Modern science assumes evolution is the key to man’s existence. Where does this leave DNA?
Subscribe to the Real Truth for FREE news and analysis.Subscribe Now
When you woke up this morning, you made a series of assumptions. Many of them were done unconsciously. When you reached for your alarm clock, you assumed it would be there. While getting ready for your day, you assumed many things as part of your morning routine. You did not plan for anything out of the ordinary—such as no electricity, or even something as extreme as your roof caving in.
The same can be said about many aspects of life. Anytime one does not plan for every possible result, he is making some type of assumption. Obviously, one cannot plan for every possible course of every possible action. Therefore, people naturally make assumptions.
So basic are assumptions in human thinking that various fields of science use them when creating a theory or hypothesis.
One example is in the field of archeology. The foundation of studying ancient civilizations is based on certain assumptions, be it about culture, intelligence or technological advancements. These assumptions are usually based on facts that have already been collected through archeological digs.
But the underlying premise that something was created by man is assumed. Through the obvious planning and design of a broken arrowhead, piece of pottery, or writing tablet, a conclusion is reached.
In a similar way, if you are walking along a beach and find a soft drink bottle, you would not make a wrong assumption. You would not deduce that because the glass bottle is in sand, and since glass is nothing more than compressed sand, that the bottle gradually formed due to pressures and environmental changes.
Obviously, you realize that the bottle was made in a factory and once contained a beverage.
You may not have realized it, but you unconsciously ran a series of hypothetical scientific experiments, involving geometry, linguistics, chemical analysis, and probability.
This process may have happened as follows: (1) you picked up the bottle and noticed the shape and texture of the bottle—geometry; (2) when examining it, you recognized the writing as English—linguistics; (3) the sweet smell and perhaps any residue in the bottle indicated the beverage that was once inside—chemical analysis; (4) finally, you realized that all three of the above traits happening naturally was impossible, meaning that this bottle was what it was: a manufactured soft drink bottle.
Of course, you do not carry out this series of experiments each time you pick up a similar item. Based on previous experience—and proof—you assume the result. In such a case, you are making a correct—provable—assumption because you are basing it on existing, proven facts.
But without existing facts, there is no foundation on which to base your assumption. Such an assumption is not provable and is nothing more than a guess.
This same process appears in basic rules of logic. You cannot fabricate something and then base a conclusion on that illusory foundation. Anyone can understand that doing such is silly. These rules of logic are applied to nearly every discipline of science except one—biology!
Instead of looking at the facts and applying simple rules of logic, many convoluted and confusing “theories” are created. But when one wipes away all the wrong assumptions, the real data is both fascinating and inspiring.
While amazing facts and details are found throughout the universe, perhaps the most amazing is inside you—the cell. In fact, there are approximately 100 trillion cells in your body and inside each of those cells is enough information to fill the largest libraries in the world. An obvious and telltale signature identifies their origin even more conclusively than the previously mentioned glass bottle. And it is hidden in the blueprint of the cell—DNA.
To properly frame the subject of DNA, you must first understand the false assumptions upon which biological science is based. These assumptions form the foundation of evolution. While the purpose of this article is not to disprove evolution, examining just two of these assumptions does disprove it and shows why modern science completely misses the reason behind the complex design that appears in every living cell.
Evolution basically states that two “unknown or undetermined” events happened billions of years ago, beginning the process of organic evolution. The first of these processes is commonly called the big bang theory. This event supposedly was the force that created the known material universe.
When modern society discovered radiation, man was able to determine that all matter is deteriorating. Once understood, this proves that there must have been a point in time at which matter did not exist—otherwise, the deterioration process would have already been completed.
To explain this, scientists devised the big bang theory, which basically states that a major explosion of plasma-type gasses formed the beginnings of the universe. From that initial explosion, this early universe expanded into what it is known to be today.
Secondly, evolutionists theorize that at some point in this expanding universe of nonorganic matter, an environment formed that allowed a “soupy goop” to make the transition from inorganic, nonliving matter into organic, living matter.
While modern science can give no explanation as to why this transition would happen—or is even possible—it is supposed that all living cells evolved from this organic goop.
The first major obstacle for evolutionists is the scientific law of biogenesis, as stated in Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity: “Historically the point of view that life comes only from life has been so well established through the facts revealed by experiment that it is called the Law of Biogenesis.”
A footnote in the same textbook reads, “Some scientists call this a superlaw, or a law about laws. Regardless of terminology, biogenesis has the highest rank in these levels of generalization.”
While evolutionists freely admit that this law forms the basis of modern biology, many conveniently disregard this fact when applied to evolution. But if, even for a moment, an assumption is made that some “unknown spontaneous event” caused the first essential ingredients of living matter—amino acids—there still remains another colossal hurdle to overcome.
When first discovered in the 1920s, cells were thought to be simple “homogeneous globules of plasma,” meaning that a simple chemical process could be applied to their creation and replication. But times have certainly changed!
With more powerful technology, man has been able to look deep into cells and their fundamental building blocks.
Cells can be likened to microscopic factory-cities. There are waste removal highways, power factories, amazingly selective “force fields,” allowing certain items to flow in and out of a cell, and many more independent, yet highly cooperative, machines. This whole process is controlled by the nucleus of a cell, which has been described as a complex supercomputer.
Remember, despite all the complex cellular processes, evolutionary theory states that all things happened because of chance and necessity. But this initial cosmic goop did not form directly into a working cell. First, amino acids had to have linked together to become more complex structures—proteins.
This also presents a problem. By their very nature, amino acids have to be specifically arranged to form functioning proteins. Could this have happened by chance?
If you randomly type keys on a computer, there is a chance that throughout the sequence, you may type a word. But what are the odds that you will type a proper sentence? Or what about a poem or a novel?
Because of the extremely specific layout needed to form proteins, no “typing” errors could have been made. This means that hundreds of amino acids would have had to randomly—yet simultaneously—come together in a perfect configuration to form a working protein.
There is yet another degree of complexity required for protein formation. Not only do these amino acids have to come together as described above, they must bond in “an extraordinarily complex and irregular three-dimensional shape—a twisting, turning, tangled chain of amino acids” (First Things). It has been estimated that the odds of forming just one protein naturally is approximately 1 in 10,125—not to mention the numerous proteins required for a living cell.
If you take into account that most proteins are made up of more than 100 amino acids, you begin to see why evolutionary researchers often downplay chance, asserting that some “unknown” natural method gave rise to their formation. Yet, chance is exactly what hundreds of millions of students are conditioned to accept as fact.
One can see that creating a novel or poem by chance is impossible. Why then does the scientific community at large fail to understand that something exceedingly more complex could also not form by happenstance?
Can you believe that anyone would consider this? Yet this is only the beginning of the wrong assumptions science has afforded in the quest to maintain evolution.
A fascinating point to notice in protein formation is the specificity required for them to function. Even at this very early stage, “informational content” is present. Because random organization does not form proteins, there is an existing structure—a blueprint—that must be followed to create them.
In all historical forms of science, information content implies a creator of that information. Even in these simple proteins, this blueprint begs the question: who or what created the informational blueprint for these proteins?
The signature on that blueprint becomes obvious—not when looking at the building blocks—but when directly examining the cellular “building.”
The cell is the most advanced engineering marvel ever discovered. Humanity has never created anything that functions nearly as efficiently. In fact, aspects of a cell are even mimicked when designing certain systems used today.
Each part of a cell contains highly specified, three-dimensional structures. The formation of these proteins is the direct impetus behind their function. Certain amino acid configurations form each “mini-machine,” which regulates various parts of a cell.
The most complex of these proteins are found in the nucleus—the supercomputer—of a cell. The nucleus controls how the mini-machines work together and when new machines need to be manufactured. It also contains the complete blueprint for every machine in that cell.
Within the cells of each human being, the nuclei contain the blueprint for each specific cell and every other cell in the body. It is truly a super-blueprint!
This blueprint is contained in deoxyribonucleic acid—most often called DNA. Because of the way DNA is encoded, the amount of information it contains is phenomenal! And it has to be—even the simplest forms of life are highly complex.
Take, for instance, E. coli bacteria. This “simple” bacterium has over one trillion bits of information stored in its DNA.
If you counted every letter in every book in the world’s largest library (10 million books), you would approach one trillion “bits of information.” Yes, it requires that much information for even a single bacterium to exist.
Imagine how much more information is needed to control and reproduce the approximately 100 trillion cells in your body. Yet all this information is stored in a microscopic structure called DNA.
How does so much fit in such a little space? The answer is found in the encoding of DNA. Its structure and encoding method are nearly as fascinating as the amount of information it contains.
Most likely you have seen pictures of a double helix. It is this incredibly efficient spiral structure that allows DNA to encode so much. Understanding this structure deepens the question of how such information came to be present.
As displayed in the illustration, DNA looks like a spiral ladder. A close-up of the individual rungs shows the amazing complexity of this microscopic marvel. On either side of the DNA ladder are the individual sugars and phosphates. They are linked together with a chemical bond and form both sides of the ladder.
The phosphates are then bonded to nucleotides (chemical bases that are designated by A, T, G and C, which are located in the center of the DNA spiral). These structures create either side of the ladder and are attached using hydrogen bonds.
There are no bonds directly linking individual nucleotides—or “rungs”—together. Yet this is where the genetic information is encoded!
No natural explanation exists for how information could form on this chemically unconnected axis—but there is a reason for it. Chemical bonds are common in nature. A salt crystal is one such example. Any crystalline structure is made up of a series of repeating chemically bonded elements. That is the key!
Chemical bonds create patterns. As can be seen on either side of the DNA ladder, the sugars and phosphates are repeated. If the nucleotides in the spine of the DNA molecule were connected via any sort of bond, they would be limited in the amount and complexity of the information it could contain.
Like crystals, the pattern encoded into DNA would repeat. Every time guanine (G) appeared, there would be adenine (A) following it. But the lack of any chemical bond means that any of the four bases can attach to any location on the spine. All are accepted and none is preferred!
Not only does chemical bonding explain why crystals and related substances form the way they do, it also makes the information encoded in DNA all that more amazing. There is no natural way to explain how such highly detailed and complex information “appeared.”
Finding the source of DNA coding is the “holy grail” of evolutionary science. Yet the answer is plain.
Some assert that necessity—response to environmental demands—caused DNA to grow more and more complex. This assumption happens largely because order is confused with information.
Scientists properly connect the complexity within DNA to having an order. But this is usually where “origin of life” studies confuse the distinction between these two characteristics.
There is no argument in science about the fact that organic systems show order. Anyone can look around and see it in nature. Such things as the rotation of planets causing seasons, animal migrations, etc., are a study in complex order.
But just because something evidences order does not automatically imply that it came up with the underlying information needed to form it.
For order to become information, there has to be a highly improbable, irregular, yet highly specified series of sequences. As seen, this is exactly what is required to build even the simplest proteins right up to super-complex cellular structures.
A commonly used analogy to compare the difference between order and information is as follows:
Compare the two sequences “ABABABAB ABA ABABABAB” and “the price of rice in China.” Both are a highly ordered and complex series of characters. Yet there is an obvious difference between the two sequences.
The second is very specific. Informational researchers often refer to this as “specified complexity.” Sequences that show specified complexity always imply that someone or something constructed the sequence of characters to convey specific information.
Similarly, DNA cannot generate its own information. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that it must have been made by an intelligent force—a Creator.
This conclusion can be drawn not just because natural systems cannot explain the origin of biological information, but also because of the signature and hallmarks that biological systems, such as DNA, contain.
Design is based on the principle of cause and effect. This also applies to the origin of life. It must have a cause!
Given the proper facts, human beings are logically able to deduce a cause—a source—behind the things around them. This is why, as the original example showed, one can understand that the glass bottle was designed and created by the hands of men.
You have seen some of the facts hidden in the 100 trillion cells in your body. To better grasp that you—and the entire universe—were designed and created by the hands of God, read Does God Exist?