Part 4 in this series discussed the topic of “origins”—the abiotic origin of life on earth (or the beginning of life through strictly inorganic processes with no biological cellular instructions or assistance). I presented a simple overview of Sir Fred Hoyle’s calculations of the probability of assembling a single protein by a random and “lucky” combination of 400 amino acids (there are 20 different common amino acids that form proteins). His calculated probability was:
1 chance in 1.4 *10164 (that’s 14 with 163 zeroes following it)
Again, that’s for a single protein, and there are over 200 proteins in a single bacterium, the simplest form of life. Proteins are gigantic, incredibly complex biomolecules. Each protein generally contains several hundred amino acids. Reproduction/duplication of another protein with the exact, same composition is a daunting thing to imagine. But even more challenging, each amino acid within the protein must be placed into an exact structural arrangement to allow the protein to bend, fold-over, or contort to function with the cell. (This is one of many reasons that I avoided a career in biology!)
Evolutionary biologists recognize the impossibility of life’s origin simply through the random assimilation of amino acids that Fred Hoyle evaluated. Todays’ research focuses upon inorganic mechanisms that selectively assimilate specific proteins within the natural environment. Current “origins of life” research is an extremely active field with many brilliant minds engaged through various studies. For example, recent work has shown that mostly homochiral (e.g., left-handed amino acids; see Part 4) amino acids are naturally adsorbed on the edges of clay particles (which possess negative electrical charges). The scientists propose that clays might have accumulated “clumps” of homochiral amino acids which were then concentrated and eventually assimilated into more complex peptides (Part 4). But that’s still “miles away” from assembling a “clump” of homochiral amino acids into a larger peptide, and then into a protein, and then into a proto cell that somehow then becomes a living organism.
So, how ARE proteins and other complex cellular constituents constructed and assimilated? As mentioned in Part 4, it’s a simple matter to fabricate a large collection of metal rivets… it’s an entirely different matter to assemble those rivets into a space shuttle. A cellular “space shuttle” is constructed through biochemical “machines” according to a construction manual found in the DNA of each living organism. Again, this is a “chicken and the egg” conundrum for evolutionary biologists—you can’t have life without proteins, but you can’t assimilate proteins without life’s cellular processes. I’ll address the processes below, but at a very high level.
Cellular Complexity
Once again, in my college classes in the mid-1970’s, we were given doctrine to support evolution and yet other important data were simply ignored. There was no discussion on cellular complexity in the origins debate. However, in all honesty, advanced technical discoveries since the 1980’s have greatly magnified our grasp of the complexity of these processes. I am NOT a biologist; and cellular complexity, for me, is the most challenging topic in this blog series.
Various organelles (think of them as protein “machines”) carry-out specific cellular functions that are mandatory for life.1 The following is a brief list of only five organelles and their functions. I used the full Wikipedia description of the nucleus to specifically emphasize its complexity:2
Nucleus – The nucleus of the cell functions as the genome and genetic information storage for the cell, containing all the DNA organized in the form of chromosomes. It is surrounded by a nuclear envelope, which includes nuclear pores allowing for the transportation of proteins between the inside and outside of the nucleus. This is also the site for replication of DNA as well as transcription of DNA to RNA. Afterwards, the RNA is modified and transported out to the cytosol to be translated to protein.
Ribosomes – Translates the RNA prepared in the nucleus to protein. It serves as a site of protein synthesis.
Mitochondria – Termed the powerhouse of the cell, this organelle is also bound by a double membrane and produces energy within the cell through a series of complex biochemical reactions.
Endoplasmic Reticulum – A network of membranes found throughout the cell and connected to the nucleus. It synthesizes, stores, and secretes proteins to the Golgi apparatus.
Golgi Apparatus – Further processes, packages, and secretes the proteins to their destination. The proteins contain a signal sequence that allows the Golgi apparatus to recognize and direct it to the correct place.
You might have noticed a theme that transcends this list. The activities of many organelles involve protein synthesis, secretion, and transport to the specific location where needed. Protein synthesis is a phenomenal process that, for me, points directly at God. Just consider the following:
When a specific cellular need is identified, the double helix DNA molecule (think of it as a twisted ladder) opens (divides along the middle of the rungs) at the precise location that contains the assembly instructions for the given protein (Figure 1). The “rungs” are copied (transcribed) onto a strand of RNA. RNA is shepherded outside of the nucleus to a ribosome, another organelle “machine.” Here, the RNA is “translated” to form a protein and aided by other machines that fold and structurally assemble the amino acids into the specific protein. The protein is then transported to the site within the cell by another organelle and finally inserted into its correct position.
This, to me, is simply mind-blowing. But what’s even more amazing is to view a computer animation of the process. Check-out the following.
Pajaro Dunes, 1993
My intent with this blog is not to educate you in cellular mechanics or molecule biology. However, there is an outstanding video available with actual photos of several organelles. It also includes amazing computer simulations of the cellular processes, such as DNA protein formation and cell flagellum construction. These examples are products from an important meeting between eight research cellular and chemical biologists at Pajaro Dunes (CA) in 1993. The list of attendees include:
- Paul Nelson
- Stephen Meyer
- Dean Kenyon
- Michael Behe
- William Dembski
- Jonathan Wells
- Jed Macosko
- Scott Minnich
You probably recognize several of these names if you follow origins publications, and especially those publications that question or refute Darwinian evolution. These men met at Paharo Dunes to discuss that specific topic. Each of the research scientists had independently arrived at the same conclusion—the development of functioning organelles through a Darwinian evolutionary mechanism is infeasible. A functioning cell cannot just “develop” an active organelle through a gradual, evolutionary process. And they arrived at the same general conclusion: “DNA construction and information storage, and other organelle development reflects Intelligent Design.”
And that’s my intent with this specific blog—to share with you the experts’ opinions, and to direct you to the phenomenal DVD I referenced above. Its name is Unlocking the Mystery of Life and is produced in part by Michael Behe through the Discovery Institute. It is the classic example of “one picture’s worth a thousand words” and is written to address a high school level audience. A link to the Discovery Institute’s website and webpage is provided below. The site describes the DVD and provides another link to review its content, and to also purchase it if desired (if you like science in general, then I highly recommend it).
https://www.discovery.org/a/2116/
If the website is down, the DVD is also available on Amazon at the following link for $12.79:
Finally, if you prefer to watch some portion of the DVD content via YouTube, it also available at the following link (although the video quality is much poorer than the original DVD):
Hopefully, you recognize my passion that you view this material and experience God’s fingerprints in a life-changing manner. It’s a shame it was not available 35 years ago at Texas A&M!
Finally, I mentioned in Part 4 that I would share Charles Darwin’s view on the origins question. This is a direct quote from the Conclusion section in his classic tome On the Origin of the Species. The phrase (included in Versions 2-5, Page 490) is one that most evolutionists choose to ignore:
“There is grandeur in this view of life, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one. . . “
Charles Darwin grew up as a child of two believing parents who followed God. Charles Darwin, himself, was fascinated by the concept of God’s fingerprints in nature. The following quote from Wikipedia3 was included by an author of the Wikipedia article that clearly supports evolution:
Through Fox, Darwin became a close friend and follower of botany professor John Stevens Henslow.[34] He met other leading parson-naturalists who saw scientific work as religious natural theology, becoming known to these dons as “the man who walks with Henslow”. When his own exams drew near, Darwin applied himself to his studies and was delighted by the language and logic of William Paley‘s Evidences of Christianity (1795).[37] In his final examination in January 1831 Darwin did well, coming tenth out of 178 candidates for the ordinary degree.[38] Darwin had to stay at Cambridge until June 1831.
…He studied Paley’s Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity (first published in 1802), which made an argument for divine design in nature, explaining adaptation as God acting through laws of nature.[39]
It certainly sounds like Darwin’s background was rooted in God’s handiwork within the Creation. Perhaps the support for Charles Darwin in our era would be even broader had he expressed his thoughts on origins in Chapter 1 of On the Origin of the Species, rather than in its Conclusion section.
1Wikipedia: Cell Biology; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_biology
2Just a reminder that I’ve shared previously. I recognize that Wikipedia is not a peer-reviewed public document. I use it simply to point interested individuals to a broader discussion of a topic than I can provide in this format. However, most importantly, Wikipedia includes technical supporting references to the topics. Generally, those references are from peer-reviewed scientific technical papers.
3Wikipedia: Charles Darwin; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin
Figure 1. Cartoon simulation of a protein compound through transcription and translation within a cell.
