©Copyright 2018 GEOSCIENCE RESEARCH INSTITUTE
11060 Campus Street • Loma Linda, California 92350 • 909-558-4548
Download PDF
This article was originally published as a chapter in the book “Design and Catastrophe: 51 Scientists Explore Evidence in Nature"
The defenders of the hypothesis of chemical evolution (abiogenesis) believe that about four billion years ago, biological molecules, first simple ones, then more complex, began to naturally assemble on the earth. They spontaneously combined to form cellular organelles and primitive protocells in the primary ocean (“broth”).
The defenders of the abiogenesis hypothesis believe that organic substances formed from inorganic components in the atmosphere under the action of radiation or electrical discharges.[1] They consider that the early atmosphere was generally reducing. In this case, biologically significant organic matter, as it is known, would be destroyed by ultraviolet radiation in an atmosphere devoid of oxygen and the shielding protection of an ozone layer. Other scenarios suggest the first organic matter could have come from space or been synthesized near submerged volcanoes and deep-sea vents.[2]
If amino acids (protein monomers) could move to the broth through highly hypothetical processes, as substances with high reactivity, they would actively interact with aldehydes, acids, bases, and other compounds that are expected to be present in the broth. There would be an unimaginable mixture of all sorts of organic compounds, in which substances necessary for biological components would be a negligible fraction. These compounds would spontaneously react with each other in different ways in the presence of activators and inhibitors, resulting in the formation of tar-like mixtures not capable of further reactions relevant to the origin of life.
In order for amino acids to form peptides (several monomers) or proteins (polymers with specific properties) suitable for living systems, the reactions between initial substances must be strictly selective on a number of points:
- Monomers must be only a-amino acids (i.e., the H2N- amino group and ....- carboxyl group are connected only to the first a-carbon atom).
- Monomers must be only L-spatial (levorotatory, or “left-handed”) forms of amino acids. D-spatial (dextrorotatory, or “right-handed”) forms are not included in cell proteins because they inhibit the formation of their tertiary structure, which is necessary for functional activity. In laboratory syntheses, D- and L-forms of a specific amino acid are formed in equal amounts.[3] Both forms are chemically equivalent. Therefore, L-amino acids could not selectively be included in the protein structure.
- Only 20 types of amino acids are involved in protein synthesis, out of more than 300 that could be formed in undirected chemical reactions.
- To obtain peptides (proteins), only peptide bonds must occur between amino acids. The laboratory synthesis of even one dipeptide is complex and must be strictly controlled by blocking amino and carboxyl groups with protective groups, which are not involved in the formation of a peptide bond, and activating carboxyl groups, which are involved in the reaction.[4] In addition, the spontaneous formation of peptide bonds in the broth is impossible because one of the reaction products is water.
- Amino acids must be arranged in strict linear sequence; an amino acid chain must not have branches and cycles.
Notice that these peptide-forming reactions do not flow spontaneously but require a continuous supply of energy in a useful form.
The probability of the random formation of a sequence of several hundred amino acids for a functional protein is so low as to be mathematically incredible.[5] All this indisputably points to the necessity of intelligent design in the origins of enzymatic synthesis of proteins using information recorded in the DNA. Spontaneous processes and chance do not have the selectivity required for a purposeful arrangement of reaction products.
What about nucleotides (monomers of nucleic acids)? Nucleotides include a nitrogenous base, sugar (monosaccharides ribose for RNA and deoxyribose for DNA in only D-spatial forms) and phosphate. In the simulated primordial atmosphere, some nitrogenous bases (but not ribose and deoxyribose), very unstable and with a low yield of reaction products, can be “spontaneously” obtained from pure initial substances. However, organic syntheses of biomolecules under strict laboratory conditions are not spontaneous processes. They demonstrate the input of a scientist’s intelligent intervention in the experimental setup and involve the use of chemically pure initial compounds, as well as purification and extraction of intermediate products, which are unwarranted processes to assume for the so-called primitive Earth. In addition, all abiogenic syntheses lead to a mixture of spatial D- and L-monosaccharides. Nitrogenous bases, sugars, and phosphates do not spontaneously assemble into nucleotides. Besides, different nucleotide components require completely different conditions for their formation. This represents a major roadblock for the spontaneous assembly of polymers in the broth (or anywhere else).
What about the formation of nucleic acids? In model experiments, DNA and RNA have not been produced. In living systems, replication (doubling) of both DNA and RNA occurs only through a precisely arranged enzymatic matrix, so that adjacent nucleotides are linked only in a specific way. This is, to me, evidence of the Creator’s design for life.
In living organisms, the systems of syntheses of nucleic acids and proteins, as well as storage of energy in the form of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) via an intricate biochemical mechanism, are interconnected and interdependent. DNA and RNA syntheses require enzyme and energy provision, while the enzymes of ATP and nucleic acid syntheses are encoded in DNA. There is no reasonable explanation other than their simultaneous appearance is the outcome of the Creator’s majestic design.
There is no reason to consider chemical evolution as an established fact. The evolutionary chain from randomly generated biological molecules to cells is not supported by scientific data and appears speculative at best. This hypothesis is filled with impossible events, for which the probability is essentially zero. The most rational explanation for the origin of life that is consistent with scientific facts is the recognition of the work of an Almighty and Intelligent Creator.
NOTES
[1] JW Schopf, editor. Life’s origin: the beginnings of biological evolution. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press; 2002, pp. 88–97.
[2]NA Campbell, JB Reece. Biology. London (UK): Pearson Education; 2005, pp. 555–556.
[3] AB Hughes, editor. Amino acids, peptides and proteins in organic chemistry. Weinheim (Germany): Wiley-VCH; 2009, p. 18.
[4] JM Berg, JLTymoczko, L Stryer. Biochemistry. New York: W.H. Freeman; 2012, pp. 96–98.
[5] D Axe. Undeniable: how biology confirms our intuition that life is designed. New York: HarperOne; 2016, p. 81.
Elena Titova works at the Belarusian Republican Foundation for Fundamental Research, which provides support for research on a competitive basis. She earned her PhD at the Institute of Photobiology of the Belarusian Academy of Sciences. She has authored many scientific articles on the metabolic characteristics of a photosynthetic apparatus and has written two books on the subject of Creation.