Evolution Impossible (6 page)

Evolution, however, requires not only the equivalent of a dead organism being made alive, but that the organism and its complex components and information systems must form in the first place by random processes. Then it must quickly be made alive before it has a chance to decompose or be damaged by other chemicals.

Thus, the proponents of chemical evolution have to show that under the conditions that supposedly existed in a hypothetical primordial earth:

1. biomonomers (basic building block molecules) could form
   
2. biopolymers could form from these biomonomers
   
3. connected metabolic pathways could form
   
4. a live cell forms where chemical reactions are taking place in steady state ( i.e., perfectly balanced) nonequilibrium
   

To date, scientists have been able to replicate in the laboratory most of the reactions required for step 1. However, scientists have run into major problems trying to perform step 2. Small biopolymers only a fraction of the size required have been produced under ideal conditions using chemically reactive versions of nucleotides. These small, random molecules are a long, long way from the giant information encoded molecules required for life.
¹²

The genetic information problem also has not been addressed in these experiments. Step 2 requires not only formation of biopolymers but also information to be encoded into these molecules to prepare for step 3. The evolutionary model requires this encoded information to occur as a result of nondirected random processes.

The probability of proteins or gene sequences arising with specific encoded information can be calculated using mathematics. However, for these calculations to be meaningful, we have to know how improbable an event has to be before we can say it is absolutely impossible. This question has been formerly answered by William A. Dembski, a University of Chicago–trained mathematician who authored
The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities
. Dembski has shown mathematically that chance can be eliminated as a plausible explanation for a specified system when it exceeds the available probabilistic resources.
¹³
For the known universe, this is calculated to be one chance in ten to the power 150, i.e., 10
¹⁵⁰
. The latter number is a 1 followed by 150 zeros. (Note 1 billion is 10
⁹
, i.e., 1 followed by 9 zeros or 1,000,000,000.)

We now have a reference point. If we calculate the self-forming probability of a specific protein amino acid sequence or a specific base sequence in a gene or some other component of a cell, and the probability is l chance in a number where the power of ten is larger than 150, then we can say that particular specific protein could not arise by chance.

For example, consider the probability of a short, specifically coded protein molecule 100 amino acids in length arising by chance from its amino acid building blocks. To make the protein chain, all the amino acids must form a specific type of chemical bond known as a peptide bond with each other. However, other non-peptide bonds are possible and occur with approximately equal probability. This means that at any given site along the growing chain, the probability of having a peptide bond is one in two or ½. Therefore, the probability of having four peptide bonds in a four-link chain is ½ x ½ x ½ x ½ = (½)
⁴
= 1/16 or 1 chance in 16. The probability of building a 100 amino acid chain with only peptide bonds is (½)
⁹⁹
, which calculates to be around 1 chance in 10
³⁰
.

In nature, almost all the amino acids found in proteins can come in two forms where one form is the mirror image of the other, just like the left hand is the mirror image of the right hand. Both forms occur at roughly equal frequency. The functional proteins in a cell require all left-hand forms (L-) with no right-hand forms. Since our chance of getting a left-hand amino acid is one in two, the chance of getting a 100 amino acid protein chain with all left-hand amino acids is (½)
¹⁰⁰
, which calculates to a similar figure as before, that is, around one chance in 10
³⁰
. So the chance of getting 100 L-amino acids forming a chain with only peptide bonds is now roughly one chance in 10
⁶⁰
attempts.

However, we have not dealt with the information requirement. To carry meaningful information, the amino acids have to occur in a specific sequence, just like letters in the alphabet must be arranged in a certain sequence. For example, consider the sentence “a stich in time saves nine” but without spaces: “astichintimesavesnine.”

In this message there are 21 places for a letter. There are 10 possible different letters, which means the chance of getting the right letter in the right place is 1 chance in 10 attempts. If we were to give a one-year-old infant a random pile of 210 of these letters, that is, 21 of each letter, and get the child to put 21 letters in a row, the chance that the letters would spell the above sentence is only likely to occur once in 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 attempts — that is 1 chance in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or10
²¹
.

Just changing one letter renders the message unreadable unless we make an “intelligent” guess, for example, “hstichintimesavesnine,” and random arrangements are meaningless: “meivnahscitsteaineisn.”

There are 20 different amino acids involved in biological systems that might be considered as the letters used to write a biological message. Unless the amino acids are in the right sequence, the code will not work to carry information in a cell. The probability of getting the right amino acid in the right site is 1 chance out of 20 possibilities. Therefore, the probability of forming a particular protein 100 amino acids long by chance would be (1/20)
¹⁰⁰
, which is around 1 chance in 10
¹³⁰
. But these amino acids all need to be the L-form, and they all need to be linked by only peptide bonds. So the chance of all these conditions being met is 1 chance in 10
¹³⁰
x 10
³⁰
x 10
³⁰
, that is, 10
¹⁹⁰
. This number is very much greater than 10
¹⁵⁰
, which defined the limit up to which this event is likely to occur somewhere in the universe during the lifetime of the universe.

The calculation above does not take into account that there are other possible valid sequences that could contain information. Nor does it take into account the fact there are many non-protein–forming amino acids in nature that make the chances of the right protein forming even less likely. The above calculation is based on a relatively short protein. A typical biological protein consists of about 300 amino acid units, and some are much longer. Biochemists at Cambridge University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology have published more detailed calculations of the probability of a functional sequence of amino acids arising by chance, and have come up with probabilities equivalent to finding a particular single atom in the universe!
¹⁴

Also, we have not attempted to calculate the probability of a gene that can comprise thousands to millions of nucleobases encoded with information, forming by chance. From studies of single-celled organisms, scientists have estimated that the simplest possible living organism would require a genome containing a minimum of 250 to 400 genes.
¹⁵
Thus, the improbability of life occurring in the simplest cells with the corresponding molecular complexity vastly exceeds 1 chance in 10150. In other words, abiogenesis is absolutely impossible.
¹⁶
That is, a living organism cannot arise by chance from nonliving matter.

When the evolution literature is examined closely, we find that there is still no known mechanical or naturalistic explanation as to how life started. The proponents of chemical evolution are choosing to stick with and teach a simplistic 80-year-old model against a tidal wave of evidence that abiogenesis is impossible.

1
. Alonso Ricardo and Jack W. Szostak, “Origin of Life on Earth,”
Scientific American,
vol. 301 (September 2009): p. 38–45.

2
. Ibid.

3
. Stanley Livingstone, “Thoughts on the Chemical Origin of life,”
Chemistry in Australia
, vol. 78 (December/January 2008/2009): p. 10–12.

4
. Trudy McKee and James R. McKee,
Biochemistry: The Molecular Basis of Life,
third edition (New York: McGraw Hill Publishers, 2003), p. 58.

5
. J.W. Schopf and B.M. Packer, “Early Archean (3.3-Billion to 3.5-Billion-Year-Old) Microfossils from Warrawoona Group, Australia,”
Science,
vol. 237 (1987): p. 70–73; also J.W. Schopf, “Microfossils of the Early Archean Apex Chert: New Evidence of the Antiquity of Life,”
Science,
vol. 260 (1993): p. 640–646; and M.M. Walsh and D.R. Lowe “Filamentous Microfossils from the 3,500-Million-Year-Old Onverwacht Group, Barberton Mountain Land, South Africa,”
Nature,
vol. 314 (1985): p. 530–532.

6
. Fred Hoye and Chandra Wickramasinghe,
Evolution from Space
(London: J.M. Dent and Sons, 1981).

7
. Ben Stein,
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,
Premise Media Corporation, 2008, documentary DVD; see also:
www.expelledthemovie.com
.

8
. Calculated from data in F.C. Neidhardt, editor, 1996,
Escherichia coli and Salmonella
(Washington, DC: ASM Press, 1996), p. 14, by G.T. Javor, professor of biochemistry, Loma Linda University; see
http://www.grisda.org/origins/25002.htm
.

9
. Ricardo and Szostak, “Origin of Life on Earth,” p. 41–42.

10
. Frederick R. Blattner, Guy Plunkett III, Craig A. Bloch, et al, “The Complete Genome Sequence of
Escherichia coli
K-12,”
Science,
vol. 277 (1997): p. 1453–1474.

11
. C.M. Fraser, J.D. Gocayne, O. White, et al, “The Minimal Gene Complement of Mycoplasma Genitalium,”
Science,
vol. 270 (1995): p. 397–403.

12
. Ricardo and Jack W. Szostak, “Origin of Life on Earth,” p. 38–45.

13
. William A. Dembski,
The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities
(Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1998), p. 175–223.

14
. J. Reidhaar-Olson and R. Sauer, “Functionally Acceptable Solutions in Two Alpha-Helical Regions of Lambda Repressor,”
Proteins, Structure, Function, and Genetics,
vol. 7 (1990): p. 306–310; also D.D. Axe, “Biological Function Places Unexpectedly Tight Constraints on Protein Sequences,”
Journal of Molecular Biology,
vol. 301, no. 3 (2000): p. 585–596.

15
. E. Pennisi, “Seeking Life’s Bare Genetic Necessities,”
Science,
vol. 272 (1996): p. 1098–1099; also A. Mushegian and E. Koonin, “A Minimal Gene Set for Cellular Life Derived by Comparison of Complete Bacterial Genomes,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, vol. 93 (1996): p. 10268–10273.

16
. A detailed discussion of the probability calculations together with references to supporting literature can be found in S.C. Meyer, “DNA and the Origin of Life: Information, Speciation, and Explanation,”
Darwinism, Design, and Public Education
, Michigan State University Press, 2007, and can be downloaded from
http://www.discovery.org/a/2184
.

Chapter 4

Why New Types of Organisms Cannot Evolve by Random Mutations

The concept of evolution is part of biology education in many countries. Documentary films such as the BBC series
The Genius of Charles Darwin
present evolution to large audiences around the world with their message that evolution is now a scientific “fact.” In 2009, the presenter of the BBC program about Darwin, Oxford University professor Richard Dawkins, also published a book outlining the accumulation of proposed evidence for evolution. Early in this work Dawkins states, “In the rest of this book, I shall demonstrate that evolution is an inescapable fact.”
¹
But is it really? Let us carefully examine the evidence for the fundamental cornerstone of evolution, which is the production of totally new life forms from a multitude of random mutations via the mechanism of natural selection. An example of this process would be a yeast organism slowly evolving into a worm and a worm evolving into a fish, and so on.