#2: Nature is incapable of randomly producing complex organic molecules
As was noticed in part 1 of this series, nature is utterly incapable of randomly producing anything complex at all, much less a complete organelle (such as the mitochondria, ribosomes, or nucleus).

Plainly, since nature can't do even that, it becomes quite absurd to suggest the possibility that it could somehow produce ALL the organelles of a bacterium, and then construct them into a fully-functioning, highly complex organism (the simplest bacteria are highly complex in nature).

But the story for evolution gets far bleaker still—for as we're about to see, not even basic organic molecules (like proteins or DNA) can be produced by random acts of nature.

Failed efforts

Although evolutionists such as Stanley Miller and Harold Urey succeeded in generating extremely simple combinations of amino acids and nucleotides, never have complex organic molecules (like proteins or DNA) been manufactured in a laboratory experiment.

Of course, they've been desperately trying to do so—in an attempt to mimic evolution—but haven't come close, in spite of ideal laboratory circumstances designed to "help things succeed."

Why are they failing?

Because complex organic molecules (like proteins and DNA) are astronomically more complex than a couple of simplistic peptide chains (small sections of protein) or nucleic acids (building blocks of DNA) that happened to clump together during an experiment—such as Miller and Urey succeeded in producing.

Unfortunately for evolutionists, what Miller and Urey did in getting a couple of amino acids to join (forming a simple peptide chain) is comparable to conducting an experiment during which you succeed in getting a couple of fragments of metal to randomly clump together—and then concluding that nature could therefore produce an entire vehicle.

It's an absurdly colossal leap of logic, far beyond the boundaries of basic common sense.

It's mathematically impossible for nature to produce human proteins

As mentioned, organic molecules (such as proteins and DNA) are complex arrangements of amino acids and nucleic acids—not just a few simple molecules randomly bundled together, as some would lead us to believe.

In fact, according to rules of probability, it is categorically impossible for even one protein to form by chance from nature (much less entire organelles and organisms).

The odds that just one protein could accidentally arise from random combinations of 20 possible amino acids (the number of amino acids in the human body), into a specific protein of only 100 amino acids, are 1 chance in 20100, or well beyond 1 in 10100. Carl Sagan estimated this probability to be approximately 1 in 10130.

This probability is so infinitesimally minute that it far exceeds "mathematical impossibility" according to Borel's Law of Mathematical Probability. Borel's Law states that any probability less than 1 in 1050 is, in practical terms, an impossible achievement—due in part to the limited amount of time (15 billion years) and matter (~1080) in the universe (please read
Chemical Evolution is mathematically and physically impossible for more detail on "Borel's Law").

In other words, the number of chemical events scientists think that could have occurred in the history of the universe (approximately 10118) is—believe it or not—limited.

Meaning (due to these limitations) that not just anything could have "happened by accident" in our universe—as evolutionists lead people to believe.

In fact, when the probability of something occurring exceeds 1050 events, that "something" clearly did not happen.

Since even a simple protein would require an incredible 10130 random events before it could be formed by nature, it is therefore trillions multiplied by trillions of times beyond the realm of mathematical reality.

(Incidentally, this fact poses also serious problems for the theory of Macroevolution, discussed in a later article. Macroevolution must go much further than this—it must account for the chance mutations of incredibly complex new body structures like the eye and brain. The probability that these occurred by chance is even further beyond sensible consideration.)

Yet, obviously, the random creation of a mere protein is "not even a good start" to the creation of a mere organelle, much less a bacterium (or a complex organ like the human brain, for that matter).

Complexities of proteins further revealed

Even if we possessed no knowledge of rudimentarily probability, simple common sense would indicate to any reasonable individual that Spontaneous Generation of complex biomolecules—much less life—simply did not happen. (I highly recommend that you take a moment to see the video above for an example of how proteins are created inside the cells of living organisms—it's eye-opening!)

The reasons are as follows:

Proteins must possess specific three-dimensional shapes to properly function. These essential shapes are absolutely dependent on all amino acids of each protein being in a precise order. Even a single peptide chain out of sequence can easily result in the failure of proper protein functionality, which in turn can easily kill the entire organism.

Take an automobile, for example.

An automobile (like an organism) is comprised of perhaps thousands of individual parts (comparable to the cell's organelles). Each individual part is typically composed of numerous other specifically shaped "micro-parts" (comparable to organic molecules), each of which is comprised of billions of metal fragments (comparable to amino acids or nucleic acids) that must all be molded together into specific 3 dimensional shapes.

Often the substances forming each micro-part must be entirely different (wire, aluminum, steel, rubber, etc). Additionally, all related micro-parts must be combined into a specific shape (and order) just to form a single car part (e.g., carburetor). Then, that part must be in exactly the right spot on the automobile, and working in complete harmony with all the other parts.

Obviously, if only a few fragments of metal are incorrectly shaped, on just one micro-part of one part, then the entire part may not function—which means the entire automobile could "break down."

The same is true—on a far more complex and sensitive level—of an organism, its individual organelles, and the complex micro-parts of each organelle.

Just as one malformed micro-part can render an entire automobile useless, so the order of amino acids in cells must also be precise.

Even minor mistakes in protein structure will alter the shape and therefore the function of proteins, which are vital to organism survival. Twenty types of amino acids are found in human proteins, in myriads of combinations forming highly complex proteins of specific form and function. Millions of amino acids must come together in precise arrangements to form organelles, which must in turn integrate precisely to form an organism.

And that's just the proteins.

Complexities of DNA revealed

Now comes the real complexity of the cell: the nucleus and DNA (composed of nucleic acids—see video above to get an idea of how intricate and complex DNA is.)

Remember, the DNA supermolecule of the simplest organism on our planet (a bacterium) contains roughly 4,000,000 base pairs. And the ordering of this data must be precise. Even slight rearrangements result in mutations that almost always cause the death or reduced functionality of the organism.

Imagine the infinitesimal likelihood of DNA being produced by nature accidentally! The odds, in fact, are conservatively 1 in 48,000,000 or well over 1 chance in 104,000,000.

But since there are only around 10118 possible events that have happened in our universe, plainly this DNA could not have been formed by chance—even if trillions of universes existed all with the singular purpose of randomly churning out this one strand of DNA.

Needless to say, the faith required to believe in the theory of Chemical Evolution dwarfs the faith necessary to accept the logical conclusion of God.

Remember too that a cell is exponentially more complex than any vehicle—or any human invention for that matter.

Worse still, an automobile is not self-creating, self-healing, or self-sufficient. A bacterium can do all these things.

Imagine, for example, someone suggesting that a "Spontaneously Generated" vehicle could also have the capacity to:
  1. Manufacture exact, self-sufficient copies of itself on demand (reproduction);
  2. Fuel itself up (eat); and,
  3. Drive itself (in search of food) with "a mind of its own."
Michael J. Behe, in Darwin's Black Box, aptly described it as follows:
"So let us attempt to evolve a bicycle into a motorcycle by the gradual accumulation of mutations. Suppose that a factory produced bicycles, but that occasionally there was a mistake in manufacture. Let us further suppose that if the mistake led to an improvement in the bicycle, then the friends and neighbors of the lucky buyer would demand similar bikes, and the factory would retool to make the mutation a permanent feature. So, like biological mutations, successful mechanical mutations would reproduce and spread. If we are to keep our analogy relevant to biology, however, each change can only be a slight modification, duplication, or rearrangement of a preexisting component, and the change must improve the function of the bicycle. So if the factory mistakenly increased the size of a nut or decreased the diameter of a bolt, or added an extra wheel onto the front axle or left off the rear tire, or put a pedal on the handlebars or added extra spokes, and if any of these slight changes improved the bike ride, then the improvement would immediately be noticed by the buying public and the mutated bikes would, in true Darwinian fashion, dominate the market.
      "Given these conditions, can we evolve a bicycle into a motorcycle? We can move in the right direction by making the seat more comfortable in small steps, the wheels bigger, and even (assuming our customers prefer the "biker" look) imitating the overall shape in various ways. But a motorcycle depends on a source of fuel, and a bicycle has nothing that can be slightly modified to become a gasoline tank. And what part of the bicycle could be duplicated to begin building a motor? Even if a lucky accident brought a lawnmower engine from a neighboring factory into the bicycle factory, the motor would have to be mounted on the bike and be connected in the right way to the drive chain. How could this be done step-by-step from bicycle parts? A factory that made bicycles simply could not produce a motorcycle by natural selection acting on variation—by 'numerous, successive, slight modifications'—and in fact there is no example in history of a complex change in a product occurring in this manner."
Clearly, the doctrine of Chemical Evolution requires total faith in "magical occurrences"—miracles, if you will. It is based entirely on speculation derived from circumstantial "non-evidence"—and unwittingly proves exactly what it is trying so desperately to discount:

The obviousness of a Divine Creator.

Complexities of enzymes revealed

Enzymes even further nail home the fact that Chemical Evolution is a myth.

In order to create (manufacture) all the cell's proteins, enzymes must exist. But enzymes are also proteins. This means not only do enzymes create all other proteins, they must create themselves as well.

In other words, if the Theory of Chemical Evolution is accurate, not only should a car be able to spontaneously create itself, it must also be smart enough to create a factory that can then produce any part that needs to be reproduced.

Here's another of many questions evolutionists cannot answer:

"How, in the very first and simplest organism, could the very first enzyme have 'known' how to be in a specific complex shape—in advance—so it could produce the other necessary proteins of the cell, including itself? Did proteins also have the capacity to predict the future?"

It is mind-boggling complexity raised to an exponentially complex order, which also raises proportionately the level of foolishness required to actually believe Chemical Evolution is a fact.

(Incidentally, the same concept applies to the macroevolution of complex organs like eyes and brains: how did Macroevolution "know" to start working on an eye, the intermediate forms of which were not functional, "millions of years in advance?" I plan to examine this in much more detail in another article.)

Dr. Fred Hoyle, in his book The Big Bang in Astronomy, discussed the unlikely scenario that complex bio-molecules (like enzymes) could "somehow form themselves" by chance:
"I don't know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the earth. Astronomers will have a little difficulty in understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so, the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so.

"The 'others' are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology)."

Videos dramatically illustrate the obviousness of Divine Creation

The following videos dramatically drive home the point that the maximally complex design of organic molecules is beyond even the minds of man—much less the "mindlessness" of evolution.

I strongly recommend that you watch them all...

5 Reasons Chemical Evolution is False:
REASON #1—That "simple little organism" isn't so simple after all
REASON #2—Nature can't produce complex organic molecules
REASON #3—'Irreducible complexity' insurmountable problem
REASON #4—Thermodynamics is a deathblow to evolution
REASON #5—Chemical Evolution is mathematically and physically impossible

Additional recommended reading:

Evolutionists ecstatic over methane gas discovery on Mars


Print this article Email this article

How to be Saved

10 Tips

Christian Living

         Article Archives:   Feature Article Archives Video Archives Bible Mythbuster Archives
          Main Links:  
Home Make ReligiouslyIncorrect.org your Favorite Translate this page Join our Email List Contact Us
          Other Links:  
Submit Your Article Find Other Christians Near You
        © 2009 ReligiouslyIncorrect.org