Solutions offered by
supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that
are dependent upon ‘if pigs could fly hypothetical chemistry’ are unlikely to
The “prebiotic syntheses” he is
talking about include first stage processes, such as Miller’s experiment. These
are the ones that supply the building block molecules used to assemble
The “complex mixtures” are
represented by the broad products we saw in Table 1 on page 13, where natural
processes make many more contaminants than required products.
“Proposed polymer replication
schemes” would be the processes at work in this stage to provide the eventual
ability to copy large proteins and RNA.
So, Orgel is saying that the
proposed second stage schemes are unlikely to succeed unless they can start
with reasonably pure chemicals. (Four times as many contaminants as working
stock is not reasonably pure.) Of course, even when
the proposed processes do start with pure chemicals they haven’t been able to
demonstrate a single successful, significant step of progress. Obviously,
starting with extremely contaminated products would make it that much harder.
His next comment, about “no
solution,” is particularly significant. Paraphrasing, he says that unless the
gap is closed between the products of stage 1 and the requirements of stage 2,
abiogenesis is not possible. This is a major statement. Notice—the gap Orgel
is talking about is the one between the products of Miller’s experiment and the
purity required for abiogenesis. Miller’s experiment will never produce the
required purity of molecules. Thus, one of the most qualified abiogenists in
history has effectively acknowledged that abiogenesis as it now stands in the
light of experimental evidence is impossible.
In the ellipses he mentions a few
things people are attempting in order to purify the stage 1 products. However,
these have been tried for many decades without success. There is no more basis to expect a “hands off” purification scheme to appear
spontaneously than to expect Miller’s experiment to provide pure products
without help. Abiogenetic disconnects will prevent either from succeeding.
His final statement is most
revealing of all. Whether a person believes in “information first” or
“metabolism first” doesn’t matter. If a person’s theoretical scheme of
abiogenesis depends on hypothetical chemistry that violates known chemical
principles, then it doesn’t help much in solving the “origin-
It is the equivalent of starting a statement, “If pigs could fly, then ….”
Everything that follows is nonsense, because pigs can’t fly.
Compare Miller’s experiment with Watson and Crick’s
model of the structure of DNA. Both date
to 1953. The DNA model has been extremely fruitful; it provided the foundation
for most of the developments of modern biochemistry. By contrast Miller’s
experiment initially got hopes up for many people that man could now explain
how he got here without calling on a Creator God. Yet, 60 years later, not a
single true advance has been made toward this. However, a stream of new
problems, each of which is also potentially capable of thwarting success, have been discovered.
If one looks carefully at the issues
that concerned Orgel, they
can be traced back to two words: “Abiogenetic Disconnects”
If the Bible is true, if God did
create the universe including the life that is in it for it to reveal itself to
be the handiwork of a living, personal, Creator God, then Orgel’s
observation is consistent what we should expect.
Problem 5. Statistical Probabilities. (This section is rather technical and may be skipped
by those without a mathematical background.)
Here is a critical problem: an
emerging system needs a reliable energy source from its earliest steps.
However, the enzymes used to provide this will take multiple Googols of years
to make through random processes. There is no rational basis to expect them ever
to appear. The extreme complexity of the enzymes that bothered Orgel in his
final article were the ones needed to appear very early in abiogenesis. His
concern was legitimate.
A Googol is the number “1” followed
by 100 zeroes. It is so big that changing its value by plus or minus ten
billion does not show up until its 90th significant figure. Ten billion years,
the approximate age of the universe estimated by some, would not even be
discernible on a scale of Googol-
In an article posted on the web
(Stout T, 2014) I show that a Googol years is not long enough to
form randomly a specifically-
idealized, theoretical conditions. An enzyme of 267 amino acids would be
diluter than this by yet another Googol. Every 100 additional amino acids in an
enzyme reduces the concentration by yet another
What is the significance of this? It
takes energy to do the various functions of a cell. Cells typically use a kind
of molecule called “ATP” to provide tiny packets of energy for cellular
operation. Every kind of cell using oxygen to burn fuel converts the fuel into
ATP molecules using what is called the “Krebs cycle.” For every atom of oxygen
used to burn a sugar or fat molecule supplying fuel for the Krebs cycle, two
molecules of ATP are produced. Unlike typical random energy sources, these tiny
power packets are just right for biochemicals: weak enough not to damage the
products being worked on and powerful enough to accomplish a task. The Krebs
cycle requires eight different enzymes. Missing any one of them is fatal to
proper cycle operation. These enzymes are huge in size.
Let’s look at just 4 of them. One of
them, called malate dehydrogenase,
is made from over 300 amino acids. It should take well over a Google years
to generate a single, isolated copy of this enzyme through random processes.
Another, called citrate synthase, uses 437. In life, these two enzymes are used in equal
numbers. By contrast, a random sequence will be over a Googol times more likely
to generate malate dehydrogenzase
than citrate synthase. These are the easy
ones. By contrast, Succinyl CoA Synthetase is made from two identical strings of 693 amino acids
each. This will be hard to get. However, that is simple compared to Succinate Dehydrogenase
which is over 1,100 amino acids. To get the Krebs cycle to work, all of
these enzymes plus others need to be attached to a wall of some sort
next to each other in sequence. This provides an “assembly line” for processing
the steps. Many copies of such assembly lines are required for each cell.
There is a reason these enzymes are
composed of so many amino acids. Orgel explained in the main body of his final
article that highly specific enzyme activity is required for the cycle to
function properly. Small enzymes cannot provide the required specificity.
Therefore, extremely large ones are required. In other words, the cycle won’t
work with smaller enzymes.
When one considers that the human
body has over 10,000 different enzymes averaging over 400 amino acids
apiece, the complexity of life becomes
staggering. Most of the enzymes would not appear randomly under ideal
conditions even in a Googol years. Yet, these enzymes are merely building
blocks for a cell, such as construction supplies at a lumber yard are for a
house. The true complexity is in putting them together properly. How to
represent the instructions to do this by a sequence of nucleotides stored in a
genome is beyond current human comprehension.
Evolutionists such as Dawkins in his
book the Blind Watchmaker (Dawkins R. 1987) propose a process called cumulative
selection as a way around the statistical problem. However, cumulative
selection does not work, because natural selection cannot choose between the
better of two options when both fail. Natural selection cannot choose which of
two sequences of amino acids is closest to being able to function effectively
as succinate dehydrogenase
until at least one of them already does. Therefore, the first appearance of a
required enzyme needs to take place in a single-
the right time in the proper quantity. Dawkins’ process of cumulative
selection works fine with computer simulations with computer programs which
were hand tailored to produce the desired results. It doesn’t apply to
the realities of life. The astronomical odds against forming a required group
of nucleotides or amino acids represent an extreme example of Abiogenetic
Cumulative selection also assumes an
already working system, capable of translating nucleotide sequences into
proteins. So, it is useless in forming the proteins needed for the first
appearance of such a system.
Problem 6. Replication.
Replication refers to copying
a cell or molecule. It is one of the basic characteristics of life. I will be
brief in discussing the problems associated with replication.
An already living cell assembles
free nucleotides to form strands of RNA. This is done by an enzyme or
combination of enzymes adding a specifically required nucleotide one at a time
to a forming string according to a sequence defined by a template. The enzymes
to do this properly are long, typically over 400 amino acids in length.
Some abiogenists propose that before
living systems used amino-
lot of experimental effort at work to uncover a string of nucleotides that
could assemble free nucleotides from a solution into a sequence in accordance
with a supplied pattern. So far the results are not promising. Here are a few
problems that are discussed in the literature. They may be viewed as yet more
instances of Abiogenetic Disconnects.
1. RNA has a very short lifetime,
typically from hours to days, depending on temperature and other factors. Any
interruption in the supply of RNA nucleotides as nutrients to an ongoing
copying operation which is longer than this could result in all of the key RNA
molecules disintegrating during the delay, thus destroying any progress. There
is a disconnect between the rapid natural decay of RNA
and the stability needed for it to be useful in a pre-
2. As an illustration, Johnston et
al (2001) developed a 176-
strings of RNA. It spontaneously disintegrates while copying strings longer
than about 14 nucleotides. Thus, it typically disintegrates before it has
copied less than 10% of itself. This illustrates just how severely RNA’s short
lifetime impacts abiogenesis. 176
nucleotides is much too many to reasonably appear in a
single step. Yet, even this is not long enough to give the copying efficiency
required for it to make a copy of itself before it spontaneously decays. This
is another disconnect between natural behavior and the requirements of
3. “Parasites” have been observed
with experiments studying replicators taken from already living cells.
Parasites are molecules which do not make a useful contribution to cellular
activity, but get copied by the replicator, consuming nutrient nucleotides in
the process. Parasites can be small molecules. Small molecules are generally
more active than larger ones, so replicators will tend to preferentially copy
them. Eventually, the parasites starve the system, progress stops, and RNA’s
rapid natural decay soon destroys everything. There is a disconnect between the
copying by simple replicators and the need by abiogenesis for only useful
molecules to be copied.
the LORD, that is My name; and My glory
I will not give to another…” (Isaiah 42:8).
Information: God’s Signature Written in a Cell
It does not take a deep technical background to follow
the arguments of this chapter. Yet, they are decisive. They make a natural
origin of life
impossible. Anyone willing to take the effort to work through the next seven
pages should be able to understand why.
possibility of an evolutionary origin of life. Information-
consist of two separate but essential components: a body of information stored
in a medium and hardware to read the medium and use the information. Each of
the components need to be in operating condition for
the system to be effective.
A computer provides an example of an
hardware and the software must make their first appearance simultaneously in already
working form. This requirement is the heart of the argument. By definition
first appearance of both hardware and the information controlling it is
characteristic of information-
living cell is also an information-
pattern. The physical components of a cell that are needed to process and use
cellular information have no value unless the associated information is
present. Likewise, the information has no value unless the physical cellular
components used to read and process the information are present. Both need to
function properly. Both need to make a simultaneous first appearance. The tiny,
gradual steps of progress which define evolution are not capable of producing a
There is an added level of
difficulty concerning a living cell. The instructions on how to make the
various physical components to read the information are only found in the
cell’s information. So, the parts needed to read the information cannot be made
using the information until the parts already exist. This entire system is
much, much too complex to appear spontaneously through natural processes alone
in a sudden step. Indeed, the entire purpose of evolutionary theory is to
reduce the size of steps needed to produce major changes to individual steps of
insignificant size. This doesn’t work here.
issue concerns the minimum amount of information required to build a minimal
cell capable of self sustenance. The amount appears to be staggering. For instance,
160,000 nucleotide base pairs are used in the DNA to define the genetic content
(genome) of a certain parasite. However this parasite cannot sustain
independent life on such few base pairs; it is dependent on its host to perform
certain functions it cannot. It cannot do these because its genome is not large
enough to contain the information required to do them. (Nakabachi A. et al.
An atheistic scientist is faced with
a set of severe problems. 160,000 base pairs represent far too much information
to show up correctly in a single, random step. The atheist must either take the
unscientific position of giving up the laws of statistics, must acknowledge
that science points to a Creator God, or must justify how a much smaller
number, one which is reasonably probable, could specify the minimum number of
base pairs required to define a working cell capable of sustaining an
Realistically, the maximum number of
base pairs that could be rationally expected to be generated through random
processes in a single step would be well under 100. The difference in
difficulty between assembling 100 base pairs randomly and 160,000 base pairs
randomly is staggering. (For the mathematically minded, the ratio in difficulty
would equal 4160,000/100, which is approximately equal to 101000. This
number is so large it dwarfs a Googol. For one who believes in a Creator, the
discrepancy between 100 and 160,000 base pairs reveals the greatness of God’s
power and wisdom. Science becomes a tool for us to marvel at God’s wisdom and
Evolution theoretically advances by taking a working
system, making slight changes to the information defining it, and then using
natural selection to give reproduction preference to whichever alternative has
the better reproduction value over its competition. However, this concept
requires an already working system before it has value.
Natural selection cannot select between the better of
two failures. This statement is
foundational to our entire argument. It precludes the possibility of converting
a random assortment of data symbols by an evolving series of steps into a large
body of coherent information. From the beginning, the information must be
capable of reliably operating the hardware. The hardware must be capable of
reliably read, translating, and using the information. This in turn means that
evolutionary processes are powerless to create the first living cell.
Mutations and Information
It is impossible to create a large,
complex body of information by making random changes to a group of randomly
sequenced symbols. According to the principle of entropy, discussed in the next
chapter, a large number of random changes will ultimately destroy any kind of
existing order; this includes an organized set of symbols defining information.
This precludes forming order from scratch.
Suppose a string of one thousand
nucleotides is required to code for a new enzyme. Suppose only a single
nucleotide is improperly coded and prevents the new enzyme from functioning
properly. It will then take an average of one thousand mutations to the string
before the errant symbol is changed. Even then, a mutation to the defective
nucleotide may simply introduce a new error and not fix the problem. Since the
enzyme was not working properly to begin with, natural selection cannot
distinguish between variants with many mutations and those with few—natural
selection cannot choose between the better of two failures. By the time the
string has been mutated a thousand times without defects being removed, any
information initially present will have been pretty much obliterated. Notice,
more time and more mutations do not fix this problem. This is a significant
issue that is never taught by professors of biological evolution to their students.
This problem makes it easy to
understand Dr. Dose’s comment in the opening paragraph, “we do not actually know where the genetic
information of all living cells originates.” It is certainly not through
evolutionary processes of mutation working with natural selection.
Coded Information: a Product of Intelligent Thought
The kind of information used in a cell may be
classified as coded symbolic information. Coded symbolic information is
information in which an abstract meaning is represented by a sequence of
symbols arranged according to a code. The DNA nucleotides (sometimes called codons
by biologists) function as the storage medium for the information stored in
a living cell.
An intelligent mind can assign meaning to things it
understands. It can then invent a code to represent this meaning. Information
is the coded representation of meaning. The concept of meaning is
extremely broad, essentially limited only by the intelligence and experience of
the one inventing the code. Of course, the laws of physics are not dependent on
the intelligence of the objects acted on for their effectiveness. By contrast,
the levels of meaning and the sophistication of codes to represent the meaning
are dependent on the intelligence of the one inventing and implementing them.
This establishes coded information as the domain of intelligence, one outside
of the normal laws of physics and chemistry.
As an illustration of a simple form of information,
consider the cardinal numbers 1, 2, 3, etc.
These can be represented by ink shapes on a sheet of paper, by sounds
such as spoken in any of the languages on our planet, or by any other set of
symbols a person chooses to invent. A person could even invent a code to
represent a limited quantity of numbers by certain smells if he chose to do so.
Notice, there is absolutely no relationship between the physical structure
representing the meaning and the meaning itself. The only relationship is in
the mind of an intelligent being—or in hardware he designs to translate it.
However, meaning is not limited just to simple things like cardinal numbers. Poets can have very
subtle shades of insight into the experiences of a living human being that go
beyond normal words to express. Such insight is a product of intelligence. The
poet then expresses these insights with symbols on a sheet of paper. The
meaning can then be communicated to other intelligent beings, even though in
the case of artistic works, effective communication is also dependent on the
observer’s intelligence and background. There are no principles of physics or
chemistry which preferentially define a code to represent the insights of a
sensitive poet, even though the medium—words on a sheet of paper—is a physical
entity which can be studied.
Einstein learned and discovered new concepts of
relativity and gravity and then invented a way to express these concepts using
words and symbols; their expression represents information. The meaning of the
symbols he used is far beyond my capacity to understand. That is because
information is a product of intelligence and I do not have the intelligence or
the training to understand the information Einstein created. To me his
information has no meaning. To one with the proper intelligence and training,
the information Einstein gave us is full of meaning.
Therefore, the formation of codes to represent meaning
is an intellectual function. Natural chemical and physical processes do not
invent codes nor form abstract relationships. This in turn requires an
can design and build computers. It takes a living Creator God to design and
build a living cell.
The code used in a living cell is extremely
complicated. A person can easily access a discussion of the genetic code from a
source such as Wikipedia, and study the “triplet” coding used to associate a
sequence of nucleotides with a sequence of amino acids. However, that is only
the trivial part of the code. Embedded within the genetic information of a cell
are all kinds of control sequences that scientists are only just beginning to
If a person reads the science journals, he finds that
those scientists trying to give an evolutionary explanation for cellular
information and a translation system to use it have hit a “brick wall” head on.
They do not have the slightest clues about the origins of the genetic code or
the origins of the translation system needed to implement it. They still
haven’t deciphered the control mechanism embedded within the code. For instance, if you cut your finger, your
body will go through a healing process. That process is defined by various
sequences of nucleotides in your genes. What is the code that defines the
nucleotide sequence for this process? Which genes implement it? So far, no one
The translation system of a cell consists of the cellular components
used to extract information from DNA, feed it to a ribosome, and assemble amino
acids into enzymes. Wolf and Koonan made a concerted
effort to figure out how this might have happened through evolutionary
processes. This is their conclusion:
origin of the translation system is, arguably, the central and the hardest
problem in all evolutionary biology. The problem has a clear catch-
high translation fidelity hardly can be achieved without a complex, highly
evolved set of RNAs and proteins but an elaborate
protein machinery could not evolve without an accurate translation
system.” (Wolf W. and Koonin E. 2007,
fundamental problem we wish to address here: the origin of the translation
system and the genetic code. Indeed, the translation system might appear to be
the epitome of irreducible complexity because, although some elaborations of
this machinery could be readily explainable by incremental evolution, the
emergence of the basic principle of translation is not. Indeed, we are unaware
of translation being possible without the involvement of ribosomes, the
complete sets of tRNA and aminoacyl-
translation to occur at a reasonable rate and frequency) several translation
factors. In other words, staggering complexity is inherent even in the
minimally functional translation system…
“Even this does not do the full justice to
the difficulty of the problem. The origin of translation appears to be truly
unique among all innovations in the history of life in that it involves the
invention of a basic and highly non-
the encoding of amino acid sequences in the sequences of nucleic acid bases via
the triplet code [15,16]. This principle, although
simple and elegant once implemented, is not immediately dictated by any known
physics or chemistry (unlike, say, the Watson-
to be the utmost innovation of biological evolution (Wolf W. and Koonin E. 2007, p.2).
Wolf and Koonin can do is marvel at the wisdom shown in the elegance and
inherent simplicity of the genetic code and the hardware to read and use it. To
them it represents the utmost innovation of evolution. They certainly cannot
explain how natural processes could have produced it. Their observation that
there is no known physics or chemistry to produce the triplet code gives us yet
another Abiogenetic Disconnect.
I would disagree with them on one account.
There is something in a cell far more innovative than this. We have
already mentioned it: it is how a cell uses stored information to control when
the various cellular components get built, control how many of them are built,
and control how they are used. Coded control information is used to regulate
how a cell puts the pieces together and operates. The code defining how to do
this represents a level of innovation and complexity far beyond that of the simple
triplet code. Scientists have not even begun to figure out how natural
processes could invent and implement a code of this complexity.
The reason is simple: Coding is a product of intelligence, not physics.
Science reveals to us all manner of
difficulties that block a spontaneous, evolutionary origin of life. It does not
give us reasons for believing a natural origin is possible. After 60 years of
efforts, the findings of the modern field of abiogenesis are completely
consistent with creationism. Those who continue to believe chemical
evolution do so because of personal philosophical convictions, not because of
the testimony of science.
Since a living cell is an information-
the first appearance of the cell must have every single one of the following
cellular components working satisfactorily:
1. A medium capable of storing coded information.
2. A huge body of debugged coded information stored in
the cellular medium, requiring perhaps a minimum of 100,000 base
3. The entire translation system for extracting and
using the information. This includes messenger RNA, ribosomes, synthetases, transfer RNA, etc., all of
which need to appear in working
order in a single step.
4. An energy system such as ATP for supplying energy
components, including the translation system.
5. A fuel source to drive the energy system
(photosynthesis or the
means to use external sources of nutrients).
6. A waste removal system.
7. A cell membrane.
8. A cell replication System.
With the exception of replication, if any one of these
systems does not function properly, none of the others can either. Since
replication is needed to replace dying cells, all of the above components need
to appear together in working form from the beginning.
At a certain point we need to say enough is enough.
The use of information to control and build the components of a cell is
conclusive. It is impossible for natural processes to create living organisms
such as we see around us. Thus, life had to come from a source outside of
natural processes. The use of information points to an Intelligent
source. This in turn points directly to a Creator God as the source of life, a
God who is intelligent, has a will, and has the power to intervene into the
affairs of His creation to bring into existence in a single step the living
cells He designed.
Often an artist will sign his name on a painting to
show that he painted it. In the same way, the information stored in the DNA of
a living cell may be viewed as the signature of God showing that He is the one
who placed it there.
“He has made the earth by
His power, he has established the world by His wisdom, and has stretched out
the heavens at His discretion” (Jeremiah 10:12).
Entropy and Abiogenetic Disconnects
Abiogenetic Disconnects are a
manifestation of the principle of entropy. Entropy is the principle that random
changes to an organized system tend to destroy its order. By contrast, the steps of abiogenesis
contradict this; each step requires random changes to produce higher degrees of
organization. This should be a warning of potentially serious problems. The
warning becomes validated when a person looks at the details of various
experiments performed in abiogenesis over the years. They all reveal problems.
Analysis shows these problems are the direct result of entropy acting on the
processes. This means that the observed problems truly are problems; they are
not just the result of an improperly performed experiment.
If a gallon of hot water is mixed
with a gallon of ice water, the resultant temperature will be between the two
original temperatures. The molecules of the hot water have more energy than the
molecules of the cold water. This is an important concept: Separation of high
energy molecules from low energy molecules represents organization. However,
when the two gallons are mixed together, the temperature shifts to a point
between the two original temperatures. As the mixture reaches a uniform
temperature, the organization originally present disappears, as well as the
ability for the system to do useful work.
By contrast, the molecules in a bowl
of water at lukewarm temperature do not spontaneously organize themselves such
that ice forms at the bottom of the bowl and steam at the top. This would
represent spontaneously increased organization. Entropy illustrates an arrow of time. Random
changes tend to destroy existing order. They do not produce new levels of
organization. Time doesn’t go backwards.
The water in a bowl can be turned
into ice. However, this will require an external source of energy. Typically,
though, this energy will need to be applied by some sort of hardware apparatus,
such as a refrigerator. The kind of energy and its amount must match the
requirements of the hardware apparatus, such as 120 VAC for household
refrigerators. Setting off a bomb in a refrigerator supplies energy but does
not produce ice, it destroys the refrigerator.
In chapter 2 we saw how Miller’s
experiment works by randomly ripping apart and recombining the molecules in a
spark chamber. A complex mixture of chemicals is the natural result. For
Miller’s experiment to suddenly produce only amino acids and those in useful
ratios with each other would be an organizing process, similar to ice forming
spontaneously at the bottom of a bowl. Entropy prevents each from happening.
Entropy is an extremely broad
principle and applies to many domains unrelated to each other. Applied to heat
flow, it becomes the second law of thermodynamics. Applied to information
theory, random changes to a body of information, such as a computer
program or a genome, tend to destroy existing information, not create new
information. Concerning the arts, a mistake in a music performance rarely adds
to the performance, but distracts from it. One stroke by a monkey with a
paintbrush can ruin a Rembrandt painting.
Entropy can also be applied to
abiogenesis. There is no principle of science to constrain a process such as
Miller’s experiment to produce only that portion of its normal output which
would be suitable for abiogenesis. Entropy thus guarantees that the broad complex will be
produced.. Calling the behavior Abiogenetic Disconnects instead of
entropy merely indicates the domain in which entropy is operating—not heat, not
music, not art, etc.
There is another characteristic of
entropy. Sometimes, a random fluctuation can produce momentary order. However,
this order is only temporary. Eventually the order will be overwhelmed by the
sheer magnitude of the random events. For instance, if a person rolls a pair of
dice enough times, he will occasionally get double sixes (or any other number for that matter)
three times in a row. It is possible this could happen the first time he tries
it, which would give a false appearance of organization: double sixes would
appear to be preferred over other numbers. However, as the number of dice rolls
increases, entropy will cause the momentary appearance of organization to
disappear. Ultimately, the momentary appearance of order is overcome by the
overwhelming magnitude of the normal, random results. Eventually, a truly
random final assortment prevails. This is entropy in action.
Many abiogenists seem to assume that
if the elapsed time is long enough, these random fluctuations would be adequate
to allow life to accidentally appear. However, these assertions are only
rhetoric; they are not backed up with calculations. Creationists can show
calculations such as presented in Chapter 3 part 5. These calculations show
that a Googol years is not long enough for random
processes to produce a single typical enzyme. Dawkin’s
cumulative selection is the typical response to this problem. Yet, it is based
on faulty assumptions, ones that do not apply to real life. Thus, entropy truly
prevails as confirmed by experiment after experiment. *
Entropy not only shows itself in
of the way. It’s as though God has placed a series of barriers against a
natural origin, such that the first one should be fatal to the process. If it
is not, then a whole string of potentially fatal scenarios provide a series of
backups to insure ultimate failure. The use of coded symbolic information in
the last step insures that abiogenesis cannot occur.
Biologists seem not to understand entropy
very well. For instance, many biologists have a standard response to claims by
creationists that a natural appearance of life is contradicted by the principle
of entropy. They claim entropy only applies to a closed system. The sun adds
energy to a chemical reaction towards abiogenesis and this energy can drive a
system to the organization required for life.
They don’t seem to understand that
without the specialized hardware which is energized by the discrete units of
energy used by a living cell, useful products of life are not produced with the
purity needed, when needed, and where needed. Sunlight in a pre-
that is, one before the specialized enzymes used in a living cell have come
into existence, will essentially function as a variant of Miller’s experiment.
There is no scientific basis to expect success. Sunlight energy does not
automatically overcome entropy. A bomb does not turn a wagon into an
Prigogine won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1977. He demonstrated that in a
system far from equilibrium, self-
this would be the formation of an organized thunderstorm when a stable mass of
cold air collides with a stable mass of warm, moist air. Evolutionists like to
extrapolate this principle to the appearance of life. Simply supply an unstable
mix of raw chemicals and self-
useful for life and circumventing the normal restraints of entropy.
It does not take much insight to see
the fallacy of this argument. The appearance of a thunderstorm follows very
precise laws of physics. Its behavior is predictable within our limits to
measure initial conditions. Prigogine’s self-
Likewise, in a pre-
energy source such as a spark can make raw chemicals unstable. As a result they
thunderstorm follows established laws of physics, the products of a pre-
scenario such as Miller’s experiment will follow established laws of chemistry.
This is exactly what we observe in the table showing the results of Miller’s
experiment on page 13. The chemicals formed represent self-
there is nothing to constrain the products produced to be suitable for life,
suitable products do not appear. Self-
guidelines. The principle of entropy proves fatal to abiogenesis.
Chapter 6 Evolution After Chemical Evolution
It is generally accepted among
scientists dedicated to the study of abiogenesis that going from the simple
chemicals found on a planet without life to the complexities of a single living
cell is more difficult than going from a living cell to all of the varied forms
of life around us. For instance, Margulis (1996a) said, “To go from a bacterium
to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to that
From this perspective, the steps of
evolution proposed by Darwin in his The Origin of Species are the simple
ones. The hard steps are those of chemical evolution, of those to get to the
first cell. The thesis of this booklet has been that science itself teaches
that a living God is necessary for these, the hard steps. This raises a
significant question: If God is needed for the hard steps, why exclude Him from
the easy ones? If God created the first living cell fully formed and in a
sudden, single step, then why could He not have created higher forms of life in
a single step as well?
The Bible teaches that God created kinds,
not species. Species is a
the Bible. So, then, how much variation would be possible within a Biblical kind?
Fortunately, the Bible gives us a general basis for making a reasonable
estimate of the answer to this question. It is definitely not zero.
We read, “Then God said, ‘Let the
earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that
yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth,’ and
it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed
according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
So the evening and the morning were the third day” (Genesis 1:11-
The little phrase “whose seed is
within itself according to its kind” is the key to properly understanding what
God created. These nine words are unique to the Bible. To my knowledge, neither
they nor their equivalent are found in any other ancient document,
religious or secular. Yet, these words provide the key towards building a model
which is far superior to the modern evolutionary model for understanding the
characteristics of observed variation in plants and animals.
Seed is used in the Bible as the
means of reproduction. Angels do not reproduce and do not have seed. Stars do
not reproduce by means of seed. Plants do. Furthermore, seed is
“according to its kind.” Reproduction only takes place within a kind. Wheat
does not fertilize an
apricot tree. Grapes do not fertilize poison ivy. Furthermore, wheat and
apricot trees do not interbreed. Nor do grapes and poison ivy. Therefore, significantly, if two different types of plants can be
bred together and produce living offspring, then they initially came from the
entirely new perspective on taxonomy, which is the scientific classification of
the various forms exhibited by life on earth.
Next, we read the account of animal
creation in Genesis 1:25,
God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its
kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God
saw that it was good.”
The significance of this passage is
that God also made the animals in distinct groups according to various kinds
and a few verses later,
in Genesis 7:3, the Bible says that animals also have
We now have a model based on the
creation account of the Bible. In this model, God created various kinds of
plants and animals already fully formed. We have seen that science teaches us
that an initial fully-
was required for the first cell. The Bible merely extends this to include
Each kind was provided the innate
capacity to reproduce itself by means of seed. Reproduction only takes place
within a kind and not outside of it. Therefore, if two dogs can mate and
produce living offspring, then according to this model they came from the same
initial kind. If a dog and a wolf can mate and produce living offspring, then
they came from the same creation-
can reproduce with each other, they came from the same creation-
However, cats and dogs do not hybridize; they do not mate with each other and
produce living offspring.
This model allows for some
interesting studies. For instance, if one does an internet search on the
phrase, “cat hybrid,” he will find that a house cat can produce living
offspring by breeding with an ocelot. So, a house cat and an ocelot came from
the same creation-
puma, a puma and a leopard, and a leopard and a lion or tiger. Thus, all of
these cats came from the same creation-
unbroken succession of hybrids linking a house cat to an Asian tiger.
It appears that all of the modern
cats within the taxonomic classification Felidae, commonly called the cat
family, originated from a single creation-
looking carefully at what the Bible teaches and then applying it to a study of
the things we see around us, we gain a tremendous insight. The creation-
kinds were created with a huge potential variation. This is the exact opposite
of what Darwin believed. His theory of evolution was presented as a solution to
a problem which did not exist.
It would not be necessary for the
hybrid offspring to be still fertile today. The modern-
the parents from the original kind could be great enough to prevent their
having fertile offspring even though they can have living offspring with each
other. A horse and a donkey producing a sterile mule would be an example.
Cats represent one family within the
order Carnivora, the carnivores. Internet searches show that the pattern of
hybridization within the cat family also applies to dogs, bears, and
However, the pattern is not limited
to the Carnivora. It also applies to cattle and oxen. Another CSRQ article
indicates that an early broad study places many of the original kinds near the
family taxon (Wood TC. 2006). A yet different CSRQ article discusses how
there is extensive hybridization among snakes. (Hennigan,
We can speculate concerning a
plausible reason God created the initial kinds with such large potential
variation. Doing this has allowed their descendents to fill all kinds of
changing environmental niches without Him needing to create new forms for
There is a biological principle
called “adaptive radiation.” This is a standard biological term and frequently
observed in the fossil record. If an animal or plant is introduced into a new
ecological environment with a number of differing niches available, and if the
plant or animal is capable of filling those niches if it is modified a little
bit, then the original form will modify into specialists to fill the niches. It
is as though the original form “radiates” into different adaptations to meet
the needs of the niches. Thus, an early cat kind could radiate into house cats,
bobcats, ocelots, cougars, panthers, lions, tigers, cheetahs, etc.
If the information required for an
adaptation to take place is already present in the genes, then the radiation
can proceed quite
For instance, suppose that an original cat-
form all of the cats from house cats to Asian tigers as well as yet others
which are in the fossil record but now extinct. Further suppose that the
initial environment had the equivalent of today’s mice and zebras available as
food supplies. House cats do not kill and eat zebras. African lions do not
survive on mice they catch. Various alternatives of gene combinations would
give different characteristics to the offspring of the original cat kind. Some
of the offspring could be small and become mouse predators. Others could become
large and relish zebras.
It is conceivable that perhaps only
50 generations would be sufficient to establish the major divisions in the cat
family, perhaps at the genus level. This would only require fifty years of
elapsed time at one generation per year. Then, over the course of time yet more
specialization would eventually produce the species we see around us today. So,
if the information for adaption is already in the genes, the adaption can take
place quickly, perhaps in only a few decades.
The traditional, historical
taxonomical system of classification is based on the following categories, with
representative examples leading towards lions and tigers:
1. Kingdom. (Animals.
2. Phylum. (Chordates.
3. Class. (Mammals.
Fish. Amphibians. Reptiles. Birds).
4. Order. (Carnivores.
Primates. Bats. Rodents).
5. Family. (Cats. Dogs. Hyenas. Bears.
6. Genus. (Roaring cats.
7. Species. (Tigers, Lions. Panthers. Leopards).
It appears that according to this
system of classification, in many cases the original kinds would have been at
the level of the family. In such a case, classifications higher than the
family, i.e., those between Order and Kingdom, would
simply represent a convenient way to organize the original kinds into
hierarchical groups having similar design features. The distribution of these
characteristics would have been made according to the personal preferences and
whims of the Designer. However, nothing
in the Bible requires an initial Biblical kind to be the exact equivalent of a
taxonomical family, even though it appears this might be the case much of the
time. Some of the original kinds might have actually been closer to the
taxonomic level of a genus (such as cattle) or an order (whales). See article
The Flood of Noah
According to the Bible in Genesis
disobeyed a simple command not to eat the fruit of a certain tree. In
consequence to that disobedience, Adam died spiritually immediately, as shown by
his running from God. We, his descendants, are still trying to avoid Him. Adam
also eventually died physically, even as now we also all die physically. Men
know of God, but want to be their own God (humanism dates back to the days of
Adam). The entire universe is corrupted and under a curse. As a consequence to
this disobedience, the entire human race has inherited an overpowering desire
for sin. In the early days of man’s history, personal rejection of God and his
standards led to a world full of violence, similar to what we see happening
today. Eventually, God decided to destroy the entire world that existed at the
time by a world-
the fossils we see today, with a few minor exceptions. The flood took place
about 2,000 years after the days of creation and a little over 4,000 before the
People today have become so steeped
in evolutionary theory that the above account seems ludicrous. It is difficult
for many to understand how anyone could believe it. Yet, God tells us in the
Bible that we should expect this reaction. In the opening verses of 2 Peter 3,
we read that the days will come when scoffers will reject the Biblical teaching
about the authority of Jesus Christ and a coming time when He will return to
rule over the world. The basis for their rejection will be what today we call
“uniformitarianism,” which provides the philosophical foundation of
evolutionary theory. However, the scoffers will actually be willfully
ignorant that earlier in man’s history God judged with a flood of water
those that rejected Him. The flood is intended to be a warning that God does
judge and that modern sins will bring a new judgment, although the coming
judgment will be with fire and not water.
The significance is that God is
indirectly telling us to expect that there will be abundant evidence of the
earlier worldwide judgment by water. However, people will willfully scoff
at the evidence because they do not want it to be true. So, we should not be surprised
at the hostility of modern man against the notion of a recent world-
Man will do everything in his power to cover the evidence. He will twist and distort the evidence and
deliberately draw false conclusions from it. His main weapons will be slander
The mocker should be aware that God
knows of this coming rejection of the message and told us to expect it. Hence,
the God of creation, i.e., the God who invented the laws of science, who
created matter and energy out of His own innate power, and who designed the
intricacies of living organisms and made the life forms we see around us, is
not impressed with the modern evolution-
sufficient evidence to confirm the truth of His message. We need to be very
careful at placing our wisdom above His.
Let’s suppose that the Biblical account of the flood
is true. What would we expect the fossil record to be like?
First of all, it should be noted
that until very recently, geologists taught that fossils were formed by burial
in lakes, with sediments deposited at
the rate of about one layer per year or at most only a few. Now it is
recognized that this is false. Fossils do not form in lakes today—scavengers
and decay destroy the material faster than sedimentation can take place.
Instead, fossils require rapid burial by several feet of mud. This typically
happens only in moving water. This most often happens during a flood, although
a mudslide or a tsunami can provide local, small scale fossilization.
Just how big a flood would be
required? Fossils can be distributed throughout a large formation extending
over hundreds of thousands of square miles. There are no floods of this size
today; but such would be consistent with the scope of the Biblical world-
Recent studies have shown that
moving waters in a major flood can deposit thousands of layers many feet thick
in only a few hours. For instance, at a
particular location near the Mt. St. Helens volcano eruption site in 1980, 25
feet of thin-
12, 1980 (Austin, S. 1986). Yet, this was nowhere near the scope of what could
take place in a world-
As a starting point of analysis,
since mud deposits from floods typically form stratified layers, according to
the Biblical flood model, we should expect to find stratified rock throughout
the world. This is the case.
The flood took place several thousands years after the days of creation spoken of in
Genesis 1 in the Bible. This would have given ample time for the initial kinds
to have radiated into various specialists as they adapted to various
environmental niches. However, the specialists would have been much more
similar to each other than to unrelated kinds. Typically, the initial kinds
would have been capable of a wide range of characteristics for a large number
of features. Each specialist would represent a certain assortment of the possible
characteristics. Assuming that many of these characteristics were distributed
independently of each other, then a diagram of their relationship to each other
would look like a bush, not a tree. This is exactly what is observed in the
The flood took place in under a
year. This is not sufficient time for any observable evolution to take place.
Thus, various species (specialists) would be identifiable in the record, but
would be static in their characteristics. There would be gaps between the
species; i.e. in general there would be no strings of fossils showing one
species evolving into another one. However, even today a single species can
appear to get larger as it is located farther north; apparently larger size
helps protect against cold. The fossil record could show various grades of
characteristics between organisms living at the same time under slightly
different ecological conditions. These could give a false appearance of
evolution within the fossil record. Since the record would be a snapshot, the
appearance would not represent true evolution of one form into another.
The fossil record would also show
gaps between the kinds. This is obvious, since links between kinds
would never have existed. So, for example, there would be no fossil trail
between fishes and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, and between
reptiles and birds or mammals. By contrast Darwin expected that most of the
fossils would appear as what we consider “transitional forms.” Yet, these are
not found in the record. Many times evolution is pictured as a tree, with
initial forms at the bottom and evolutionary changes being represented by the
trunks and the limbs until we finally today would have the modern species being
at the tips of the branches. Darwin was concerned because according to his
theory, most of the fossils should have been along the trunks and branches.
Instead, they are all at the tips. The connections characterized by his theory
do not exist in the record.
So, what do we find when we examine
the fossil record? We find that it matches the above characteristics: species
are static, they don’t evolve within the record. Gaps
exist between species at all levels. There are no fossils showing the path to a
new, distinct family from a supposed lower level ancestor. Fossils reputedly
linking different families are rare and typically controversial in
With this in mind, here is an
interesting quote from a book on evolution: "The evolutionary origins of
taxa in the higher categories are poorly known.... Most order, classes, and
phyla appear abruptly and commonly have already acquired all other characters
that distinguish them.... We are forced to the conclusion that most of the
really novel taxa that appear suddenly in the fossil record did in fact
originate suddenly. (Ayala, F et al. 1979, pp. 266-
Ayala et al observed that
they do not know how to connect between taxonomic groups at the order and
higher levels. They do not know this because the fossil record consistently
misses all of the expected links required to make the connections. Instead,
they have been forced to acknowledge that the levels that appeared suddenly in
the fossil record (i.e. typically family) truly did originate suddenly. This is
significant: the missing links are listed as the levels above the family, i.e.,
the “order, classes, and phyla.” This is precisely what would be expected from
the Biblical model we just developed.
At this point I would like to make a
number of additional quotes from the scientific literature. They also show how
the fossil record agrees with the predictions of the Biblical flood model.
Derek Ager was president of the
British Geological Association. He wrote, “It must be significant that nearly
all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student...have now been debunked” Ager, D. 1976.
University of Chicago paleontologist and Curator of Geology at the Field Museum
of Chicago. He wrote,
“Instead of finding the gradual
unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the
present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species
appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their
existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. It is not always
clear, in fact it’s rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better
adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological
improvement is hard to find” (Raup, D. 1979). (Emphasis was added.) Comment: this sounds
like the Biblical model of created kinds. Specialists within a kind represent
adaptations to niches, not evolutionary improvement.
George Gaylord Simpson (1902-
called “the greatest paleontologist of the twentieth century” (Wikipedia). He
wrote, “The facts are that many species and genera, indeed the majority, do
appear suddenly in the record, differing sharply and in many ways from any
earlier group, and that this appearance of discontinuity becomes more common
the higher the level, until it is virtually universal as regards order and all
higher steps in the taxonomic hierarchy (Simspon G.
1984. p.99).” Comment: This is amazing. The phrase
“order and all higher steps” (see page 44) means the gaps between the
families are virtually universal. This is consistent with the Biblical model of
God directly creating kinds, most of which were at the
family level. The order is the
next higher level.
Richard Dawkins wrote in The
Cambrian rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest in which we
find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in
an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as
though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless
to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists” (Dawkins
R. 1987. p. 229).
Comment: Dawkins has devoted his
life to fighting creationist arguments. There is very little he says that I
agree with (see the bottom of page 30).
However, this time he has hit the nail on the head. There is a reason
the initial appearance of all of the major groups appear about the same time
(in the Cambrian) and as if they “were just planted there.” They were.
was a paleontology professor at Uppsala University in Sweden. In an article
presented in Nature, perhaps the world’s most prestigious science
journal, Bengtsson wrote, “The animal phyla emerged
out of the Precambrian mists with most of the attributes of their modern
S. 1990). Comment: This sounds like the Biblical model with created kinds. The
information for all of the potential features was available from the beginning.
It became evident as the niches were filled.
Stephen Jay Gould
Stephen Jay Gould (1941-
renowned paleontologist at Harvard University and an outspoken evolutionist and
which was an attempt to reconcile the observations of the fossil record with
evolutionary theory. Basically, his position was that evolutionary changes took
place so rapidly that the fossil record wasn’t able to detect them. Then, once
something appeared, it would remain stable until it disappeared. He was
unconcerned about the incompatibilities of his theory with genetics; that
wasn’t his field. He decreed that reconciliation was the geneticist’s problem, he simply stated what the fossil record taught.
Below are some quotes by him.
Gould (1977) said: “The extreme
rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The
evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and
nodes of the branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the
evidence of fossils.
“...Stasis. Most species exhibit no
directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil
record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is
usually limited and directionless.
“...All paleontologists know that
the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms;
transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.”
Gould (1980) said: “The absence of
fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic
design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional
intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” Comment: Have you ever noticed how vague the
discussion becomes about any proposed evolutionary paths between amphibians,
reptiles, mammals, and birds? The reason is simple. There is not enough fossil
evidence even to imagine the steps to fill in the blanks. This is saying a lot
when one considers that a paleontologist can take a single tooth of a
prehistoric man and make a drawing or statue showing the shape of his feet, his
hip bone structure, the length of his arms, how hairy he is, how sloped his
forehead is, and a whole list of other features—all from a tooth.
Gould (1987) said, “But evolution is
a copiously branching bush, not a ladder.” Comment: this fits the Biblical
model. The species in existence at the time of the flood would have been
specialists which radiated from the original kinds. The original kinds would
have had many different characteristics independently capable of wide
variations. The various species would have various assortments of the form
these characteristics took, hence the appearance of a bush.
(1987) said, “Students of evolutionary history have observed repeatedly that in
an adaptive radiation, the major subgroups appear early and at about the same
time.” Comment: a rapid, simultaneous
radiation fits the Biblical model, one in which the genetic information for the
adaptation already exists. By contrast, the acquisition of new information is a
slow process whose rate of appearance cannot be predicted, or worse yet, based
on what we understand about the biochemical issues in creating new information,
could never be expected to take place even within a long time, let alone
rapidly. Systematic, simultaneous filling of niches seems consistent with the
Biblical model and inconsistent with our understanding of genetics and the
evolutionary, uniformitarian model.