5- The Decline of the Theory of Molecular Evolution

In the previous chapters, we examined the claims of the evolutionists on the origin of various species. We saw that the evolutionist claims suggesting that man evolved from primates, reptiles from fish and the birds from reptiles were invalid. 

Nevertheless, without studying them all, we could still say that evolution was an invalid theory. Because the theory of evolution collapses from the very beginning, before the thesis of mentioned “evolution among species”: on the question of how the living things first appeared… 

This question is such a critical deadlock on the evolutionists’ side, that they usually try not to even mention this question. They try to avoid this question saying, “the first creatures came into existence as a result of some coincidental events in the water”. Because this impasse they are in is such that they can by no means overcome. Contrary to the paleontologic evolution arguments, this time there are no fossils, which they can interpret as they like. 

Therefore, the theory of evolution is definitely refuted from the very beginning. In this chapter, we are going to study the great downfall of evolution at molecular level. 

While doing this, there is an important point to take into consideration: when it comes out that any step of the evolutional process is impossible, actually this suffices to prove that this theory is totally false and invalid. For instance, proving that the formation of proteins by chance is impossible, all other claims regarding the latter steps of evolution are also refuted. From then, it doesn’t have any meaning to speculate on any similarities between man and ape skulls. 
As a result, the theory of evolution, apart from the other invalidities of its other thesis, is a conjecture which annihilated itself because it couldn’t even pass over the molecular step. 

The Attempts of the Evolutionists 

To Explain the Origin of Living Things On Earth

The question of how living things came into existence from non-living things was something which the evolutionists did not want to even mention for a long time. However this question which was neglected for long became a problem that is impossible to escape from. Evolutionists tried to overcome this question with a series of studies in the first quarter of 20th century. 

The first question to answer was as follows: Under the chaotic primitive atmosphere of the earth, how could the first living cell have appeared? In other words, how could the evolutionists explain such a question? 

They tried to find the answers to these questions through experiments. The primitive atmosphere was going to be imitated under laboratory conditions and they were to going to prove that the organic molecules could form “by coincidence”. The first of these experiments to observe the formation of organic molecules, was realised by Groth and Suess in 1938. These researchers produced formaldehyde and gloxal, both of which are organic compounds, by applying ultraviolet rays to water and carbon dioxide (H2O and CO2). These two researchers expressed the purpose of their studies as; “bringing an explanation to the origin of certain carbon compounds that lead to the evolution of living things”, and this did not draw any attention. 

In the following years, in 1951, a researcher called Calvin and a group of scientists made some laboratory experiments for the same purpose, but again they did not attract much attention. The most respected study on the origin of life, is the experiment called as Miller Experiment or Urey-Miller Experiment made by the American researcher Stanley Miller in 1953. 

Miller Experiment

Stanley Miller began his micro biological researches with his teacher from Chicago University, Harold Urey right after the World War II. His aim was to prove that living things could come into existence by chance on the lifeless earth billions of years ago. He decided to make an experiment that would prove that the amino acids, which are the smallest elements of living things, could form “by coincidence”. 

For this, he constituted an atmospheric environment in his laboratory which he assumed to have existed on the primitive earth (afterwards it was understood that this assumption was incorrect) and later he began his studies. The mixture he used in his experiment consisted of ammonia, methane, hydrogen and water vapour to imitate the primitive atmosphere. 

Miller knew that methane, ammonia, water vapour and hydrogen would not react with each other under natural conditions. He was aware that in order to start a reaction among them, an external energy support was necessary. Because of this, he suggested that this energy could have come from the lightnings in the primitive atmosphere. Depending upon this assumption, he used an artificial electricity discharge source in his experiments. 

Miller boiled this gas mixture at 100°C for a week, and as an addition he gave electric current to this hot environment. At the end of the week, Miller analysed the chemicals in the mixture at the bottom of the jar and observed that among 20 amino acids, which form the basic elements of proteins, three of them were synthesised. 
This experiment raised great excitement among the evolutionists and was introduced as an important  success. 

The evolutionists believed that this experiment definitely verified their theories, and inspired by this experiment, they attempted to produce scenarios. Miller, supposedly, proved that amino acids could form on their own. In sequence, the following stages were also made up. According to this scenario, the amino acids which are formed in the primitive atmosphere, came together in proper and life-convenient arrangements by accident, and formed the proteins. Some of these proteins that are formed by chance, placed themselves into the cell-like structures which somehow came into existence and formed the primitive cell. The most important basis of this scenario was Miller’s experiment. 

Points Invalidating Miller’s Experiment

Although this experiment, which is almost fifty years old, is discredited in many aspects, it still preserves its place in evolutionist literature as the biggest evidence of spontaneous formation of livings. However when Miller’s Experiment is realistically evaluated, which is, without the prejudiced and subjective evolutionist sense, it is clearly seen that the situation is actually not so encouraging for the evolutionists. Because this experiment, which has the purpose of proving that the amino acids could form on their own under primitive earth conditions, has inconsistencies on various aspects. These inconsistencies are as follows: 

1. Miller, using a mechanism called “cold trap”, isolated the amino acids from that environment as soon as they were formed. Otherwise the conditions of the environment under which the amino acids were formed, would immediately annihilate these molecules. 

However, it is already meaningless to think that this kind of conscious mechanisms existed at the primitive earth conditions that consists elements like ultraviolet, lightnings, various chemicals, high amount of oxygen, etc. Even if one kind of amino acid would have been obtained, without this mechanism, these molecules would immediately be destroyed under the same conditions. The chemist Richard Bliss expresses this contradiction as follows: 

    "Cold trap", being the crucial part of Miller’s tools, has the duty to collect the products that are formed out of chemical reactions. Actually, without this cold trap, the chemical products would be destroyed by the electric source. 
Henry Morris, who is well-known with his criticisms on evolution, mentions the weak points of Miller’s experiments such as the separation of the amino acids from the environment in which they were produced with an additional tool to catch them as soon as they were formed. However, there wasn’t such a tool in the primitive atmosphere that is similar to Miller’s protection. 

Indeed Miller, in his previous experiments, could not form any single amino acid using the same materials without the cold trap. 

Miller’s intention was to obtain amino acid and the methods and mechanisms were adjusted accordingly to produce these amino acids. However, accepting the existence of wisdom to set up this kind of an intelligent mechanism and adjustments in primitive atmosphere, will above all, contradict the main idea of the theory of evolution. 

2. The primitive atmosphere environment, which was formed in Miller’s experiment, was not realistic. This truth was exposed by some geologists in middle 1980’s. According to this, Miller neglected nitrogen and carbon dioxide which should have existed in his artificial environment and he preferred to use methane and ammonia instead. 

Then why did the evolutionists insist that there were mainly methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and water vapour (H2O) in the primitive atmosphere? The answer was simple: without ammonia, it was impossible to synthesis an amino acid. 

Kevin M. Kean tells about this in an article in Science & Technique (Bilim Teknik): 

    Miller and Urey imitated the ancient atmosphere of earth with a mixture of methane/ammonia. According to them, the earth was a true homogeneous mixture of metal, rock and ice. However in the latest studies, it is perceived that the earth had a high temperature then and it was composed of melted nickel and iron. Thus the chemical atmosphere in that term should have formed mostly of nitrogen (N2), carbondioxide (CO2) and water vapour (H2O). However these are not as apropriate as methane/ammonia to compose organic molecules. 
Also Philip Abelson states how the model of methane/ammonia was invalid saying that such hypothesis of the primitive atmosphere that consists of methane and ammonia does not have a strong basis and is in fact refuted. Now the geologists have adopted another alternative opinion. The atmosphere and the oceans originated from the gases that came out of volcanos. 

As a result, it was evident that the primitive atmosphere consisted of different kinds of gases than Miller suggested. Then, was it possible to get amino acid in the experiments in which these gases were used? The researches of the American scientists J.P. Ferris and C.T.Chen gave the necessary reply to this question. Ferris and Chen repeated the experiment of Stanley Miller  under the atmospheric environment consisting carbon dioxide, hydrogen, nitrogen, and water vapour. And they were unable to acquire even one single amino acid molecule with this gas mixture. 

The reliance in Miller’s experiment was highly spoiled, even if the science world and related media tried hard not to reflect Ferris and Chen’s experiment to press. They tried to sustain Miller’s experiment. However, 33 years after the experiment, Miller, himself, explained that the primitive atmosphere experiments in which ammonia was used in large quantities, could not be regarded as realistic and stated that the atmosphere consisting methane (CH4), nitrogen (N2), small amount of ammonia (NH3) and water vapour would be a more realistic atmosphere for the primitive earth. Ammonia could not exist in large amounts, since it would dissolve in the oceans. 

Thus, after a long period of silence, Miller himself also confessed that the atmospheric environment that he used in his experiment was not realistic. 

3. Another important point, which invalidated Miller’s experiment, was that there were enough amount of oxygen  to destroy all the amino acids in the atmosphere, at the stage when the amino acids were thought to be formed. This fact was understood from the oldest stones of the world which were estimated to be 3.5 billions years old and which were found during geological researches. In the stones, there were remains of oxidated iron and uranium. 

There are other findings that the amount of oxygen at that stage was much higher than it was claimed to be. The studies demonstrated that, at that time, the sun emitted ultraviolet rays ten thousand times more than what the evolutionists estimated. So it was inevitable that these rays dissociated water vapour and carbon dioxide (by photo dissociation) in the primitive atmosphere and that oxygen is released. This means that the amount of oxygen in the primitive atmosphere was not neglectible. According to the calculations of Charles Davidson, at least 200 billion tons of oxygen should exist in the primitive atmosphere.  Thus, this much amount of oxygen would definitely prevent the formation of amino acids. 

This situation,  totally nullifies Miller’s experiment in which oxygen was neglected. If oxygen were used in this experiment, methane would turn into carbon dioxide and water; ammonia would turn into nitrogen and water. 

On the other hand, -since the ozone layer did not exist at that time- it is apparent that no organic molecule could live on earth without any protection against the ultraviolet rays that were emitted in large quantities. 

In short, large quantities of both oxygen and ultraviolet rays created handicaps for the evolutionists. 

4. As the end-products of Miller’s experiment, not only amino acids which are necessary for life were acquired; in addition to them, there were also many organic acids, even more than these amino acids, which have the characteristic to destroy the structure and functions of the living things. If the amino acids had not be isolated and had been left in the same environment with these chemicals, it would be unavoidable that they would be destroyed and also would be transformed into different compounds by reacting with them. 

Also, there were a large number of dextro amino acids. The existence of these amino acids even refuted the theory within the concept itself. Because the dextro amino acids were a kind of amino acid which cannot perform in their live form. The American biologists Richard B. Bliss and Gray E. Parker state that Miller, in his experiment, did not only obtain the necessary molecules for life (levo amino acids), however produced a long chain of dextro amino acids which interferes evolution.” 

As a conclusion, the circumstances in which amino acids were formed in Miller’s experiment were not  suitable for life, on the contrary it was in the form of an acidic mixture destructing and oxidising the obtained useful molecules. 

There is one concrete reality as an outcome of all these: Miller’s experiment cannot have any claims to prove that living  things formed by coincidence at the primitive earth conditions. This is nothing more than a controlled laboratory experiment to synthesize amino acids. The ratio and types of the gases used in the experiment were ideally determined to enable amino acids to originate. The amount of energy supplied to the system is determined so accurately- not too much or not too little, just enough to enable the necessary reactions. The experiment equipment was designed so that it would not contain any harmful or destructive element to the formation of amino acids under primitive earth conditions. Other than the few elements found in amino acids, no other elements or minerals which were present in the primitive earth that may change the course of the reactions, were put in the test tube. Oxygen is one of them- it would give forth to oxidation that destroys the amino acids. Besides, even under the ideal laboratory conditions, it was impossible for the produced amino acids to survive without being destroyed. Nevertheless, this problem was solved by another artificial mechanism (cold trap) that would isolate the amino acids from the environment in which they were produced. 

In fact, with this experiment, the evolutionists refuted the evolution with their own hands. Because this experiment revealed that the amino acids were not produced by coincidence, but on the contrary, could only be produced under controlled circumstances which were specifically designed. 

The Formation Of Amino acids Cannot Be Explained By Coincidences

Despite the fact that Miller’s experiment was so inconsistent and unrealistic, the evolutionists obstinately defended that the livings could be formed in the primitive atmosphere by chance, just as if there was no problem. The fact that Miller’s experiment was regarded as the most essential evidence of evolution for nearly fifty years, indicates that the evolutionists could not achieve any remarkable progress than this primitive experiment since then. The evolutionists are so desperate regarding the explanation of the origin of living things that even this unsuccessful experiment of Miller has been a source of great hope and enthusiasm. 

Following Miller, many other evolutionist researchers also tried hard to be a part of the history of evolution with similar experiments. Miller could obtain three kinds of amino acids in his experiment. Somehow obtaining the others would create splash among the evolutionist society. Therefore the evolutionists went far beyond Miller and established more complex and controlled mechanisms than he did. They used supplementary elements in their experiments which were impossible to exist in the primitive atmosphere. They used elements like different gases, catalizors, energy sources and pressure waves. As a result, they synthesized the remaining amino acids under controlled and arranged mechanisms at laboratories. Briefly they supposedly proved the claim of amino acids to be spontaneously and coincidentally produced in the primitive earth, with these experiments in which not any step were left to chance. However these experiments had no other sense than, after producing any chemical compound in the laboratory,  to claim “then this compound could also be formed spontaneously and by coincidence under primitive conditions”. 

Besides, even if we accept that the amino acids were somehow formed in the primitive earth, and even if we assume that the primitive earth was an amino acid soup, it does not help explain how the living things spontaneously originated. Because life has much more complexity than  the amino acids. 

The evolutionists put forward very simple rationalism to explain the origin of life: “if the amino acids are spontaneously formed, then why cannot the amino acids come together by chance to form proteins, then why cannot the proteins combine by coincidence to form organelles, and why cannot the organelles gather and somehow get surrounded by a protein membrane to form the cell?”. This is more illogical and irrational to claim that, while walking on the road, seeing a brick and thinking that this brick will increase in number by time and then these bricks will come together to constitute a building and later these buildings will increase to form an entire city. Furthermore it is clearly evident that even a brick on the street cannot be formed by itself… 

Besides, a building is not only a pile of bricks. To construct this building, lots of other materials are necessary; like stone, soil, iron, cement, wood, plastics, etc… Therefore if somebody claims that this building arised on its own by coincidence, he should also support that all these materials came into existence by chance and combined in perfect measure and harmony. Likewise, even the simplest cell includes many chemical compounds besides amino acids and proteins. These chemicals also exist in the cell in very accurate quantities and proportions. Therefore even in the formation of the most primitive cells, it is impossible to neglect these molecules. 

Above all, there should be a mechanism that would prevent the interference of any other single molecule of chemical substance that may disturb the formation of the cell. Considering the external conditions, and especially the primitive earth conditions, not the existence of such a control and isolation system but even any comparable system is impossible. 

Most of the researchers are aware that these evolutionist explanations are nothing more than delusion. Klaus Dose, a well-known researcher on molecular biology says: 

    More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance. 
Like many other scientists, Dose believes that the experiments made by Miller and other researchers are not scientifically creditable. Since Miller did not discover anything that is new. Before him, the methods of forming amino acids in laboratory were already known. In 1913, Loeb, obtained glycin, one of the 20 amino acids, by applying electricity discharge to a mixture of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, water vapour and ammonia. He also did not mention any evolutional relevance in his study. The methods of producing amino acids which are made up of a few number of atoms (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, phosphor) out of organic gases like ammonia and methane were known. 

In evaluating Miller’s or other similar experiments, an important point which has been tried to be neglected by the evolutionists should be considered carefully: an experiment performed under laboratory conditions with special arrangements and an experiment performed under the uncontrolled natural conditions of external environment, are totally different. If the atoms that make up amino acids, are put into reaction under special conditions in order to produce them, of course they will be formed like any other chemical matter. However this operation does not signify coincidental formation, but their intentional formation. The experiments made by evolutionists to get amino acids or some other organic molecules are nothing more than this intentional construction. And in fact they acquire an evidence for conscious creation, not to coincidental evolution. 

Can The Proteins In The Primitive Earth Be Formed Spontaneously?

In spite of all these inconsistencies mentioned above, the evolutionists tried to get rid of the problem of how amino acids were formed in the primitive earth by Miller’s experiment. Still today, they continue to mislead people with this made-up experiment as if this problem were solved much before. 

However, at the second stage to explain the origin of life, the evolutionists faced a greater problem than the formation of amino acids: “Proteins”. That is, the basic units of life which are composed of hundreds of various amino acids that connect to each other with a certain order. 

Claiming that the proteins were formed by coincidence in natural conditions is more unrealistic and unreasonable than claiming that the amino acids were formed by coincidence. In the following pages we are going to study the mathematical impossibility for the proteins to be formed spontaneously by the combination of amino acids. But before this, let’s examine the impossibility of proteins to be produced chemically under primitive earth conditions. 

La Châtelier Principle

The amino acids, while combining to form the proteins, make a special bond between each other called the “peptide bond”. One water molecule is released during this peptide bond formation. Proteins are formed by the combination of a number of amino acids by peptide bonds. And accordingly water is released during the formation of proteins. 

This fact definitely refutes the evolutionist explanation that the primitive life originated in water. Because according to the “Le Châtelier” principle in chemistry, it is not possible for a reaction which releases water (condensation reaction) to take place in a watery environment. The probability of this kind of a reaction to occur in a watery environment is described as a chemical reaction that “has the least probability to occur”. 

Protein synthesis which is a reversible chemical reaction could not have occurred in a watery environment where the amino acids combine to form polypeptide (amino acid loops); on the contrary, this should be realised in the opposite direction which is by breaking and dissociating the polypeptides to separate the amino acids. Hence, the oceans claimed to be the places where  life began and amino acids originated, are definitely not the places suitable for the formation of proteins out of amino acids combining in the following stage. Richard E. Dickinson states in case that proteins and nucleic acid polymers are formed of primary monomers, then each time a monomer is bond to the polymer chain it is necessary that water is released. In this condition it is hard to estimate how polymerization is realized in a hydrate environment with respect to the fact that the existence of water destroys the polymers in the environment. 

On the other hand, it would be irrational for the evolutionists to change their mind and claim that  life originated  on the lands. Because the only thing that can protect the assumed amino acids from the ultraviolet rays, is the oceans and the seas: on the lands they would be destroyed because of the ultraviolet. The Le Chatelier principle disproves the claim of the formation of life in the seas. This is another dilemma in respect of evolution. 

Fox Experiment

The evolutionist researchers came across the above dilemma and they began to invent unrealistic scenarios on this “water problem”. Sydney Fox is one of the well-known researchers among them. Fox suggested a theory to solve this problem: According to him, the first amino acids should have been carried to rocks near a volcano just after their formation in the primitive ocean. The water included in the mixture that contained the amino acids, should have been evaporated when the temperature increased above the boiling point. Thus, the amino acids which were “dried”, could have been combined to form the proteins. 

However this “complicated” explanation was not recognised by many people. Because the amino acids could not endure against such a high temperature: Researches verified that the amino acids were immediately destroyed at high temperatures. 

But Fox did not give up. He combined the purified amino acids “under very special conditions” by heating in a dry environment. The amino acids were combined but still no proteins were obtained. Actually what they acquired were simple and disordered loops of amino acids arbitrarily combined to each other, and these loops were far away to resemble a living protein. Richard B.Bliss and Gray E. Parker described Fox’s experiment as follows: 

    Sydney Fox obtained molecules similar to proteins by heating the pure and dry amino acids at 150-180* for 4-6 hours. He thought that the same thing could have happened near volcanoes in the primitive earth. 
    Then, the following questions should be answered: 
    1. How could pure and dry amino acids accumulate in the primitive earth? 
    2. What would happen if Fox had left these amino acids at this temperature for a longer time? 
    3. What would happen if the amino acids were near volcanoes that burst a lot of water? 
    4. Why did Fox begin his experiments not with the second level molecules that Miller obtained in his experiments, but with pure and dry amino acids? Miller did not only produce the molecules necessary for life (Levo amino acids) in his experiment, but also a long chain of dextro amino acids, which opposes evolution. None of the later scientists used the molecule mixture obtained in Miller’s experiments for the next step of chemical evolution. 
It is important to emphasize the last item here. We mentioned that Miller’s experiment, which was accepted as the basis of molecular evolution, was not  revoked even after it was disproved. However, following researchers used only the amino acids in Miller’s experiment, not the other useless end-products. The end-products of Miller’s experiment which was accepted by the evolutionists, were used actually by none of them. In the Fox experiment that was assumed to be the proof of the second step of the evolution, the first step which was Miller’s experiment, was neglected. There was a theory which the second stage did not accept the first one... 

Fox’s experiment was not regarded sympathetic even among evolutionists. Because it was clear that the meaningless amino acids chains (proteinoids) obtained by Fox, could not be formed under natural conditions. Moreover, the proteins, as the basic units of life, were still not produced. The problem on the origin of proteins was still valid like it was in the beginning. In an article in the popular science magazine of 1970’s, Chemical Engineering News, experiment of Fox was mentioned. Sydney Fox and the other researchers managed to bond the amino acids which in fact did not exist at all in the primitive stages of earth with special heating techniques. Besides, these are not alike the very regular proteins in the livings, but mere irregular stains. It was expressed that  even if such molecules were formed in the early ages they would absolutely be destroyed. 

In fact the proteinoids obtained in Fox’s experiment were totally different from real proteins in structure and in function. Amino acids in a living protein, acquire  some meaning and function because they are combined at certain kinds, quantities and arrangements and in a three-dimensional structure. A single protein molecule made up of 400-1000 amino acids on average, performs various functions together with thousands of other protein molecules in a single cell, depending on its three dimension structure, the number, kind and arrangement of the amino acids it includes. 

However the circular proteinoids produced by Fox were only primitive and irregular molecules and were useless because they did not have an intelligent design. The difference between the protenoids and the proteins is as much as the difference between a pile of metal and a high-tech equipment. 

Furthermore, there is even no chance for these irregular amino acids to live in the primitive atmosphere. Destructing physical and chemical effects caused by the heavy ultraviolet rays and unstable natural conditions would even prevent the survival of these proteinoids. And because of the Le Chatelier principle, it is also impossible for the amino acids to form under water where the ultraviolet rays cannot reach. 

With this information, the idea that the proteinoids were the basis of life, lost its validity in time. 

Probability: Zero

With even some simple probability arithmetic, it can easily be seen that the functional structure of proteins cannot originate by coincidence. This can be better understood with a confession of an evolutionist scientist; 
    The change of one single amino acid; the change of even the order of the amino acids, causes the formation of a new isomer. It has been estimated that a theoric protein molecule which has a molecular weight of 34.000 and consists of 288 amino acids and made out of 12 different amino acids, may have 10300 isomers. The weight of the mass of the combination of one molecule of these isomers is 10280 g. If we consider that the mass of the earth is only 1027 g.... The number of isomers of the polypeptide that is made of 61 amino acids which consists each of the 20 amino acids that form proteins is 5x1079 . However the number of atoms in the universe is estimated to be 0.88x1079... Accordingly, it can be concluded that there are six of the 61 amino acid polypeptide molecules per each atom in the universe.
When it is considered that these calculations are made on a polypeptide including 61 amino acids, and that an average protein is made up of 400 amino acids; the complexity of the situation would be better understood. 

In other words: even if all the atoms in the universe would combine randomly every second in different combinations just to form this protein molecule, the billions of years, which the evolutionists claim to be the age of the universe, and the number of all the atoms in the universe would not suffice for the formation of this one single protein molecule. Briefly, it is impossible for an average protein molecule made up of 400 amino acids to be produced by chance. In addition, when we go one more step further in the development of life, we see that even the word “impossible” is not enough. Because a single protein alone, does not mean anything. Even one of the smallest bacteria known, named “Mycoplasma Hominis H 39” has 600 “kinds” of proteins. In this case, we have to make all the probability calculations we have made above, for over at least 600 types of proteins. The figures we would obtain would assure the concept of "impossible". 

It is much more impossible for a million of these proteins to unite by coincidence and make up the complex cell of human being when it is impossible for even a single one to originate by chance. Furthermore a cell is in not made up of a mass of protein. The structure of a cell embodies many chemical materials besides the proteins such as nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, vitamins, electrolytes and all of these, function as a building-block or a helping molecule within many different organs. 

As it can be seen, let aside a cell, evolution is unable to explain even the formation of a single protein among the millions of others in the cell with its sole “explanation” of the so-called coincidence theory. 

Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy, one of the prominent authorities of the evolutionists in Turkey, in his book called “Inheritance & Evolution”, expresses the probability of the coincidental formation of Cytochrome-C which is one of the most essential enzymes for life, as follows; 

    The probability of the formation of a Cytochrome-C sequence is as likely as zero. That is, if life requires a certain sequence, it can be said that this has a probability as likely as to be realised once in the whole universe. Or, some metaphysical powers beyond our definition should have acted in its formation. To accept the latter is not appropriate for the scientific goal. Then we have to look into the first hypothesis
Right after those lines, Demirsoy confesses how unrealistic this probability is, which he has recently accepted just because it was more "appropriate for the scientific goal"; 
    "...The possibility of providing the certain amino acid sequence of Cytochrome-C is as likely as the possibility of a monkey to type the history of humanity without making any mistake - given that the monkey presses on the keys at random."
As explained above, the existence of certain amino acids in certain locations doesn't relate to coincidences. 

Levo Proteins

One of the factors which obstructs the efforts of the evolutionists to explain the formation of the living things by chance is a type of protein called "levo" (left handed) proteins. 

Let’s first clarify the levo protein concept. 

The main body of all amino acids are comprised of a part that is formed out of nitrogen and hydrogen atoms attached to a carbon atom. The structure of that body is exactly same in all amino acids. Yet, there is an additional part called "R group" which is attached to this body and that is different in all amino acids. The R group gives each amino acid its own characteristic. This R group can be found on the left or right side of the main body. The amino acids in which the R group is on the left are called L-Levo (left-handed) amino acids, the ones in which it is on the right are called D-dextro (right handed) amino acids. The probability of formation of each is 50%. The right-handed and left-handed forms of the same molecule are called each other’s "optic isomers". The difference between optic isomers is like the difference between one object and its reflection on the mirror. Having formed of the same atoms and same parts in a similar order, these molecules have a symmetrical structure at three dimension just like our left hand and our right hand. 

In the lifeless world, these isomers are found equally (at a rate of 50%-50%). Each of the 20 main amino acids that exists in the human body can be found in the nature as levo or dextro form. 

An astonishing fact has been revealed by researches: All the proteins in the plants and animals from the simplest organism to the most profound, are made up of levo amino acids. Moreover, in some experiments, the bacteria are given dextro amino acids, but the they have immediately destroyed these amino acids, and in some cases formed levo amino acids from the components they could use. 

The evolutionists can, in no way, explain such a specific and conscious selection. When it is accepted that life has evolved by coincidences, the question of how such a selection has come about would definitely remain without any reply. Both amino acid types are equally found in the nature and amino acids from each group can perfectly combine with the other. So, how can it be explained that the proteins in all the living organisms are formed of only levo amino acids? 

The left handed (L) and right handed isomers (D) of the same amino acid. D-amino acids do not involve in the protein structure of the living things. Coincidences cannot explain their contribution to the protein formation. 
As seen clearly, this characteristic of the proteins, strengthens the confusion of the "coincidence theory" of the evolutionists: In order for a "meaningful" protein to evolve, it would not be enough for the amino acids to be at a certain quantity, a perfect sequence, and to be united in accordance with the special 3-dimensional design. Besides these, all these amino acids should be selected among the left handed (levo) ones and even one right handed amino acid should not exist among them. 
Because there exists no natural selection mechanism which can identify that a dextro amino acid added to the acid sequence can be erroneous and take it out of the chain. This is why even one dextro-amino acid should not be mixed along with the levo-amino acids. And this situation once more eliminates coincidence and chance concepts. 

As seen clearly, this characteristic of the proteins, strengthens the confusion of the "coincidence theory" of the evolutionists: In order for a "meaningful" protein to evolve, it would not be enough for the amino acids to be at a certain quantity, a perfect sequence, and to be united in accordance with the special 3-dimensional design. Besides these, all these amino acids should be selected among the left handed (levo) ones and even one right handed amino acid should not exist among them. Because there exists no natural selection mechanism which can identify that a dextro amino acid added to the acid sequence can be erroneous and take it out of the chain. This is why even one dextro-amino acid should not be mixed along with the levo-amino acids. And this situation once more eliminates coincidence and chance concepts. 

In Brittanica Science Encyclopedia which is a complete defender of evolution, after mentioning that all the amino acids of the all living organisms on earth and the proteins are in assymetry and all left-handed. In the encyclopedia, it is expressed that it is inconceivable how the molecules become left-handed or right handed, and this choice fascinatingly related to the source of life on earth. 

If a coin when tossed a million times, always comes up to heads, which would be more logical? To try to explain it by coincidence or to accept that someone consciously interferes in this? The reply is evident. However, despite this apparent reality, the evolutionists take refuge in coincidence just because they do not want to accept the existence of a “conscious interference”. 

A similar situation to the levo-acid case in the amino acids is true also for the nucleotides, the smallest units of DNA and RNA. As opposed to all the amino acids found in living organisms, these are chosen only from the right-handed ones. This situation also cannot be explained by coincidence. 

As a conclusion, it is definitely certified by the probabilities we have been examining up to now, that the source of life cannot be explained by coincidences: If we attempt to calculate the probability of an average sized protein composed of 400 amino acids to be selected only from L-amino acids, we would get a probability of 1 out of 2400, that is 10120. Just for a comparison, let us remind that the number of the electrons in the universe is estimated to be 1079 which is much smaller than this number. The probability for these amino acids to form the required sequence and functional form, would bring much larger numbers. If we adjoin these probabilities and if we expand the subject to the formation of a higher number and type of proteins, the calculations would become inextricable. 

The Necessity of Peptide Bonds 

Amino acid molecules have the property to combine with each other through various chemical bonds. However, proteins are made up of only and only of those amino acids which are bonded by "peptide" bonds. The researches showed that the amino acids combining at random happened to form with a peptide bond only at a rate of 50 % and that the rest were combined with different bonds that are not found in proteins. So, we have to consider the necessity that each amino acid making up a protein should be combined only and only with a peptide bond just like they have to be chosen only from the left handed ones. 

After all these, we have to make a last notice. 

Let us push aside all the impossibilities we have described up to now, and suppose that a useful protein molecule still evolved spontaneously by coincidence. Yet at this point, evolution again has no answers. Because in order for this protein to sustain its presence, it should be isolated from the natural atmosphere it is in and should be protected under very special conditions. Otherwise, this protein will either be broken up into pieces under the effect of the conditions on earth or would combine with other acids, amino acids or chemical materials, losing its properties, and would turn into a totally different, useless material. 

Can Nucleic Acids (DNA, RNA) Evolve by Coincidence?

According to what we have examined at the molecular level have shown that, the formation of the amino acids have not been illuminated by the evolutionists at all. The formation of the proteins is mystery. Moreover, the problem is not limited only by the amino acids and proteins. These are only a beginning. The cell itself is an immense problem for the evolutionists. Because the cell is not a heap made up of only amino acid structured proteins, it is a complex living mechanism which has hundreds of developed systems and which has rendered people incapable of solving its mystery. However, as we have depicted above, let aside these systems, the evolutionists are desperate in explaining even the formation of the basic units of the cell. 

While the theory of evolution which strives to explain the source of life by coincidences, has been incompetent of bringing a consistent explanation to the existence of these molecules that are the very basis of the cell structure, the developments in the science of genetics and the discovery of the nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) produced brand new problems for the theory. 

In 1955, the studies of two scientists, James Watson and Francis Crick, on DNA started a new age in biology. Many scientists directed their attention to the science of genetics. After years of research, today the structure of DNA is revealed to a large extent. 

At this point, it would be useful to give some very basic knowledge on the structure and function of DNA. 

The molecule called DNA which is found in the nucleus of each of the 100 trillions of cells in our body, contains the complete construction plan of the human body. The information regarding all the characteristics of a person, from his physical appearance to the structure of the inner organs, is recorded in DNA with a special coding system. The information in DNA is coded within the sequence of four special bases that make up this molecule. These molecules called nucleotides (or bases), are specified as A, T, G, C which are the initial letters of their names. All the structural differences among people, depend on the differences between the sequence of these letters. In a DNA molecule, there are approximately 3,5 billion nucleotides, that is, 3,5 billion letters. 

DNA molecule resembles to a  book of billions of pages that  tells about the human beings, by using 4 different letters. This is one of  the prominent creation miracles which remain unexplained by evolution. 
The information on the DNA, relating to an organ or a protein, are found in specific sections called genes. For example, the information on eye is found in a series of specific genes, and information on heart is found in another series of genes. The protein production in the cell is made by using the information in these genes. The amino acids shaping the structure of proteins are defined as the sequential alignment of three nucleotides found in the DNA. 

Each of the organs in our body is controlled by a different number of genes. For example, the skin is controlled by 2559 genes, brain by 29930, eye by 1794, salivary gland by 186, heart by 6216, breast by 4001, lung by 11581, liver by 2309, intestine by 3838, skeleton muscle by 1911, and blood cells by 22092. 

The order of the letters in the sequence in the DNA determines the structure of a human being to its slightest details. In addition to the features like height, eye, hair and skin colours, the DNA of a single cell also contains the design of 206 bones, 600 muscles, 10.000 auditory muscle network, 2 million optic nerve network, 100 billions of nerve cells, 130 billion meters long veins and 100 trillion cells in the body. 

At this point, there is an important detail that deserves attention. An error in the sequence that would occur in the nucleotides making up a gene, would cause this gene to be completely useless. When it is considered that there are 200 thousand genes in the human body, it becomes more evident how impossible it is for millions of nucleotides making up these genes to be formed by coincidence in the right sequence. An evolutionist biologist, Salisbury comments on this impossibility telling that an average protein has nearly 300 amino acids and the DNA chain which controls this has approximately 1000 nucleotides. Considering that a DNA chain has four types of nucleotides, a serial of 1000 nucleotides can be in 41000 different modes. This figure estamited through simple logarithm is far beyond limits of mind. 

The number 41000 can be calculated, by the help of logarithm, to mean 10620. This number is obtained by adding 620 zeros beside 10. As 10 with 11 zeros indicate a trillion, a figure with 620 zeros is indeed a number difficult to grasp. 

Prof. Ali Demirsoy had to make the following confession on this issue; 

    In fact, the probability of formation of a protein and a nucleus acid (DNA-RNA) is a probability much beyond the estimates. Furthermore, the chance of emergence of a certain protein chain is as likely as to be called astronomic.
In addition to all these impossibilities, DNA has a structure which very hardly enters to a reaction. Because DNA has the shape of a helix made up of a double chain. Also in this regard, it cannot be considered to be the foundation of life. 

Moreover, as DNA can only replicate  by the help of some enzymes in the structure of the protein, the synthesis of these enzymes can only be realised by the information in the DNA. As they both depend on each other, they have to exist at the same time for replication. Or one of them has to be "created" before the other. American microbiologist Homer Jacobson asserts that just as there exists the first creature, it is certain necessity that at the very same time they should have their reproduction plans, instructions of mechanisms which convert information to growth, and the characteristic of obtaining energy from outside world. And consequently the combination of these all cannot become real by chance. 

The quotation above is written two years after the structure of DNA is revealed by James Watson and Francis Crick. But despite all the developments in science,  this problem remains to be unsolved for the evolutionists. In brief, the need for DNA during replication, the necessity of the existence of some proteins for replication and the obligation of the production of these proteins according to the information on the DNA refute the evolutionist arguments in a very profound way. 

Experiments with RNA

Since the first discoveries on the structure of cells, it has been already known that the basic elements of cells are nucleic acids, proteins, carbohydrates and lipids. However, the question of which of them evolved first at the beginning of life, has been a very important problem for the evolutionists. It was apparent that the most essential elements for life were the most complex molecules which had the largest structure, that is, nucleic acids (DNA-RNA) and proteins. The evolutionists had a hard time in explaining how these evolved "by themselves". 

Proteins are the mechanisms which control and organize the most basic functions of the cell. Constructive proteins form the cell, catalytic proteins or enzymes carry out numerous chemical processes in the cell, break up the incoming food, provide energy to the cell, or undertake many important duties including the synthesis of DNA and RNA. These at the same time, they carry out very important tasks during the interaction of cells among themselves or with the external environment and in many other  incidents. 

But there is one thing the proteins cannot do; to replicate themselves. It is impossible for a protein to duplicate without DNA and RNA. The particular sequence of 20 different types of amino acids recorded  in the DNA, determine the structure of each protein in the body. 

It can easily be found in any biology book how DNA and RNA make up a protein by collaborating together. The point is that, during this process, not only one type of RNA is used. During protein production, specialized RNA types operate such as ribosomal RNA, transfer RNA, and messenger RNA. 

One of the most important problems the evolutionists are faced with in explaining the beginning of life, was that all these molecules helped each other to produce. DNA was just like a book including information. Despite the proteins carried out very important tasks, they could not reproduce without the written information on the DNA. It was impossible for the proteins to exist without the DNA, and for the DNA to exist without the proteins. Even if a protein was synthesized by chance, - which we had explained how impossible it was to happen - this situation would make no sense since that protein could not replicate itself. 

In 1986, a chemist of Harvard, Walter Gilbert introduced the term “RNA world” for the first time. He explained the term as follows: “RNA molecules and some supplementary factors can form an adequate enzyme group to execute the first cellular formations." Thus Gilbert developed the thought that RNA was the basic factor at the beginning of life which would afterwards happen to disturb even many evolutionists for the reason that it would turn out to be a dogma. 

Many evolutionists following Gilbert thought that the RNA molecule which undertakes a subsidiary task in the cell, was the factor for the beginning of life. According to the scenario, billions of years ago an RNA molecule that could replicate itself was spontaneously formed by coincidence. Then this RNA molecule started to produce proteins all of a sudden by the effect of the environmental conditions. Then a need to hide the information in a second molecule came about and somehow the DNA molecule emerged. Mutations and the Darwinist natural selection mechanism helped this primitive cell to turn into a more developed cell after a long period. 

It was a disappointment for many people who heard that the most “respected” evolution scientists found such a solution for the problem of the beginning of life which would be ridiculed by those who heard it. This theory even so hard to imagine, enlarged the problem instead of bringing an explanation to the beginning of life. Furthermore, many unanswered questions arised: While RNA replicated itself, where did it find the new nucleotides it used? How did such a replication process which would normally be achieved under very special conditions in the cell, realise in the primitive earth conditions? All these questions remained without any reply. 

There were other questions which remained without any reply as well: It is a wonder how the cell organelles which were as functional as real organs came to exist? How did the cell  membrane originate? How did very complex systems such as the mechanism of obtaining energy from ATP and photosynthesis come into being? 

All these show the impossibility of the formation of RNA, DNA or any other protein molecule by coincidence. But there is another point we have to focus on: Even if these molecules were taken from their present state and left in the primitive conditions of earth, after billions of years, not even one single living thing would be obtained. Because neither RNA nor DNA, nor proteins would be of any use by themselves. Furthermore, even if billions of DNA and protein molecules would be released to the primitive world atmosphere at random, they would disintegrate and deteriorate in that time. 

The evolutionist scientists were not able to find any way out. In addition to all these theoretic difficulties, nobody could succeed to obtain an RNA molecule that could copy itself in the laboratory environment. In any case, the synthesis of an RNA molecule that is unable to copy itself or the formation of an RNA molecule in the primitive atmosphere environment was much more difficult than protein synthesis. Because the nucleotides that make up the RNA (nucleic acid bases: adenine, guanine, cytosine, thymine), sugars to form the nucleotide stairs and the bonds between them, required very complex chemical reactions to form. It was true that short RNA molecules were obtained artificially outside a living cell, but any uncontrolled process would cause the synthesis to remain inconclusive. Out of the laboratory environment, it was definitely impossible for an RNA molecule to originate without a controlled supervision. 

In short, the production of the nucleotides making up the RNA one by one was indeed a very complex incident which could hardly be explained by coincidences. Well, was it easier for these nucleotides to combine with each other to form the RNA? The French researcher Paul Auger replies this question as follows; 

    "We should  distinguish the two steps for the formation of the complex molecules- nucleotides, by random chemical reactions; formation of nucleotides one by one - this may be possible to happen - and for them to join to each other with very special sequences. Now the second is; impossible." 
Even if one would suppose just for a minute that a miracle happened, that is, adenine, urasile, guanine, cytosine which make up the RNA and ribose sugar molecule originated and that they were linked to each other by very specific series, this condition would still make no sense from the viewpoint of the theory of evolution. Renowned microbiologists Gerald Joyce and Leslie Orgel explains this situation as follows; 
    "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 should strain the credulity of even an optimist’s view of RNA’s catalytic potential… Without evolution it appears unlikely that a self-replicating ribozyme could arise, but without some form of self-replication there is no way to conduct an evolutionary search for the first, primitive self-replicating" 
An RNA molecule to be chemically appropriate does not mean that this RNA molecule is a self-replicating one. Because a very big portion of the RNAs do not have a self-replicating structure. The genetic code needed for the RNA to copy itself is again found in the RNA itself but, none of the RNA molecules that are arbitrarily produced in the laboratory has the self-duplicating catalytic properties. It is totally impossible for the catalyst RNA molecule which cannot be produced even in the laboratory, to evolve by itself in the primitive ocean environment as the evolutionists claimed. 

The number of factors which renders this impossible is quite many. 

First, the number of the nucleotides that make up the RNA, carries a vital importance for the formation of a self-replicating RNA molecule. Because, in order for an RNA molecule to start replication, it should reach the so-called “magical number” of 50 nucleotides.  Any RNA molecule made up of a lesser number of nucleotides is unable to replicate itself. 

Well, can an RNA molecule possess 50 nucleotides by chance? This question can also be put this way: Could it be ever possible to obtain such a long RNA chain in the laboratory experiments?  A microbiology specialist, Phil Cohen replies to this question in one of his articles published in “New Scientist” as follows: 

    In test tube versions of the prebiotic world - as yet unblessed with protein enzymes or ribozymes - nucleotides link up, but only a few at a time. Once three or more have been connected, the RNA chain snaps - long before it has reached the magic length of fifty nucleotides needed to catalyse production of more RNAs. 
Apparently, there are serious problems in the linking of the nucleotides even under laboratory conditions. Thus, it is impossible to consider that these nucleotides combined in nature by themselves without any problem. 

Carl Woese from Illinois University, remarks that genetic evidences are against the “RNA world” theory. Woose stresses that the source of energy required for the formation of RNA has not been explained. The RNA molecules are fed artificially with tri-phosphate in the test tubes in the laboratories, but in the nature such an energy source is found only in the living cells and these can never be produced in a Miller-type experiment. Woose says that “The RNA world advocates view the soup as a battery, charged up and ready to go.”  Certainly, there is no such battery which would exist "by coincidence" in nature and supply energy to RNA. 

All these definitely refute the theory asserting that a self-replicating RNA molecule can evolve spontaneously in the nature. 

Let us, nevertheless, suppose that the impossible is realized and that a self-replicating RNA molecule has somehow originated by itself, like the evolutionists asserted. This time, one cannot help wondering how this RNA would remain unharmed due to the external effects in the primitive environment. Because the sugar molecules which are one of the building-stones of the DNA and RNA molecules, can easily be destroyed in both acidic and basic environments. The fragile ribose molecules making up the RNA and deoxyribose molecules making up the DNA, definitely become incapacitated in environments over pH 8. This characteristic would certainly cause them to dissipate in the primitive soup in a short while. 

The protection of the bases making up the nucleic acids is another problem. Especially cytosine hydrolyzes very easily and gets damaged. Other molecules making up the RNA are impaired  in a very short time unless they are protected in a living cell. 

It is clear that both RNA and DNA molecules break down and get impaired in environments subject to all kinds of chemical effects unless they are protected under special conditions. 

The evolutionists have no response to give against these questions. Neither the Miller experiment, nor the RNA experiments can propose a proper explanation for the beginning of life. Therefore many scientists think that molecular evolution theories are products of imagination and are unreal. For example, German scientists Junker and Scherer, explain that the synthesis of each of the molecules required for the chemical evolution necessitates different conditions, and that the chance of the materials which can be obtained in, even theoretically, many different methods, to come together is zero: 

    "Until now, no experiment is known in which we can obtain all the molecules necessary for chemical evolution. Therefore, it is essential to produce various molecules in different places under very suitable conditions and then to carry them to another place for reaction by protecting them from harmful elements like hydrolysis and photolysis" 
In short, theory of evolution is unable to prove any of the evolutional stages which are allegedly realized at the molecular level. Many questions such as how the RNA molecule was able to find a cell membrane for itself, then how it formed the cell organelles, remain unanswered. 

Besides, even if we suppose that a catalytic RNA have formed in the prebiotic soup, it replicated itself as many number of times as necessary, and that all types of amino acids are present in the same environment in numerous amounts, and assume that all these impossibilities someway got realized, this condition would not be sufficient for the formation of a single protein molecule. Because RNA has the information on the structure of the protein, Amino acids are the raw materials, but still, the protein synthesis cannot occur, as there is no factory available. A protein is produced only in the ribosome with the help of many enzymes after extremely sophisticated processes within the cell. Ribosome is a complex cell organelle also made up of proteins. So this condition would bring forth another incomprehensible supposition that the ribosome should also be generated by coincidence at the same time. In short, as every assertion of evolution includes a contradiction in itself, it also brings along many other numerous contradictions. For this reason, in none of the evolutionist references, this subject is never mentioned in detail and the evolution mechanisms that are claimed to exist are never explained. 

The most frequent expression we come across in the evolutionist references is; "First the RNA formed in the chemical soup, then catalyzer RNA produced the proteins by replicating itself. Then RNA took itself under protection within structures similar to the cell membrane..." However, each of these expressions include circumstances which has the possiblity of “0” to spontaneously happen. The origin of life is overlooked by the evolutionists without detailed exploration in the matter and without relying on any logical base”. 

The Unexplainable Enzyme Cycle 

The enzymes, as indicated before, are proteins which provide the metabolytic events to take place and that control the reactions. Hundreds of different enzymes in the body have hundreds of different functions. Many complex processes in the cell, such as the assimilation of food, production of energy, construction of new proteins, and replication of DNA, are realised by means of  enzymes. 

If these enzymes did not exist, almost all of the body functions, from the simplest to the most complex, would fail to operate, or would slow down as to stop. The result in both cases would be death. 

The enzymes clamp to the substance that they would effect or change, in a three dimensional complex geometry. After the enzyme makes the necessary changes on the substance, it is withdrawn from the reaction without any alteration in its own structure. In the three dimensional structure, the relation between the enzyme and the substance resembles to the relation between the key and its lock in terms of conformity. The enzyme works so rapidly that sometimes it can unite and disunite with tens of substances one by one in one second. 

In short, the cell persists its existence with the help of the enzymes. But the enzymes themselves are produced in the cell. Each cell produces the number of enzymes that it needs. In many chemical reactions, more than one enzyme work in cooperation. Even the absence of one of these enzymes inhibits the this reaction. 

This point which even the evolutionists accept its impossibility, clearly is inexplainable by the theory of evolution . 

Because in order for the enzymes to be produced by the cell and for the cell to function  by means of the enzymes, it is necessary that these two should have existed at the same time in a complete and perfect state. The only explanation of this is not coincidence but conscious creation. 

As an example, let’s analyse the “aerobic respiration” in the mitochondria of the cell. Aerobic respiration is to obtain energy of the cell from the food using oxygen. During this process, many different chemical reactions take place successively. In each stage of the reactions, many different enzymes go in and out of the reaction one by one. The absence of even one of these enzymes terminates the whole reaction. In such a situation, oxygen, which is the biggest need of the cell to obtain energy, destroys the cell. That is, as soon as the cell is produced, it also has to have the enzyme system which will enable it to use the oxygen. Otherwise, the oxidizing effect of the oxygen would bring the death of the cell. 

So, how did the cell learn such a system? 

The truth is; no cell has the opportunity to “learn” a biological function in the real sense. Because, the cell, not possessing features to carry out such a function in the course of its birth, has no chance to acquire such a skill to fulfill this function later. The prerequisition is that the related system should be completely functioning in the body at its birth. Otherwise, oxygen, which plays the leading role in energy production, immediately destroys the cell. So the cell has to be equipped with a perfect system which would ensure that it is capable of using oxygen the first moment it exist exists. Only in this way it can use oxygen which would normally destroy it and only in this way it can produce its substantial need for maintaining its life, that is; energy. 

Another situation in which the enzymes are involved is the process of replication of the DNA.  Before the cell divides to generate two new cells, a complete copy of the DNA should be produced. This copied DNA will be the genetic information of the new cell. 

However, this replication process is quite complicated. Again many different enzymes work together in harmony. First, DNA should divide into two to duplicate itself. The DNA molecule which has a structure similar to a spiral ladder, is unzipped from top to bottom by a special enzyme. Now there are two DNA strands. Both of these halves are completed with their suitable pairs by the materials existing in the environment. So two new DNA molecules are now produced. The enzymes are involved at each stage of the operation. 

The two new DNA molecules are controlled numerous times by the inspector enzymes. If there is an error - which may be very vital - it is immediately noticed and restored. The distorted code is removed and replaced by the right one. All these processes occur in such a high speed that, while 3000 nucleotide pairs are produced in a minute, all of them are  controlled by enzymes, and necessary corrections are made. 

However, there may be more errors in the newly produced DNA molecule due to some external effects and the enzymes may be insufficient. This time the ribosomes start producing “DNA repair enzymes” with the order coming from DNA. Thus, DNA protects itself and helps continue breed. 

As seen clearly, it is impossible for the cell to survive without the enzyme systems working progressively. These enzymes can be of use only if they exist together in a living organism. They can be transferred to the subsequent race through inheritance, that is, by the information stored in the DNA. None of the  living organisms can learn such a complex structural arrangement by itself. 

To claim that all these emerged out of coincidences is absolutely beyond the boundaries of reason and  logic. . 

Confessions of the Evolutionists

The biggest evidences for the fact that evolution is not “a proven fact” but only a belief people are trying to prove, are the confessions of the evolutionist scientists. The unique enzyme systems, the superior structure of the protein and the DNA, are some of the issues these confessions are about. 

Hoimar Von Dithfurt, the writer of the book Im Anfang War der Wasserstoff (In the Beginning Existed Hydrogen) which is accepted as one of the most substantial sources in the field of evolution, is one of these confessors. Dithfurt confesses how evolution falls desperate in explaining the existence of the enzymes establishing the respiration system. However, he also notes that an evolutionist scientist has to ignore such a problem just because he “believes in the evolution”. 

    "Is such a harmony that is emerged only out of coincidences possible in reality? This is the basic question of the whole biological evolution. They think according to the answers given to this question and divide into groups. Answering this questions as 'Yes, it is possible' is something like verifying the faith in modern science of nature. If we want to express this with bad intention, we can say: Somebody who accepts modern science of nature has no other alternative than to say "yes". Because he would aim to explain the natural phenomenon by understandable ways and try to derive them from laws of nature without applying to metaphysical interference. However at this point, explaining everything by means of laws of nature, that is; by coincidences,  is a sign that  he has nowhere else to escape. Because, what could he do other than believing in coincidences?" 
Between Von Ditfurth’s lines, it is possible to find other parts which give away the “ideological necessity”. In another place it says; “...if we do not want to explain the necessity of these complex chemical reactions by science, then is there a way other than to refer to the category of coincidences?”. In another paragraph it goes, “... the bioligist obliged to explain this phenomenon in reliance to naturalscience...”  That means concidence is impossible, but it is still necessary to believe in coincidence instead of accepting the existence of a Creator!... 

The impossibility of explaining the existence of the enzyme systems by coincidence or evolution is admitted by other evolutionist scientists as well. One of the principal authorities of evolution in Turkey, Prof. Dr. Ali Demirsoy explains the possibility of the accidental formation of Cytochrome-C which is one of the essential basic proteins for the realisation of respiration; 

    "...The possibility of providing the certain amino acid sequence of Cytochrome-C is as likely as the possibility of a monkey to write the history of humanity in the typewriter without making any fault - taking for granted that the monkey presses on the keys at random." 
Doubtlessly, in order for such a probability to be accepted, reason and common sense should be totally pushed aside, or ignored on purpose just as the evolutionists do. Well, but why? What is the logic behind accepting something impossible as true? This reality lying at the basis of the evolutionist thought is seen plainly in the other lines of Ali Demirsoy: 
    "In essence, the probability of the formation of a Cytochrome-C sequence is as likely as zero. That is, if life requires a certain sequence, it can be said that this has a probability as likely as to be realised once in the whole universe. Or some metaphysical powers beyond our definition should have acted in its formation. To accept the latter is not appropriate for the scientific goal. Then we have to look into the first hypothesis." 
It is clear that accepting the impossible is preferred to the acceptance of a creator. The evolutionists make similar appropriations forcing the boundaries of reason and logic with the same reasoning mentioned above. Demirsoy writes; 
    "... The most crucial point of the problem is how the mitochondria have acquired this feature. Because attaining this feature by chance even by one person, requires  extreme probabilities that are incomprehensible.... The enzymes providing the respiration and functioning as a catalyzer in each step in a different form make up the core of the mechanism. A cell has to contain this enzyme sequence completely, because it is meaningless to contain only some. Yet the absence of some enzymes do not lead to any kind of a consequence. Here, despite very contrary to the biological thought, in order to avoid a more dogmatic explanation or speculation, we have to accept, though reluctantly, that all the respiration enzymes completely existed in the cell before the cell contacted oxygen. Only a cell having accidentally attained this enzyme sequence can adapt to the atmosphere with free oxygen." 
The reason lying behind these lines marks at the same point: The purpose of the evolutionists is not to make what they call as “a dogmatic explanation or speculation”; that is not to accept the existence of a Creator whatsoever. They are conditioned to this belief and because of that, they can easily embrace any assumption even it is absolutely impossible. 

They play various logical tricks to show these impossible assumptions as possible. The explanation of one of the staff members of Harvard University, Professor George Wald, stating that the the creator is “time”, is a good example of this. Wald expresses time to be the real hero of the plan. With the necessary time amount given, “impossible” becomes possible, Wald believes. What is possible becomes ‘potential’ and what is potential becomes ‘almost determined’. According to Wald, only waiting is adequate because the time itself creates miracles. 

As prescribed, the evolutionist scientists have submitted their theory to the hands of miracles.  Thousands of unexplainable points are sought to be concealed under the term of "evolutional miracle" and the theory is sought to be kept alive.  

But miracle, with its dictionary meaning, is "a state of being which goes beyond the boundaries of the human mind, exceeds the rules of nature, and relies on religious belief rather than thought."  The fact that the evolutionists attribute "miracles" to the evolution shows that they are engaged to the evolution process not scientifically but with some kind of faith. In other words, they believe in an "evolution religion" and they have to consent to all kinds of impossibilities in order to remain faithful to this religion. 
Cytochrome-C, one of the respiration enzymes. In order for the Cytochrome-C to perform its function, it is required that each atom should be in its place in the three dimensional structure. "the probability of the formation of a Cytochrome-C sequence is as likely as zero" (Ali Demirsoy, Genetics and Evolution, p. 61) 
We will analyse the "evolution religion" which is the stimulating power behind the evolution theory in the second part of the book in more detail. 

The Unexplainable Structure of The Cell Membrane

Molecules such as RNA and DNA cannot stay in a liquid medium without breaking down. When found outside of a living cell, both vulnerable molecules are easily destroyed. 

Well, according to the evolutionists, howcome these molecules succeeded to maintain their existence and replicated themselves at the first step despite they had no cell membrane which would protect them? The response of the evolutionists is that the cell membrane also evolved along with the RNA and DNA. 

Well, is that possible? 

Before examining the issue of the evolution of the cell membrane, we have to know some functions of this structure. A cell membrane should be able to keep the vital materials such as DNA inside and the harmful materials such as the viruses and toxins outside. Besides, the cell membrane should seclude the cell from the outside, should construct the cell skeleton and provide communication with the other cells. 

The cell membrane which performs all these functions, has a structure as complex as the other cell organs. 

The biologists started to discover the structure of the layer which makes up the cell membrane in the beginning of the 1960’s. The cell was covered by a slender fat layer called lipid and seemed like toffee apples tied to each other from their sticks. The rounded part was made up of charged atoms such as sugars or a phosphate group, while the stalk parts were made up of carbon and hydrogen atoms which were uncharged. 

After a while, the biophysician Alec Bangham from Cambridge University made an important discovery on the lipids. The lipids obtained from the egg-white formed a two-fold bubble in the average size of a cell when thrown in water. The bubbles of Bangham were afterwards named as liposome. 

In the middle of the 1970’s, two researchers called Deamer and Bangham asserted that the liposomes were a shelter for the first molecules. However previously, the evolutionist researchers thought that the cell membrane was produced depending on the information coded on the DNA. In this case, the genetic molecules should have been generated before the cell membrane. The discovery of the liposomes advanced the idea that the cell membrane originated formerly. According to this, some RNA molecules could have been imprisoned in the firstly formed cell membrane and those could have multiplied within this protective shell by time. 

One reason why Deamer, one of the foremost defenders of this theory, doubted of his own theory was some structural properties of these lipid spheres. The most important problem was that these spheres completely separated the inner medium from the outside . However, the cell membrane was not a covering made up of only lipid molecules. The researches found out that the cell membrane had a very special structure. Some very special protein structures were found on the membrane, between the lipid molecules. Some of these structures were the gates which provided the entries and exits to the cell, and some were the detectors which determined the relations of the cell with the outside environment. Moreover, different gates existed for the exchange of different materials. These gates had an extremely special structure. The material exchange was achieved after extremely complex chemical processes. 

A cell membrane devoid of these kinds of mechanisms would only be a death prison instead of a shelter for a molecule found inside. Because the membrane in the model allegedly evolved by coincidence was completely terminating the relation of the inner molecule with the outer environment. 

The most important problem was how the genetic information regarding the instruction of this cell-membrane-like structure was processed on the DNA and RNA molecules as a code. This last problem showed that it would be of no use even if the DNA had got into the membrane by a casual way. Thus the problem on the origins of the cell membrane remained as an unsolved riddle for the evolutionists. 

The Sole Nutrition Source of the Earth; Chloroplast 

The basis of life on earth is the sun. The solar energy is utilized by the plants and converted to nutrition. All the energy used by the living things on earth including the energy you spend while reading this book, is in fact the solar energy coming from the sun and being packed by the plants for the living things. 

The plants make this only energy source of the living things, ready to be used. This comprises of a series of processes including the most complex chemical and physical reactions of the earth. The plants break up the carbondioxide they take from the air through their leaves and the water they take from their roots. After that, they combine these molecules in a totally different form by using solar energy. Thus the sun rays can be stored in the plant. The living things, by eating the plant, take the solar energy as a ready-made energy package in its own structure. 

This process through which the plants produce food by using the solar energy is called photosynthesis. Photosynthesis which is a very complex process is only specific to the plants. 

The organs which make photosynthesis in the plants are called chloroplasts. According to the evolutionists, the chloroplasts were different cells at the beginning which then were included in the cell somehow. Well how has this event come true? 

Some of the evolutionist sources developed an absolutely speculative scenario against this question. The story goes like billions of years ago primitive cells kept floating in the primitive ocean. One of these, by means of chance, took in a material called porphyrin which had the power of absorbing light. Thus this organism came to be a primitive living thing capable of obtaining its own food from the sun light by itself. Then a bigger cell which swallowed this cell could not digest the porphyrined cell and they started a symbiotic life. The most interesting part of the scenario is told by one of the foremost evolutionists of Turkey, Ali Demirsoy, as follows; 

    "The cells which swallowed these cells containing porphyrin could not digest these porphyrin containing cells for some reason, at least because it lost the digestion enzymes to absorb these, which are  already swallowed by only one animal may be specifically for only once in all through the evolution process. This digestion enzyme or enzymes, lost maybe due to a complete coincidence, has become one of the most important starting points of evolution." 
Let us look closer at this coincidence explanation of Mr. Ali Demirsoy put forward with a logic of “it should have happened like this”. This coincidence put forward here is such a coincidence that it foresees two events as likely as to be realized once in a billion to take place at the same time and place together. Something as likely as once in a billion should have happened and a porphrin should have entered into a cell in the ocean “by coincidence”. At the same time, again something as likely as once in a billion should have come true and the digestion enzymes of an organism around that cell should have disappeared. Then one of these organisms that is as likely to be realised as once a billion should have taken the other inside. Further, these should be realised in a very short time. Because a living organism whose digestion enzymes are impaired does not have much time to live. 

Now let’s think about how this incredible - and in fact absolutely impossible - coincidence has taken place. Three alternatives are available; 

A. The digestion enzymes are lost before the porphyrin containing cells are swallowed. 

B. The digestion enzymes were lost in a short while after the porphyrin containing cells were swallowed. 

C. The loss of the digestion cells and the swallowing of the porphyrin containing cells took place at the same time. 

Now, let’s examine these alternatives one by one; 

ALTERNATIVE A: In this case, it is meaningless for the living thing to swallow the organic matters (and thus the porphyrin containing cells) as it could not be able to digest them. Why would a cell swallow materials totally strange to itself, that it is not able to digest and that could be poisonous for itself? The cells, even if they are primitive, take in only the materials which they can digest. Otherwise, inside of the cell would be indistinguishable from a dump. 

Besides our unicellular living thing would die from hunger if it had lost its digestion enzymes since it could not digest the food it had swallowed until it came across with the porphyrin containing cells. 

ALTERNATIVE B: If the digestion enzymes stay lost for a little longer while, then the porphyrin containing cell would be destroyed by being digested. 

ALTERNATIVE C: Unicellular organism should lose the digestion enzymes “at the moment it swallows the porphyrined cells”. In this case, the probability at hand is so small as to be comprehensible, and the mathematical expression of this is “zero”. The acceptance of these incomprehensible coincidences as “an hypothesis” in the name of science, can only be possible with a blindly devotion to the religion of evolution. 

There is another dilemma at stake. The oxygen released from the porphyrin containing cell while transforming the sun light into chemical energy, acts as a toxin for the bigger cell it tries to symbiose. Because the oxygen is fatal for the cell alone. The bigger cell has to possess all the enzymes that perform the oxygen respiration, at the moment it swallows the porphyrined cell. (It would be meaningless to have them before or after). This means a smaller probability than the ones told above which makes everything more inextricable. 

Another point that should not be forgotton is that a plan of all the organs in the cell, is found in the DNA in the form of a code. If a cell uses another cell containing porphyrin as its own organ, it has to have a complete plan of this organ in its DNA as well. Otherwise, it cannot transfer this feature to the next generation. As the cell cannot copy the structure plan of another cell it took inside to its own DNA, the hypothesis at hand has no validity in genetic means. 

Because of all these reasons, the evolutionist explanation Ali Demirsoy brings to the subject is important not because it brings forward a serious argument, but it shows how vague the evoutionist logic is. The fact that the evolutionists still go on blindly defending these explanations, shows the degree of the fanatism they are carried away by. 

When chloroplasts and photosynthesis are examined closer, it would be seen more clearly how illogical it would be to try to explain these by coincidences. The chloroplasts are the only nutrition sources of the earth. The material they produce is oven 200 billion tons a year. This production is an extraordinary chemical process and is realised in a expeditious speed. The reaction of the chloroplasts against light is accomplished in such a short time such as the one thousandth of a second. Because of this, most of the events that take place in the chloroplast could not be observed. The phases of the photosynthesis is known in general, but the details is an unknown black box. A system so complex as not be imitated chemically, operates much above the boundaries of human cognition. None of the laboratories in the world can realise the process of obtaining nutrition from sun rays; which is done by an fragment in the size of a thousandth of a milimeter. 

In photosynthesis, many enzymes and different systems (electron transport systems, Photosystem I and Photosystem II) operate together in cooperation. This point causes the the theory of evolution to collapse once more. Because the system in question and the enzymes must be present at the same time and within a plan that would work in an order. This blind alley confessed even by the evolutionist scientists is expressed by Ali Demirsoy by desperation; 

    "Photosynthesis is a quite complex mechanism and it seems impossible to occur in an organ in the cell. Because the formation of all the phases altogether is impossible, and it is meaningless for them to emerge one by one." 
But Demirsoy and many native or foreign scientists continue to strive to explain all these events which they are unable to perceive by coincidence. But the experiments, investigations, calculations and examinations disprove them instead of justifying. 

Intelligent Design

What we have been examining since the beginning of this chapter, shows that the structure of life at the molecular level can in no way be explained by coincidences. This means that life has been created by an intelligent Creator. Actually, today the most important names of microbiology have been unable to defend evolution. Instead, another theory begins to spread among the scientists. Theory of “intelligent design”. 

The scientists defending this theory stress the clearity of the fact that life has been created by an intelligent “designer”. There is a very concrete reality and a very simple logic in this. A complex system or a very precisely patterned structure can only come into being as a result of an intelligent design. For example, nobody who has seen the famous Rushmore mountain in U.S.A., can doubt that the faces in this mountain have been designed. Because the faces of the four American Presidents scraped on the mountains are very apparent works of sculpture. It would relate with no kind of logic to claim that these faces were shaped by “coincidence”, that is, by various factors such as wind, earthquake, thunderbolt. 

But still many scientists are unable to accept this reality and try to remain faithful to the theory of evolution. One of the foremost defenders of the intelligent design theory, biologist Michael J. Behe, points out to this big impasse which the microbiological evidences cause for the evolutionists; 

    "Over the past four decades modern biochemistry has uncovered the secrets of the cell. The progress has been hard won. It has required tens of thousands of people to dedicate the better parts of their lives to the tedious work of the laboratory… 
    The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell-to investigate life at the molecular level- is a loud, clear, piercing cry of "design!". The result is so unambiguous and so significant that it must be ranked as one of the greatest achievements in the history of science… This triumph of science should evoke cries of "Eureka!" from ten thousand throats, should occasion much hand-slapping and high-fiving, and perhaps even be an excuse to take a day off. 
    But no bottles have been uncorked, no hands slapped. Instead a curious, embarrased silence surrounds the stark complexity of the cell. When the subject comes up in public, feet start to shuffle, and breathing gets a bit labored. In private, people are a bit more relaxed; many explicitly admit the obvious but then stare at the ground, shake their heads, and let it go at that. 
    Why does the scientific community not greedily embrace its startling discovery? Why is the observation of design handled with intellectual gloves? The dilemma is that while one side of the elephant is labeled intelligent design, the other side must be labelled God." 
Yes, this is the only reason why the science world tries to keep away from the concept of intelligent design. An important part of the leading names of this are atheists. They try to preserve this “world view” in any case. In their vision, science is an instrument to support this world view, not an instrument to bring the realities into light. 

The persistance of the evolutionists on the issue got so rigid that despite some of them are obliged to accept the concept of intelligent design, they try to do it without accepting the existence of God. 

One of the most interesting examples of this interesting attempt comes from Sir Francis H.C.Crick who has won a Nobel prize due to the significant discoveries he made on the DNA. Facing the incredible complex structure he met on the DNA,  Crick had to accept that the roots of life cannot be explained by coincidences. But Crick, in no way, consents to accept that the master of this creation which he discovered is God. 

Ultimately, in 1973 he advances his great theory: Life on earth may have begun by aliens from another planet billions of years ago! The space creatures have shaped the primitive life by their hands as if making an experiment, and "seeded" the world by sending a rocket ship containing spores. This interesting thesis is proposed in the article headlined “Directed Panspermia” published in a professional science journal called Icarus, and is defended a decade later again in Crick's book called Life Itself. Crick goes on reiterating the same theory with tenacity in his long interview published in Scientific American in 1992. 

When we take this claim seriously and attempt to criticize it, we see that in fact there is not an available explanation. Because, by giving the capability of creation to "aliens", Crick has also brought forth the question of "so, who created the aliens?". Maybe he would say that they were also created by "other aliens" but it is clear that this leads to a vicious circle. 

It is reasonable to find Crick’s thesis pointless; but it seems to be extremely logical when compared with another thesis put forward again by the evolutionists. The name of this fantastic theory put forward by some physicians who felt obliged to accept intelligent design is “journey in time”. According to this, the roots of life could have been casted by a developed human civilisation living much later than us by means of a “journey in time” by turning back in history. In other words, the “panspermiar things” Crick mentions, are this time the earth bound humans travelling in time. 

It is not necessary to be too intelligent to see that this is a very apparent logical paradox. Because there is no reply to the question of how a human generation who can  "seed" his own ancestors can come into being. This thesis is so nonsense that one is astonished how it can be expressed by the evolutionists. But, most probably out of desperation, some of them called forth this thesis seriously. One of the most “respectable” science magasines of the West, Scientific American did not avoid writing the lines below in its March 1994 issue while mentinoning this theory; 

    "Far from being a logical absurdity… the theoretical possibility of taking such an excursion into one’s earlier life is an inescapable consequence of fundamental physical principles." 
It is possible to frequently come across with ridiculous statements similar to the journey in time theory in the evolutionist arguments. To take over such a hard task as defending a theory as unreasonable as evolution and rejecting such an obvious reality like the intelligent design, evidently gives way to mental confusions from time to time. For example, Richard Dawkins who has won the attribute of the biggest defender of Darwinism with his book, tells his readers in The Blind Watchmaker that even if a statue of the Virgin Mary waved to them, they should not conclude they had witnessed a miracle. Because according to Dawkins “Perhaps all the atoms of the statue’s arm just happened to move in the same direction at once- a low probability event to be sure, but possible.” 

This difficult situation they are in - that is, the constraint of defending the impossible and rejecting a plain reality - puts the evolutionists under such a pressure that they start to display anger, insolence and aggressiveness besides logical disorders. The owner of the genious ideas regarding the Virgin Mary statue, Richard Dawkins had written that anyone who denies evolution is either “ignorant, stupid or insane”.  John Maddox, the editor of Nature, has written in his journal that “It may not be long before that practice of religion must be regarded as anti-science”.  In his recent book Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, philosopher Danniel Dennett compares religious believers -90 percent of the population- to wild animals who may have to be caged, and he says that parents should be prevented from misinforming their children about the truth of evolution. 

All the struggles these “scientists” pursue not to accept the intelligent design (that is, creation) which is an apparently observed reality reveals an important fact. These scientists and the modern science they shape in their hands, stand totally on an ideological basis. The ideology necessitates to reject a Creator, that is, God’s existence. The sole purpose of all the “scientific” efforts pursued in the name of theory of evolution is only this ideology. 

So what is it that makes these scientists compelled to think this way? Moreover, what is the power that makes this thought to be the “official ideology of science” all around the world, that publicizes continuously in the media, in the schools? Who is it that sets its purpose to make people reject their Creator and organizes a global deception programme for this end? 

The answers to these questions, that is, the ideology of deception, is as important as the biology of deception which we have covered up till now. 

Therefore, now it is time to look into this ideology. 

SOURCE: http://www.harunyahya.com/evolution_introduction.php (Note: I do not endorse the Muslim religion, but the information published here is very truthful concerning the evils of evolution. —David J. Stewart)

Previous | Contents | Next