Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem of Control

According to modern evolutionary theory, the recipe for life is a chance accumulation of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen; add a pinch of phosphorus and sulfur, simmer for millions of years, and repeat if necessary. As a Ph.D. organic chemist, I am trained to understand the principles of chemistry, but this is not how chemicals react. Chemicals reacting with chemicals is a chemical reaction, and chemical reactions do not produce life. Life must create life. In the chemical literature, there is not a single example of life resulting from a chemical reaction. If life from chemicals were possible, it would be called spontaneous generation, an idea that scientists once thought happened in nature. Centuries ago, scientists used to believe that bread crumbs turned into mice because if you left bread crumbs on a table and returned later, the crumbs were gone and only mice were present. When true science got involved, they learned the truth that bread crumbs only attracted the mice that ate the crumbs. These scientists were quick to propose a theory that sounded reasonable until, that is, they studied the process and learned otherwise.

Proteins and DNA are complicated chemical molecules that are present within our body. Cells which make up the living body contain DNA, the blueprint for all life, and proteins regulating biochemical processes, leading scientists to conclude these components are the cause of life. While it is true that all living bodies have proteins and DNA, so do dead bodies. These chemicals are necessary for life to exist, but they do not "create" life by their presence; they only "maintain" the life that is already present. However, this is not the only problem with the "life from chemicals" theory.

Why do evolutionists vehemently proclaim the "life from chemicals" theory? Because if proteins and DNA only maintain life without creating it, then something else must have accomplished its origins. Evidence such as this points to an Omnipotent Creator, but they are not willing to make that concession.

Scientists can only look at life as it exists today, and try to determine how life originated in the past. They look at the end result and try to determine the process by which it was formed. Imagine looking at a photograph and trying to determine the brand of camera that was used to take the picture. Could you do it? Evolutionists have the same problem when they claim that life comes from chemicals. They look at the end result and propose a theory without ever observing the process. Scientists cannot study the past. Scientists can only look at the present and make theories about what happened in the past that would make the present the way it is today. When evolutionary scientists study the origins of life, they propose that all life resulted from chemical reactions by natural processes, overlooking the fact that chemical processes do not "naturally" behave in this manner. If you accepted chemical reactions as they occur, you would not believe that life came solely from chemicals. Is it legitimate to propose that evolution started in some primordial soup, when the long chain polymers that are present in proteins and DNA are so complicated that the level of chemical control needed during the chain building process is beyond the realm of natural chemistry?

Let's take a closer look at proteins and DNA, and the problems of their synthesis by evolutionary processes. Proteins are long polymers of amino acids linked in a chain. There are thousands of proteins within the human body, and they all differ by the sequence of the amino acids on the polymer chain. DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid,) is a polymer of nucleotides. Nucleotides themselves are complicated chemical molecules consisting of a deoxyribose molecule and a phosphate chemically bonded to one of the following heterocycles: guanine, cytosine, thymine, and adenine. Although there are only four different heterocycles, the DNA chain contains billions of nucleotides connected together in a long precisely ordered chain. The sequence of the human DNA chain is so complicated, that even with the sophisticated scientific equipment available today, we still do not know the complete sequence. Proteins and DNA contain a unique order of the individual components. The order of the individual components is not a repeating pattern such as ABABAB or AABBAABB, but it is not a random order either. The order in these natural polymers is very precise, and it is this highly ordered sequence that allows these polymers to perform their intended purpose in the human body. If the sequence is changed even slightly, the altered polymer is no longer capable of performing the same function as the natural protein or DNA. If these polymers were formed by evolution in some primordial soup, then we should be able to explain how natural chemical processes were responsible for forming the sequence of amino acids. Evolutionists would say that amino acids eventually combined to form proteins and the nucleotide molecules combined to form DNA, and from them, life. To someone not trained in chemistry, this might sound like a reasonable process, but this is not how chemical reactions work.

Chemists are trained to understand the mechanisms of how molecules react and how to activate molecules so they will react predictably and in a controlled fashion. If a chemist wanted to synthesize the polymer chain of proteins or DNA in the laboratory, the starting compounds must be first activated so that they will begin to react. The chemist must then control the reactivity and the selectivity of the reactants so that the desired product is formed.

The problem with life arising from chemicals is a three-fold problem: chemical stability, chemical reactivity, and chemical selectivity during the chain building process. But evolutionists propose that these complex polymer chains built themselves in a precise, unlikely pattern, without an intelligent chemist controlling the reactions.

For starters, I too hold a BS in Chemistry and a Master's Degree in Organic chemistry. Like you and the author, I also have published in peer-reviewed literature.

Small correction: I hold two full bachelors degrees (Virginia Commonwealth University) in Biology and Chemistry, together with a Masters in Biochemistry (New York Medical College) and an MBA -- which of course is not a science degree. You are correct to say we are both published.

Much of the discussion about chemical evolution was laid out by Miller and Orgel in 1974 in THE ORIGINS OF LIFE ON EARTH. Therein, they present experimental data (not biased conjecture like McCombs) regarding the possible origins of both amino acids and nucleotides. By sparking methane, ammonia, water, and hydrogen in a sealed vessel they were able to isolate residues of some twenty or more amino acids, nucleotides and small peptide chains. This clearly suggests that conditions in the primordial atmosphere were favorable for the possible synthesis of proteins and nucleotides.

Let's be clear, as we start this discussion, that your premise is that a primordial "soup" existed, though as a testable premise "primordial soup" remains an un-provable hypothesis. The controlled experiment you describe did yield primarily Glycine, the simplest of the building block biochemicals and an "Amino acid" in its own right, by combining formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide, and ammonia. Other AAs were also said to have been formed. Some AAs can be synthesized through directed chemical pathways to yield some, though not all AAs from Glycine.

We know from the petroleum industry that synthesis of rudimentary cyclic structures from straight chain moieties can be forced in the presence of metal catalysts, and do so at temperatures approaching 500 degrees C. Glycine would vaporize at these temperatures. Still, let's consider a model suggesting a simpler starting molecule giving rise in an evolutionary sense to more complex and even ringed molecules.

Assume one can stumble their way through spontaneous halogenations and necessarily metal-assisted catalyzations (if that were even possible) to making cyclohexene without any direction to the experiment. It's fairly easy to make cyclohexane using cyclohexene at ~200 degrees 35 ATM, Pt and pure hydrogen this way. Easier if you start with Benzene, sure, but that molecule is where we’re trying to go in complexity, and it doesn’t exist without a sophisticated organic precursor anyway. Is pure hydrogen likely to be available in “primordial soup” which is largely ammonia liquid/vapor, water, and lightning? Purity of Ni and Pt catalysts are critical to effecting such reactions. Assuming free hydrogen is even available (highly unlikely in the structured "primordial" conditions created by Miller) do you assert that these metals existed in sufficient refined quantities to make them pure enough to function as catalysts for such reactions?

Formation of say, of cyclohexane, or even benzene and phenol for that matter result in molecules which yield inhospitable environments for forming biomolecules, agreed? That observation aside, as an organic chemist, yourself, could you propose a mechanism using only the materials and conditions described in Miller's work that would give rise to the cyclic structures which comprise AAs such as Phenylalanine, Tyrosine, Tryptophan, and Proline?

Perhaps what is most interesting about McCombs's argument is his dismissal of chemical evolution due to its inherent lack of chemo- and regio-selectivity. What he fails to realize, however, is that this lack of selectivity is the very mechanism that makes chemical evolution a workable theory. The fact that you have the potetential to form thousands of isomers from a "primordial soup" (by the way, I hate that phrase) increases the potential of forming those sequences that could, upon replication possibly evolve into a living organism.

As you know, a random cocktail of molecules of disparate polarities, pK's, etc., doesn't enhance functional selectivity of specific molecules needed to assure successful reactions in the refined senses that we as chemist know they must be favored to drive a successful and complete reaction. If anything selectivity is compromised by multiple and random interferences. For instance,. try making your cyclohexane in a saturated ionic and highly polar environment, with an assortment of unknown organic molecules of no specific composition chugging around the reaction, possibly at varying and random temperatures, as well. Predict your success.

Evidence suggests that the earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago,…

Correction. What "evidence?" Your premise believes it needs 4.6 billion years to make happen on earth events you want to believe happened. However, no evidence exists for this assumption at all. Premises yield more premises based on this completely unsupported assumption, but no scientifically testable evidence exists at all to support this premise. None.

Sadly, the more complex everything is being discovered to be on a daily basis, evolutionist’s are now even questioning whether they have shorted themselves on the amount of time they think is necessary to account for the observed complexity. Instead of proving they have the time, they merely assume they have the time, and they peddle that uninformed assumption as fact in texts and news sources in a way that would make Goebbles envious. That’s no longer science there. That is straight premise based on faith. On that basis, it is nothing more than another religion, where Time is god, and “primordial soup”+ random bolts of electricity, the creator.

Even the late Francis Crick, credited discoverer of the DNA helix with James Watson, was an Intelligent Design advocate! That’s right. Chemical and statistically impossible biological evolution explanations held no place for him. In his mind it was I.D. all the way. Of course being an atheist, by his own admission, someone or something more intelligent than mankind down here had to have brought the complexity into being that he saw. He concluded the only reasonable explanation was “panspermia,” meaning that Earth was populated by super intelligent space aliens from some unknown superior galaxy somewhere, out there. It was a position, he for one would never have to prove. It’s funny how no one questioned his science, but when a Creationist promotes the notion of I.D., he has strayed too far from evolutionary orthodoxy to be given any credibility.

Today’s scientific community is populated by too many evolutionary “papists” who derive their power and esteem in the community simply by towing the political lock-step party line and singing the evolutionist’s version of the “doxology”.

…while the first fossil record of a living organism (like unto modern bacteria) is only about 3.5 billion years old.

Again this is premise, not fact. Noted Harvard anthropologist (now deceased), Stephan Jay Gould, could make no rational sense of what he found in fossil discoveries to demonstrate any record of transitions necessary to support evolutionary premise. He then devised his own take -- since the evidence didn't exist, evolution must be "punctuated," (i.e., multiple organisms making instant multiple changes in their morphology without any attributable, catalyzing event that would have directed what in his evolutionist’s mind supposedly happened). He was married to evolutionary premise whether or not it could be demonstrated by scientific observation to be true, and his weak explanation only gives rise to more questions.

That leaves a difference of 1.1 billion years for these simple organisms to evolve from chemical evolution. The fact that the reactions would be nonselective is the very reason why chemical evolution is a plausible theory, not a reason to reject it.

In spite of chemical matters about which you were questioned above, how is it that even in directed experiments by intelligent scientists, what was supposed to have happened by random chance cannot even be replicated in directed applications of science? You make a leap from chemicals to organisms to "life" itself, yet any intellectually honest scientist knows that there is far more to “life” than mere chemicals or electrical synapses. Why can’t I just be perpetually charging hearts and brains of men back to life by plugging them into 120 VAC? Forget the plug-in outlet, as chemically elegant a machine as a physical body is, why don't the chemicals and electrical charges of the ATP, ADP+P, AMP+P+P, NADP, NAD + P, and cytochrome energy exchanges, etc. just keep it going in perpetuity? Why is there "death" at all if it’s all just chemicals and electricity? Account for the mind and emotions of man with as complex a chemical equation as you care to structure it. Can you do it?

Now, I am the first to admit that at this point, evidence for chemical evolution is sparse.

It is non-existent, never mind sparse.

There does, however, exist some evidence, unlike any peer-reviewed evidence arguing for a creationist version of the origins of life. Perhaps, it is not me, but the author who is making arguments based on emotion and not scientific evidence.

Back up the "emotion" allegation, please. Creationists readily recognize that they rely on premises. Sadly, the premises that evolutionists rely upon, they too often mistake as proven "fact" -- even as you have done in this post. What peer-reviewed journals do you know would ever allow a challenge to the fundamental evolutionary premise: their central and defining “dogma,” if you will? Evolutionary premise is nothing more that of unquestioned self-validation, promoting an inbred, sycophantic orthodoxy which disallows challenge of their “religious” dogma, peddled as it is today under the color of "scientific" thought. Too many in the scientific community are sucked into the premise-as-supposedly-demonstrated-fact treadmill of intellectual laziness. Sure it all sounds scientific, but too often when I ask for proof, I just get more tautologies and premise.

I will make one last comment. A simple search for Dr. McCombs in the US patent database at the US Patent Office's website reveals that none of his 20 patents has anything to do with peptide synthesis or nucleotide synthesis. It seems like ICR should recruit a legitimate biochemist to push its agenda. Perhaps they cannot find one willing to make such unsubstantiated claims.

Kind of pissing in your own shoe when you say such things, aren't you? Based on what you are saying, why as a biochemist myself, should I care what you as an organic chemist have to say about anything of a biochemical nature? I'll tell you why. Because no amount of feigned self-importance of any biochemist out there allows them to make light of your ability to think as a cogent, accomplished scientist about commonplace chemical processes. The science isn’t that difficult for goodness’ sake. These are well-characterized pathways and reaction schemes, that any freshman chemist with half a brain can comprehend. The science is not sooooo difficult for you, me, or the author -- an organic chemist like yourself -- to master and comment upon lucidly. I see you as a thinking scientist. Don’t be taken in by pomposity reminiscent of academic has-been self-anointed, specialized beyond all usefulness “geniuses,” who are masters of pondering their bellybutton lint.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.