The Evolution Deceit
DNA Confessions From Evolutionists
The question of how such an extraordinarily designed molecule as DNA originated is one of the thousands of impasses evolutionists reach. Seeking to explain life by means of "coincidence," the theory of evolution can never explain the source of the extraordinary information so perfectly and meticulously encoded in DNA.
Moreover, the question is not only that of how the DNA chain originated. That is because, as we have already seen, although the DNA chain exists with its extraordinary information capacity, it serves no purpose on its own. In order to refer to life, it is essential that the enzymes that read this DNA chain, copy them and produce proteins, should also exist.
Simply put, in order to talk of life, both the data bank we call DNA, and the machines to carry out production by reading the data in the bank have to co-exist.
To our surprise, enzymes, which read DNA and carry out production accordingly, are themselves produced according to the codes in DNA. This means that there is a factory in the cell that both makes many different types of products, and also manufactures the robots and machines that carry out this production. The question of how this system, which would be of no use with a minor defect in any of its mechanisms originated, is by itself enough to demolish the theory of evolution.
Evolutionist Douglas R. Hofstadter of Indiana University, states his despair in the face of this question:
Another evolutionist authority, world renowned molecular biologist Leslie Orgel, is more outspoken on the subject:
Prof. Micheal Denton
Saying "life could never have originated by chemical means" is the equivalent of saying that "life could never have originated by itself." Recognition of the truth of this statement results in the realization that life is created in a conscious way. For ideological reasons, evolutionists, however, do not accept this fact, clear evidence of which is before their eyes. To avoid accepting the existence of God, they believe in nonsensical scenarios, despite their evident impossibility.
Another evolutionist, Caryl P. Haskins, states how the DNA code could not have emerged by chance, and that this fact is strong evidence for creation:
In his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, writing of the invalidity of the theory of evolution, renowned molecular biologist Prof. Michael Denton explains the unreasonable conviction of Darwinists:
Indeed, Darwinism is nothing but a totally unreasonable, superstitious belief. Anyone with any reason would see the evidence for that great fact by looking at DNA, or any other part of the universe. Human beings and all living things are created by God, the Almighty, who is the Lord of all the worlds.
Another Example of Evolutionists' Helplessness: The "RNA World" Scenario
Ever since the start of the 20th century, evolutionists have developed various theories to explain how the first living cell emerged. The Russian biologist Alexander Oparin, who proposed the first evolutionary thesis on the subject, suggested that in the primitive world of hundreds of millions of years ago, a series of coincidental chemical reactions led to first of all proteins, and that cells were then born when these came together. Discoveries made in the 1970s showed that even the most fundamental assumptions of this claim, which Oparin made in the 1930s, were mistaken. Oparin's "primitive world atmosphere" scenario contained the gases methane and ammonia to allow the formation of organic molecules. However, it was realized that the hypothesis of an early methane-ammonia atmosphere is without solid foundation and indeed is contradicted, and that the early atmopherecontained a large amount of oxygen which destroys organic molecules as they form.
1) A mRNA copy is made of the information in the DNA ---- 2) Ribosome gets prepared for protein synthesis.--- 3) mRNA goes to the cytoplasm, that is, to the ribosomes. ---- 4) Transfer RNAs move freely in the cytoplasm ---- 5) mRNA settles in the protein synthesis site of ribosomes.---- 6) In the ribosomes, messenger RNA and transfer RNA interact with each other and bind. Amino acids that are properly positioned are joined by peptide bonds in the correct sequence to form proteins. ---- 7)Transfer RNA collects the amino acids in the cytoplasm and transfers them to the ribosome.
When the need is felt for a protein in a cell, a signal is sent to the DNA molecule. The DNA molecule receiving the signal understands which protein is needed. Then the DNA makes an RNA copy carrying specific information for making a protein, which is called messenger RNA. After receiving the information, mRNA leaves the nucleus and heads straight for the ribosomes, the protein production factory. At the same time, another RNA copied from the DNA, called transfer RNA, carries the amino acids for the proteins to the ribosomes. Each tRNA is an "adapter" molecule that can link with a specific amino acid. The tRNA which carries the amino acid sequence information of the protein to be formed settles in the production site of the ribosome. The amino acids brought by the tRNA take their places according to the sequence notified by the messenger RNA. Then another RNA molecule copied from DNA, called ribosomal RNA, enables the messenger and transfer RNAs to join together. Amino acids brought in by the transfer RNAs develop peptide bonds to form protein chains. The messenger RNAs leave the ribosome having deposited their loads. The protein that is produced then proceeds to where it will be used.
This was a big blow to the theory of molecular evolution. Evolutionists then had to face the fact that the "primitive atmosphere experiments" by Stanley Miller, Sidney Fox and Cyril Ponnamperuma and others were invalid. For this reason, in the 1980s evolutionists tried again. As a result, "RNA World" hypothesis was advanced. This scenario proposed that, not proteins, but rather the RNA molecules that contained the information for proteins were formed first. According to this scenario advanced by Harvard chemist Walter Gilbert in 1986, billions of years ago an RNA molecule capable of replicating itself, formed somehow by accident. Then this RNA molecule started to produce proteins, having been activated by external influences. Thereafter, it became necessary to store this information in a second molecule, and somehow the DNA molecule emerged to do that.
The above picture shows protein chains produced in the ribosome.
Made up of a chain of impossibilities in each and every stage, this scarcely credible scenario, far from providing any explanation of the origin of life, only magnified the problem and raised many unanswerable questions:
1. Since it is impossible to explain the coincidental formation of even one of the nucleotides making up RNA, how can it be possible for these imaginary nucleotides to form RNA by coming together in a particular sequence? Evolutionist John Horgan admits the impossibility of the chance formation of RNA:
As researchers continue to examine the RNA-world concept closely, more problems emerge. How did RNA initially arise? RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize in a laboratory under the best of conditions, much less under really plausible ones.11
2. Even if we suppose that it formed by chance, how could this RNA consisting of just a nucleotide chain have "decided" to self-replicate and with what kind of a mechanism could it have carried out this self-replicating process? Where did it find the nucleotides it used while self-replicating? Even evolutionist microbiologists Gerald Joyce and Leslie Orgel express the desperateness of the situation in their book titled In the RNA World:
This discussion... has, in a sense, focused on a straw man: the myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it would strain the credulity of even an optimist's view of RNA's catalytic potential.12
When the Urey-Miller experiment was invalidated, evolutionists had to embark on a new search.
3. Even if we suppose that there was self-replicating RNA in the primordial world, that numerous amino acids of every type ready to be used by RNA were available and that all of these impossibilities somehow took place, the situation still does not lead to the formation of even one single protein. For RNA only includes information concerning the structure of proteins. Amino acids, on the other hand, are raw materials. Nevertheless, there is no mechanism for the production of proteins. To consider the existence of RNA sufficient for protein production is as nonsensical as expecting a car to assemble itself by simply throwing the blueprint onto a heap of parts piled on top of each other. A blueprint cannot produce a car all by itself without a factory and workers to assemble the parts according to the instructions contained in the blueprint;in the same way, the blueprint contained in RNAcannot produce proteins by itself without the cooperation of other cellular components which follow the instructions in the RNA.
Proteins are produced in the ribosome factory with the help of many enzymes, and as a result of extremely complex processes within the cell. The ribosome is a complex cell organelle made up of proteins. This leads, therefore, to another unreasonable supposition-that ribosomes, too, should have come into existence by chance at the same time. Even Nobel Prize winner Jacques Monod, who was one of the most fanatical defenders of evolution, explained that protein synthesis can by no means be considered to depend merely on the information in the nucleic acids:
Dr. Leslie Orgel
How could an RNA chain in the primordial world have taken such a decision, and what methods could it have employed to make protein production happen by doing the work of 50 macromolecular components on its own? Evolutionists have no answer to these questions.
Dr. Leslie Orgel, one of the associates of Stanley Miller and Francis Crick from the University of California at San Diego, uses the term "scenario" for the possibility of "the origination of life through the RNA world." Orgel described what kind of features this RNA would have had to have and how impossible these would have been in his article, "The Origin of Life," published in American Scientist in October 1994:
As should by now be clear, to expect these two complex and extremely essential processes from a molecule such as RNA is only possible from the evolutionist's viewpoint and with the help of his power of imagination. Concrete scientific facts, on the other hand, make it explicit that the "RNA World" hypothesis, which is a new model proposed for the chance formation of life, is an equally implausible fable.
Life Cannot Be Explained by the Coming Together of Lifeless Molecules
Let us forget all the impossibilities for a moment and suppose that a protein molecule was formed in the most inappropriate, most uncontrolled environment such as the primordial earth conditions.
The formation of only one protein would not be sufficient; this protein would have to wait patiently in this uncontrolled environment without sustaining any damage, until another molecule was formed beside it by chance under the same conditions. It would have to wait until millions of correct and essential proteins were formed side by side in the same setting all "by chance." Those that formed earlier had to be patient enough to wait, without being destroyed despite ultraviolet rays and harsh mechanical effects, for the others to be formed right next to them. Then these proteins in adequate number, which all originated at the very same spot, would have to come together by making meaningful combinations and form the organelles of the cell. No extraneous material, harmful molecule, or useless protein chain would have to interfere with them. Then, even if these organelles were to come together in an extremely harmonious and co-operative way with a plan and order, they should have to bring all the necessary enzymes close to themselves and become covered with a membrane, the inside of which would have to be filled with a special liquid to prepare the ideal environment for them. Now even if all these "highly unlikely" events actually occurred by chance, would this molecular heap come to life?
Prof. Chandra Wickramasinghe
The answer is "No," because research has revealed that the mere combination of all the materials essential for life is not enough for life to get started. Even if all the essential proteins for life were collected and put in a test tube, these efforts would not result in producing a living cell. All the experiments conducted on this subject have proved to be unsuccessful. All observations and experiments indicate that life can originate only from life. The assertion that life evolved from non-living things, in other words, "abiogenesis," is a tale existing only in the dreams of the evolutionists and completely at variance with the results of every experiment and observation.
In this respect, the first life on earth must also have originated from other life. This is a reflection of God's epithet of "Hayy" (The Alive, The Ever-Living).
Life can only start, continue, and end by His will. As for evolution, not only is it unable to explain how life began, it is also unable to explain how the materials essential for life have formed and come together.
Chandra Wickramasinghe of Cardiff University describes the reality he faced as a scientist who had been told throughout his life that life had emerged as a result of chance coincidences:
The second law of thermo- dynamics
The second law of thermo- dynamics, which is accepted as one of the basic laws of physics, holds that under normal conditions all systems left on their own will tend to become disordered, dispersed, and corrupted in direct relation to the amount of time that passes. Everything, whether living or not, wears out, deteriorates, decays, disintegrates, and is destroyed. This is the absolute end that all beings will face one way or another, and according to the law, the process cannot be avoided.
This is something that all of us have observed. For example if you take a car to a desert and leave it there, you would hardly expect to find it in a better condition when you came back years later. On the contrary, you would see that its tyres had gone flat, its windows had been broken, its chassis had rusted, and its engine had stopped working. The same inevitable process holds true for living things.
The second law of thermodynamics is the means by which this natural process is defined, with physical equations and calculations.
This famous law of physics is also known as "the law of entropy." In physics, entropy is the measure of the disorder of a system. A system's entropy increases as it moves towards from an ordered, organised, and planned state towards a more disordered, dispersed, and unplanned one. The more disorder there is in a system, the higher its entropy is. The law of entropy holds that the entire universe is unavoidably proceeding towards a more disordered, unplanned, and disorganised state.
If you leave a bus unattended in the desert it will gradually fall apart and lose all its features. The next time you look, you see the tyres have burst, the windows have broken, the bodywork is rusted and the engine has failed. This inevitable process happens even faster in living things. In the same manner, all systems in the universe fall apart without conscious intervention.
Evolutionary theory ignores this fundamental law of physics. The mechanism offered by evolution totally contradicts the second law. The theory of evolution says that disordered, dispersed, and lifeless atoms and molecules spontaneously came together over time, in a particular order, to form extremely complex molecules such as proteins, DNA, and RNA, whereupon millions of different living species with even more complex structures gradually emerged. According to the theory of evolution, this supposed process-which yields a more planned, more ordered, more complex and more organised structure at each stage-was formed all by itself under natural conditions. The law of entropy makes it clear that this so-called natural process utterly contradicts the laws of physics.
Evolutionist scientists are also aware of this fact. J.H. Rush states:
The evolutionist author Roger Lewin expresses the thermodynamic impasse of evolution in an article in Science:
Another defender of the theory of evolution, George Stravropoulos, states the thermodynamic impossibility of the spontaneous formation of life and the impossibility of explaining the existence of complex living mechanisms by natural laws in the well-known evolutionist journal American Scientist:
As we have seen, the second law of thermodynamics constitutes an insurmountable obstacle for the scenario of evolution, in terms of both science and logic. Unable to offer any scientific and consistent explanation to overcome this obstacle, evolutionists can only do so in their imagination. For instance, the well-known evolutionist Jeremy Rifkin notes his belief that evolution overwhelms this law of physics with a "magical power:"
These words well indicate that evolution is a dogmatic belief rather than a scientific thesis.The Myth of the "Open System"
Confronted by all these truths, evolutionists have had to take refuge in a mangling of the second law of thermodynamics, saying that it holds true only for "closed systems," and that "open systems" are beyond the scope of this law.
An "open system" is a thermodynamic system in which energy and matter flow in and out. Evolutionists hold that the world is an open system: that it is constantly exposed to an energy flow from the sun, that the law of entropy does not apply to the world as a whole, and that ordered, complex living beings can be generated from disordered, simple, and inanimate structures.
However, there is an obvious distortion here. The fact that a system has an energy inflow is not enough to make that system ordered. Specific mechanisms are needed to make the energy functional. For instance, a car needs an engine, a transmission system, and related control mechanisms to convert the energy in petrol to work. Without such an energy conversion system, the car will not be able to use the energy in petrol.
The same thing applies in the case of life as well. It is true that life derives its energy from the sun. However, solar energy can only be converted into chemical energy by the incredibly complex energy conversion systems in living things (such as photosynthesis in plants and the digestive systems of humans and animals). No living thing can live without such energy conversion systems. Without an energy conversion system, the sun is nothing but a source of destructive energy that burns, parches, or melts.
As can be seen, a thermodynamic system without an energy conversion mechanism of some sort is not advantageous for evolution, be it open or closed. No one asserts that such complex and conscious mechanisms could have existed in nature under the conditions of the primeval earth. Indeed, the real problem confronting evolutionists is the question of how complex energy-converting mechanisms, such as photosynthesis in plants, which cannot be duplicated even with modern technology, could have come into being on their own.
The influx of solar energy into the world would be unable to bring about order on its own. Moreover, no matter how high the temperature may become, amino acids resist forming bonds in ordered sequences. Energy by itself is incapable of making amino acids form the much more complex molecules of proteins, or of making proteins form the much more complex and organised structures of cell organelles. The real and essential source of this organisation at all levels is conscious design: in a word, creation.The "Chaos Theory" Evasion
Quite aware that the second law of thermodynamics renders evolution impossible, some evolutionist scientists have made speculative attempts to square the circle between the two, in order to be able to claim that evolution is possible. As usual, even those endeavours show that the theory of evolution faces an inescapable impasse.
One person distinguished by his efforts to marry thermodynamics and evolution is the Belgian scientist Ilya Prigogine.
Starting out from chaos theory, Prigogine proposed a number of hypotheses in which order forms from chaos (disorder). However, despite all his best efforts, he was unable to reconcile thermodynamics and evolution. This is clearly seen in what he says:
Prigogine, who knows quite well that theories at the molecular level are not applicable to living systems, such as a living cell, stresses this problem:
This is the point most recently arrived at by the chaos theory and related speculations. No concrete outcome has been attained that would support or verify evolution, or eliminate the contradiction between evolution, law of entropy, and other physical laws.
Despite all these evident facts, evolutionists try to take refuge in simple subterfuges. Plain scientific truths show that living things and the ordered, planned, and complex structures of living things could in no way have come into being by coincidence under normal circumstances. This situation makes it clear that the existence of living beings can only be explained by the intervention of a supernatural power. That supernatural power is the creation of God, who created the entire universe from nothing. Science has proven that evolution is still impossible as far as thermodynamics is concerned and the existence of life has no explanation but Creation.
1 Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: A New World View, New York, Viking Press, 1980, p.6
2 J.H.Rush, The Dawn of Life, New York, Signet, 1962, p. 35
3 Roger Lewin, "A Downward Slope to Greater Diversity," Science, vol. 217, 24.9.1982, p. 1239
4 George P. Stravropoulos, "The Frontiers and Limits of Science," American Scientist, vol. 65, November-December 1977, p.674
5 Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: A New World View, p.55
6 Ilya Prigogine, Isabelle Stengers, Order Out of Chaos, New York, Bantam Books, 1984, p. 129
7. Ilya Prigogine, Isabelle Stengers, Order Out of Chaos, p. 175
7 Douglas R. Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, New York: Vintage Books, 1980, p. 548
8 Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on Earth," Scientific American, Vol.271, October 1994, p. 78
9 Haskins, Caryl P., "Advances and Challenges in Science in 1970," American Scientist, vol.59 (May/June 1971), p.305)
10 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, London: Burnett Books, 1985, p. 351
11 John Horgan, "In the Beginning," Scientific American, Vol. 264, February 1991, p. 119
12 G.F. Joyce, L. E. Orgel, "Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World," In the RNA World, New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 1993, p. 13
13 Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity, New York: 1971, p.143
14 Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on the Earth," Scientific American, October 1994, Cilt 271, p. 78
15 Chandra Wickramasinghe, Interview in London Daily Express, 14 August 198