NEW MATERIAL

PROTEIN: THE BRAINLESS WONDER Part 2

Proteins are also used for DNA recognition. Aside from RNA, only proteins have the ability to read the DNA code and make use of it.

Proteins do everything in the cell, except carry the genetic code. Only the DNA has that, and DNA is structured differently than protein. It is not composed of amino acids, and is much longer than any protein. (A fully extended DNA molecule would be about six and a half feet in length.)

A quick review is here in order. In 1869, the Swiss biochemist Friedrich Miescher found something in the cell which was not a protein, so he named it nuclein. Twenty years later, when it was found to be strongly acid, it was renamed nucleic acid,

About the turn of the century, the German biochemist Albrecht Kossel isolated four nitrogen-containing compounds in it; which he named, adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine. There were large numbers of them in each nucleic acid.

But in 1911, the Russian-born American biochemist Phoebus Levene, in America, found that there were two types of nucleic acid in the cell! One he named ribonucleic acid (RNA); the other deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA).

By the 1940s, it appeared likely that DNA, the stringy substance in the cell nucleus, contained the genes. Then, in 1953, Francis Crick and James Watson used a British scientist’s X-ray photograph (without her permission) to establish that DNA was a double helix—two sugar-phosphate backbones winding like a double-railed spiral staircase up the same vertical axis, complete with horizontal steps. The rest is history.

It is now known that, not only can RNA transmit data from the DNA code, but proteins can decode the DNA also. Proteins are ideally suited for this task, since each one has an alpha helix, a single twisting strand of chemicals; whereas the DNA is a double twisting strand. This alpha helix fits almost perfectly into the major groove of the DNA helix. When they come together, the left-handed side chains of the amino acids project outward and make contact with the DNA code.

In this manner, the protein obtains data from the DNA, which takes it elsewhere for use in constructing something.

Now let us consider this a little more closely:

In order for the protein "to read" a particular base sequence in a particular region of the DNA, it has to know where to go to find that information. But how can it do that, since the DNA has an enormous coiled length? How does the little protein know how to find the information section on the DNA that it is looking for? These are problems which evolutionary textbooks avoid. The sheer immensity of this needle-in-a-haystack search is staggering.

How can the protein even carry on the search, when it has no eyes (there is total darkness anyway) and the protein does not have the sense to know what it is looking for?

It has been suggested that the protein searches along the protuberances of DNA, until it finds certain ones. How can the protein have time to search six and a half feet of coding, when research shows it locates and uses data from the code at breakneck speed!

One might reply that it knew what pattern to look for. Well first, if that is so, why bother to look for a pattern the protein already knows? Second, how could the hapless protein know where, on the vast length of DNA, to go find that particular section?

There are great mysteries connected with every aspect of living creatures, mysteries which defy explanation. It is not enough to blithly mouth the evolutionary line, that random changes ("natural selection") and "harmless" chance mutations (none are harmless) have produced everything;—and because everything exists, that proves it must be so! This is circular reasoning.

The truth is that evolutionary theory is what Karl Popper, the leading scientific philosopher of the 20th century, says it is: a philosophical theory which is unrelated to scientific facts. Creationism, on the other hand, agrees with the scientific facts.

The protein is searching for a certain coding pattern which employs four DNA chemicals. Given the existing energy levels of the weak chemical bonds involved in protein-DNA binding, protein recognition complexes can bind reversibly to DNA sequences up to 15 bases long, but not to lengths much greater. In addition, because of the natural twist in the DNA double helix, protein recognition motifs, such as the alpha helix, can only feel along about 4 bases in the DNA double helix at a time.

With such a narrowed baseline to work with, how could the little protein be expected to ever find what it is looking for in six and a half feet of DNA ribbon?

Do not take for granted the miracle which happens continually in your body. It is totally astounding. Instead of ignoring God, people ought to praise Him.

Some proteins which are constructed take the form of extremely hard materials—such as hair, nails, and feathers. Others are the tough tendons that attach muscles to bone. Then there are the fibrous sheaths which encase the various compartments and organs in the body.

Other proteins are rubberlike elastic materials that surround the major arteries or constitute the smooth elasticity of skin.

Still others form totally transparent materials which become the lens of the eye.

Do not listen to the suggestion that evolution could provide us with such wonders. Everything had to be in place right at the beginning; so all these marvelous structures and functions were operating from ground zero.

Yet another question confronts us: How can all the above diverse things be made from the various combinations of the same 20 amino acids?

Do not hurry away from such questions too quickly. It is a mark of a wise man that he takes time to think while the shallow mind, fearful to confront facts, can only parrot what it has been taught.

Proteins do a seemingly endless variety of things. Here is an even deeper view of this astounding subject:

Some act as catalysts, speeding up the rates of chemical reactions billions of times. Working together in teams (how do they know to work together in teams?), proteins build up all the chemical components of the cell, including complex lipids and carbohydrates.

Proteins not only build up; they also break down. They can utilize their catalytic powers to break down the cells’ macromolecular constituents back into simple organic compounds.

Through their catalytic abilities, proteins provide energy for the cell. They arrange for the fuel to fire the mitochondria, the energy batteries of the cell. They also build the mitochondria. And what is it made of? Like most everything else in the cell (with the exception of the DNA, RNA, water, lipids, and chemicals), those batteries are composed of specialized protein (in this case, wrapped around an energy drop of lipid). (In plants the energy provider is another type of protein, the chlorophyll.)

Proteins form the primary components of the contractile assemblies in the muscles. Without them, the organism could not move.

Out of a selection of amino acids, proteins construct all the tubular and wrapping systems of the body. This includes cell walls, cellular tubes, membranes, blood vessels, capillaries, and lymph vessels. The entire tubular transportation system of the body is made of protein and constructed, by proteins, from amino acids.

Proteins are also the transporters within the cells. They are the stevedors that lug everything around! Who tells them what, where, when, and how much to carry?

I will tell you the answer to that one, yet it only presents a bigger question: Another protein (often a constructor) moves over to the transporter, touches him momentarily, and the transporter then knows exactly what to get and how much is needed.

When trying to find answers to the mysteries within the living cell, you will be disappointed if you look to evolutionary theory for solutions. In order to find them, you must look higher.

Proteins are generally the messengers, carrying messages from the DNA or from one part of the cell to another. (RNA is also a cell messenger.) Proteins are also the chemical messengers! Manufactured in one site in the cell, they then travel to other locations, where they bind to some other molecule to cause an appropriate message response.

Not only do proteins send the messages via other traveling proteins, they also receive them. How is a protein smart enough to know how to send a message, how to carry one somewhere, how to receive it, or how to provide an appropriate response?

Proteins are also the gates and pumps in the cell! As gatekeepers, they know when to open the gates. How do they open the gate, so outside substances can enter the cell? They do it by going to the cell wall (which consists of more protein) and telling it to open up! Obediently, it does so, just the right amount and long enough to admit the right substances from the capillary outside. In some cases, more than one wall has to be penetrated.

How do the proteins operate as pumps? The message is given to the gatekeeper to admit such and such amino acids and a certain amount of specified minerals, etc. Having told the walls to open up, the gatekeeper then begins a pumping action—and pumps construction materials and other supplies into the cell from the supply flowing through the capillary outside. Of course, only the correct materials and quantities are brought in. Then protein transporters are called over, which carry them to where they are needed.

Inside the cell, other proteins provide internal walls, gates, and pumps. They open and close chemical channels and actively pump chemicals from one side to another.

The little proteins must also haul waste materials (carbon dioxide, lactic acid, urea, etc.) to the gatekeeper, so it can be shipped out through the capillaries to the liver and/or kidneys for processing, recycling, or disposal.

The list of structural and functional properties of proteins is seemingly endless.

—And there are people out there who imagine that evolution produced all this! Seriously now, what is happening every moment in your quintillions of cells is no fairy tale, but evolution surely is. It could never provide you with the complexity that is taking place inside you!

Just as aimless people are useless in society, so purposeless evolution is worthless as a causative agent of anything in our world or out of it.

There is nothing that man has produced which can faintly match all the things proteins can do. Some man-made polymers can do a few things. For example, nylon has the elasticity and strength of collagen. Chitan (a carbohydrate polymer) is similar to nails and hair. Perspex, a plastic, has transparency similar to the crystal in the eye.

But, aside from protein, no other natural or man-made molecules even remotely has such a diversity of properties. Nothing else can match the catalytic powers of proteins. Nothing else can equal the ability of protein to discriminate and make decisions on a molecular level. Each protein is able to interact with unerring specificity with another one.

We know this because of studies made over a period of years into abnormal hemoglobin. It has been discovered that there is a flaw in the protein chains, due to earlier mutations.

Yet evolutionists tell us it is mutations which have produced evolutionary development! This is simply not true. Scientists who deal with the effects of mutations will tell you that 99.99 percent of all mutations produce crippling and often lethal effects on the organism. Mutations do not improve; they destroy. See chapter 14 in the present author’s three-volume, Evolution Disproved Series, for extensive evidence of this.

About 9 percent of the black people in America have the trait for sickle cell anemia, and 0.25 have the disease. In some localities in Central Africa, as much as a quarter of the black population shows the trait. It is commonly recognized, by scientists, that the sickle cell gene arose as a mutation in Africa and has been inherited ever since by individuals of African descent.

Researchers have found that normal hemoglobin has glutamic acid at the seventh point in just one of its many peptide chains; whereas the sickle cell form has valine at that point. Just one little chemical difference in one amino acid; that is what makes sickle-cell blood cells different than regular blood cells. But the entire hemoglobin molecule has nearly 600 amino acids! Just one flaw in one amino acid, out of a total of almost 600 amino acids; yet it results in a disease which generally results in an early death.

In view of this, it would be impossible for the haphazard method of development, known as "evolution," to produce useable protein. All the amino acids, and the protein structures they are built up into, have to be perfect or there is sickness, infirmity, and death. This is an important evidence that evolution could never produce worthwhile amino acids or proteins.

"Evolution" is misnamed. If it were called what it actually is, "Uselessness," no one would be fooled by it. Yet the latter name exactly fits the evolutionary definition! Evolutionists declare it to be totally random, without any plan or purpose.

(At this juncture, it should be noted that evolutionists cite two evidences that mutations produce favorable results: [1] antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and [2] sickle-cell anemia. Let us briefly consider both:

First, mutations are not the cause of resistant strains of bacteria. They are just that: strains. Within the DNA coding of each life form, there is room for a wide variety of, what are variously called, hybrids, variations, varieties, or breeds. Chrysanthemums, roses, and dogs are excellent examples. Many varieties can be produced, but each one remains within its own species. Like peppered moths, there are also many varieties of a given bacteria which, when one form is more easily attacked, other forms temporarily increase in number. But both forms were in the DNA to begin with. This is not a mutation, but a species variation.

Second, Africans with sickle-cell anemia are less likely to die of malaria. Therefore it is sometimes claimed that sickle-cells (which are, indeed, caused by a mutation) are a beneficent mutation. Not so, for people with this condition always live shorter lives; during which time, their cells are unable to adequately obtain oxygen and nutrients from the red blood corpuscles. See the author’s chapter on Mutations for much more on this.)

Let us now turn our attention to mathematics. Here we find the most devastating rebuttal of evolutionary causation of amino acids, proteins, and DNA:

The mathematical probabilities that evolution could produce amino acids, proteins, and DNA are totally impossible of attainment. Many thinking scientists have established this fact. All living creatures are alive because they contain massive quantities of these complicated substances; therefore we can know that no living creatures came into existence because of evolution.

In Volume Two (The Origin of Life) of the present author’s three-volume set (The Evolution Disproved Series), you will find in chapter 10 (DNA and Protein) an extensive rebuttal of the possibility that amino acids, protein, and DNA could result from the randomness of evolution. As you will find throughout the entire set, that chapter is filled with quotations from reputable scientists. You will want to read them. Only a brief summary of that three-volume set is currently found on our web site, pathlights.com. We are in the process of gradually placing the entire three-volume set on the site.

That which you have already read in this present study was not taken from that three-volume collection of material. But now we will consider some data from chapter 10, relating to the mathematical possibilities that evolution could produce even one DNA, amino acid, and protein.

Here are some big numbers to help you grasp the utter immensity of the gigantic numbers which evolution would need in order to produce living tissue: Ten billion years is 1018 seconds. The earth weighs 1026 ounces. From one side to the other, the universe has a diameter of 1028 inches. There are 1080 elementary particles in the universe (subatomic particles: electrons, protons, neutrons, etc.). Compare those enormously large numbers with the inconceivably larger numbers, presented below, which would be required for a chance formulation of the right mixture of amino acids, proteins, and all the rest out of totally random chance combined with raw dirt, water, and so forth.

When we discuss amino acid formulas, we are faced with a formidable barrier:

(1) There are 20 amino acids. (2) There are 300 amino acids in a specialized sequence in each medium protein. (3) There are billions upon billions of possible combinations! (4) The right combination from among the 20 amino acids would have to be brought together in the right sequence—in order to properly make one useable protein.

The chances of getting accidentally synthesized left amino acids for one small protein molecule is one chance in 10210. That is a number with 210 zeros after it! Such probabilities are indeed impossibilities. The number is so vast as to be totally out of the question.

How long would it take to walk across the 1028 inches, from one side of the universe to the other side? Well, after you do it, you would need to do it billions of times more before you would even have time to try all the possible chance combinations of putting together just ONE properly sequenced left-only amino acid protein in the right order.

The possible arrangements of the 20 different amino acids is 2,500,000,000,000,000,000. If evolutionary theory is true, every protein arrangement in a life form has to be worked out by chance until it works right—first one combination and then another until one is found that works right. But by then the organism will have been long dead, if it ever had been alive!

Once the chance arrangements hit upon the right combination of amino acids for a single protein—the same formula would have to somehow be repeated for the other 19 proteins. And then it will somehow have to be correctly transmitted to offspring!

Each red blood cell (RBC) has about 280 million molecules of hemoglobin, and it would take about 1,000 red blood cells to cover the period at the end of this sentence. Because amino acids can exist in two forms (left and right) and in different sequences, there are 10300 possible ways hemoglobin could be arranged. But only one arrangement would succeed in producing and maintaining life. More on the hemoglobin odds, below.

Here is what Fred Hoyle, one of the most distinguished 20th century British scientists, says about the likelihood of amino acids being produced by mutations:

"If only ten amino acids of particular kinds are necessary at particular locations in a polypeptide chain for its proper functioning, the required arrangement (starting from an initially different arrangement) cannot be found by mutations, except as an outrageous fluke. Darwinian evolution is most unlikely to get even one polypeptide right, let alone the thousands on which living cells depend for their survival. This situation is well-known to geneticists and yet nobody seems prepared to blow the whistle decisively on the theory."—F. Hoyle and N. Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, p. 148.

Mutations could not be the cause of evolution; for they would, in one instant, have to produce all the coding and content of every necessary type of protein molecule in the creature.

How then did the amino acids ever become coded into complicated protein chains? How did it originally happen?

"But the question arises as to how these amino acids could have become joined together into polypeptide chains. It is commonly assumed today that life arose in the oceans, J. B. S. Haldane’s ‘dilute hot soup’ providing a supposedly appropriate medium.

"But even if this soup contained a goodly concentration of amino acids, the chances of their forming spontaneously into long chains would seem remote . . The probability of forming a polypeptide of only ten amino acid units would be something like 1020. The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability. The calculation alone presents serious objection to the idea that all living systems are descended from a single protein molecule, which was formed as a ‘chance’ act—a view that has been frequently entertained."—H. Blum, Time’s Arrow and Evolution, p. 158.

Mathematicians have shown that evolutionary processes could never produce even one protein. We have considered the math of amino acids; we will next consider proteins:

The probability of forming 124 specifically sequenced proteins of 400 amino acids, each by chance, is 1 x 1064489. That is a big number!

The probability of those 124 specifically sequenced proteins (consisting of all left-handed amino acids) being formed by chance, if every molecule in all the oceans of 1031 planet earths was an amino acid and these kept linking up in sets of 124 proteins every second for 10 billion years, would be 1 x 1078436. And that is another big number! It is a one followed by 78,436 zeros!

As mentioned earlier, such ‘probabilities’ are impossibilities. They are fun for math games, but nothing more. They have nothing to do with reality. Yet such odds would have to be worked out in order to produce just 124 proteins! Without success in such odds as these, multiplied a million-fold, evolution would be totally impossible.

Even assuming that millions of complete amino acids were at hand to select from (and in nature they never are), there are still 41,000 possible codes; yet only one would fit each protein:

"The problem of synthesizing one simple protein of about 300 amino acids has been cited. A chain of 1,000 nucleotides made of the four basic units might exist in any of 41,000 ways, but only one will form the protein being sought. The chance that the correct sequence would be achieved by simple random combination is said to be so small that it would not occur during billions of years on billions of planets, each covered by a blanket of a concentrated watery solution of the necessary amino acids."—W. Stokes, Essentials of Earth History, p. 186.

The mathematical impossibility of chance production of just one of the many blood proteins (cytochrome C) testifies to the impossibility of chance producing even one living being:

"The number of sequences of cytochrome C is now 7.25 x 1 060; the number of sequences for 101 sites is 3.4 x l0160. Therefore the probability of selecting a member of the cytochrome C family with the same optical isomers in a given set of 101 rolls of the icosahedral dice is 2.15 x 1094."—H. Yockey, "A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory," in Theoretical Biology, pp. 377-387.

Evolutionists answer this by saying that evolution first formed the simplest organism, and it gradually "evolved." Of course, that would mean changing all its DNA, amino acid, and protein codes into the ones needed for a new creature! How ridiculous to imagine that this could be done. In spite of erroneous reports, no missing links have ever been found.

Forget about the possibility of "a simple organism" first being evolved. NASA scientists have settled the matter for all time to come: There is no such thing as a "simple" organism! McCann tells us what NASA scientists have discovered:

"At one point in the space program, in anticipation of forthcoming contacts with other celestial [living] bodies, a determination was made for the makeup of the most meager, unadorned possible form of life based on what we know about present, earth-bound creatures. Let us use figures derived from this hypothetical, simple organism. To simplify matters further, we will consider just one aspect—the protein makeup of such a simple creature.

"Thinking in minimal terms, it was the decision of the space scientists working on this problem that this simplest possible form of life would have to possess no less than 124 different proteins. It was also concluded that these proteins would each be composed of an average of 420 properly arranged subunits, called amino acids.

"In reality, this is a very conservative estimate of the proteins required in the formation of something alive. The simplest form of life actually known to exist on earth today is composed of 625 diverse proteins. Bacteria possess upwards of 2,000 different proteinaceous compounds, and the cells of man are estimated to harbor at least 100,000 proteins of assorted makeup. [There are billions of proteins in man, but McCann means 100,000 different types of protein.]

"[The author then mentions a lengthy list of non-protein requirements for organic life on earth, and the fact that all but one type of amino acid in the proteins must be left-handed ones].

"What then is the probability that just one average protein consisting of 400 left oriented amino acids will fall into place from a mixture offering equal numbers of left and right oriented amino acids? This means having it take place under conditions thought to have occurred at the time life arose.

"The probability of this happening calculates out to be one chance in ten followed by 114 zeros! This figure should be compared then with the probability of one chance in ten followed by 49 zeros, which labels the portal beyond which lies the realm of the impossible, as previously mentioned. Thus, we are taken far beyond the bounds of that which is possible, in expecting just ONE protein to assemble itself unassisted.

"In comparing the previous numbers, it should be realized that each time a zero is added, the chances get smaller by a factor of ten-fold. This means that by adding two zeros, the chances become 100 times smaller; three zeros makes the chances 1,000 times smaller; four zeros makes the chances 10,000 smaller, etc.

"It might be interesting to know the computed chances of obtaining the necessary left arrangement for ALL the amino acids in ALL 124 proteins of our reference organism. It comes out to be one chance in 10 followed by 14,135 ZEROS!

"To get an idea of the scope of this last number, if the figure is written on a blackboard with normal sized numerals, the blackboard would have to be one quarter mile in length! It means that we have gotten a figure so far beyond the statistical limits of obtainability as to be stupefying.

"[The author goes on to explain that all of the 20 variant amino acids in those 124 proteins would then need to be arranged in their proper sequence! He then mentions other factors which complicate the matter still further. You may want to read McCann’s entire book.]"—Lester J. McCann, Blowing the Whistle on Darwinism, pp. 60-62.

Fred Hoyle openly and honestly recognized this in a number of his writings. He wrote, in New Scientist, that 2,000 different and very complex enzymes are required for a living organism to exist. Then he added that not a single one of these could be formed by random, shuffling processes in even 20 billion years!

The Dixon-Webb calculation explains how evolution can make a protein: In 1964 Malcolm Dixon and Edwin Webb (on page 667 of their standard reference work, Enzymes) warned fellow scientists that, in order to get the needed amino acids in close enough proximity to form a given protein molecule, a total volume of amino-acid solution equal to 1050 times the volume of our earth would be needed! That would be 1 with 50 zeros after it is multiplied by the contents of a mixing bowl. And the size of the bowl would be so large that Planet Earth could fit in it!

That is what two knowledgeable scientists say would be needed to arrive at the proper combination of amino acids to make just one protein molecule. Please remember that this is assuming the mixing bowl (times one with 50 zeros) was filled with amino acids to begin with! Nothing is said here about how they would initially be made.

After using the above method to obtain one protein molecule, what would it take to produce one hemoglobin (blood) molecule which contains 574 specifically coded amino acids?

On page 279 of their Introduction to Protein Chemistry, S. W. Fox and J. F. Foster explain how that would have to be done. First, large amounts of random amounts of all 20 basic types of already formed protein molecules would be needed. In order to succeed at this, enough of the random protein molecules would be needed to fill a volume 10512 times the volume of our entire known universe! And all that space would be packed in solid with protein molecules. In addition, all of them would have to contain only left-handed amino acids.

Then and only then might random chance be able to produce just the right combination, close to each other, of the proteins needed for one hemoglobin molecule, with the proper sequence of 574 left-handed amino acids!

But there are thousands of other types of protein molecules in every living cell; and even if all of them could be assembled by chance,—the cell would still not be alive.

Life does not result from an assemblage of chemicals. Dead people have all the right chemicals, but they are not alive. That is a point which we do not take the space here to discuss. Even if evolution could produce all the correctly coded polymers, it could not impart life to the organisms.

Although there are thousands of biopolymers, Fred Hoyle maintains that not one of them could be produced by random action.

"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."—Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang in Astronomy," in New Scientist, p. 526.

Mathematicians have shown that evolutionary processes could never produce DNA. We have observed that, mathematically, amino acids and proteins could not be produced by evolution, but what about DNA?

In reading the following points, you need to be aware of two facts: (1) All DNA molecules are right-handed, and any random production of them would be useless, because they would be both right- and left-handed. (2) A nucleotide is a complex chemical structure composed of a (nucleic acid) purine or pyrimidine, one sugar (usually ribose or deoxyribose), and a phosphoric group.

Each one of the thousands of nucleotides within each DNA are all aligned sequentially in a very specific and complex order. Imagine 3 billion complicated chemical links, each of which has to be in a precisely correct sequence!

There are 5.375 nucleotides in the DNA of an extremely small bacterial virus (theta-x-174). There are about 3 million nucleotides in a single cell bacterium. There are more than 16,000 nucleotides in a human mitochondrial DNA molecule. There are approximately 3 billion nucleotides in the DNA of a mammalian cell.

With this background, we are ready to consider the impossibility of random production of DNA. Frank Salisbury explains the problem to biology teachers:

"A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 41000 forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 41000 is equivalent to 10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension."—American Biology Teacher (September 1971).

Professor Cohen makes this comment:

"Based on probability factors . . any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 1060. Such a number, if written out, would read:

480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,-

000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 1050 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence. Any species known to us, including the smallest single-cell bacteria, have enormously larger numbers of nucleotides than 100 or 1,000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence—random mutations."—I. L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong, p. 205.

Wysong explains the requirements needed to code one DNA molecule. By this he means selecting out the proper proteins, all of them right handed, and then placing them in their proper sequence in the molecule—and doing it all by chance:

"This means 1/1089190 DNA molecules, on the average, must form to provide the one chance of forming the specific DNA sequence necessary to code the 124 proteins. 1089190 DNA’s would weight 1089147 times more than the earth, and would certainly be sufficient to fill the universe many times over. It is estimated that the total amount of DNA necessary to code 100 billion people could be contained in ½ of an aspirin tablet. Surely 1089147 times the weight of the earth in DNAs is a stupendous amount and emphasizes how remote the chance is to form the one DNA molecule. A quantity of DNA of this colossal could never be formed."—Randy L. Wysong, the Creation-Evolution Controversy, p. 115.

DNA only works because it has enzymes to help it; enzymes only work because there are protein chains; protein only works because of DNA; DNA only works because it is formed of protein chains. They all have to be there together, immediately, at the same time.

"But the enzymes only work because the protein chains are coded in a special sequence by DNA. DNA can only replicate with the help of protein enzymes. We are really in a chicken and egg situation."—E. Ambrose, The Nature and Origin of the Biological World, p. 135.

Not even very simple codes can be duplicated by random activity. The truth is that duplicating even simple things by happenstance is nearly impossible. Some monkey business will help demonstrate that randomly producing even a very simple code sequence—far less complicated than that found in a single amino acid, protein, or DNA molecule—cannot be done:

"Assume that a monkey types randomly at a typewriter which has 60 keys: 26 small letters, 26 capital letters, a space, full stop, comma, colon, semicolon, two brackets and a question mark. Suppose that the monkey is to produce the word, ‘monkey.’

"Now the chances of the monkey typing the letter ‘m’ is 1 in 60; and of typing the two letters (‘mo’) is (1/6) 2; i.e., 1 in 3,600 (1/60 x 1/60). Hence the chances of the monkey typing the word, ‘monkey,’ randomly is (1/60) 6; i.e., 1 in 46,656,000,000.

"To type on such a typewriter the title, ‘Monkeys and Typewriters,’ would take a million monkeys over a thousand million million million million years (i.e., 1027 years) with each monkey typing at a rate of a hundred thousand million million (i.e.,1017) times as long as the age of the universe imagined by cosmologists."—A. J. Monty White, "Monkeys and Typewriters," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1974, p. 128.

All the monkeys in the world could not accomplish the task!

"That these sequences of coordinated reactions—and there are literally thousands of them in the human body—should all have arisen by chance mutation of single genes is, in the highest degree, unlikely.

"It is as if we expected the famous monkeys who inadvertently typed out the plays of Shakespeare, to produce the works of Dante, Racine, Confucius, Tom Wolfe, the Bhagavad Gita and the latest copy of Punch in rapid succession."—G. R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery, p 184.

The letter code sequences of all the writings of William Shakespeare are not as complicated as the DNA and protein codes in your body! Yet, as two leading scientists explain, the randomness of evolutionary processes could not produce them:

"No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong attempts. The same is true for living material."—Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, p. 148.

For much more on the mathematical probabilities of a random cause of amino acids, proteins, and DNA, the present author refers you to his book, The Origin of Life, Vol. 2, pp. 271 - 286, 298 - 304. (Click on Bookstore, and then on Creation Books. The three-volume set is at the top and separate sections of it, in smaller booklet form, are below.)

Still more facts about protein and the possibility of it being caused by the random processes of so-called evolution. Here are but a few of the many other points cited in the above chapter:

• Dr. C. Haskins, writing in American Scientist (59 [1971], pp. 298) noted that evolution would not only have to produce these biologic codes, but it would simultaneously have to produce the translation package to interpret them. Several other writers discuss this; for example, J. Monod, Chance and Necessity, p. 143.

• Messenger RNA is also needed. So evolution would have to simultaneously produce not only the incredibly complex DNA code, but also the RNA molecules. Without them, DNA could not be effectively used.

• There is an intermediating substance between DNA and the proteins, called tRNA. The complexity gets worse! Each of the 20 proteins requires a different tRNA. This tRNA is the "biological compiler" which enables the protein to obtain the needed DNA data.

• There are also DNA indexes. DNA is a data bank, but the indexes, which are different than the translators, tell the protein how to locate needed data.

• There is also cell switching. The cell has to be able to switch its DNA from one process to another. Pitman discusses this on p. 124 of his book, Adam and Evolution.

• To make matters worse for evolution, each characteristic in a living organism is controlled by many genes. How could randomness devise all these matching and interlocking codes? See G. R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery, pp. 165-166 for more on this. Eye color in Drosophila (the fruit fly) depends on 14 genes. Over 30 reactions are needed in making human blood (p. 183).

• All the codes (DNA, RNA, tRNA, translator, amino acid, protein) would have to be instantaneously set in place within the organism—as soon as it began existing. Several scientists discuss this problem, but without providing a solution.

• Classical quantum mechanical principles, as demonstrated by Wigner, reveals that the probability of a self-reproducing state is zero. In everyday language, even if evolution made all those codes in one moment, it could not get them to reproduce themselves. See P. T. Mora, "The Folly of Probability," in S. W. Fox (ed.), Origins of Prebiological Systems and their Molecular Matrices, p. 65.

• Just one average protein (tryptophan synthetase A) has 2,015 separate units, yet it is just one of the millions of functioning proteins in your body. How could evolution organize 2,015 units in their proper sequence?

• In a famous statement, Charles Darwin suggested that life began "in a warm little pond." In view of what we know today about microbiology, would you not agree that Charles, living back in the 19th century, did not know what he was talking about?

• All biologically useful amino acids are L-forms, all sugars are D-forms, and all fats are in cis-forms; yet random production of each of them by evolution would produce equal amounts of two alternate forms.

• Julian Huxley, one of the foremost proponents of mutational evolution, estimated that production of each new species would take millions of mutational steps. Yet, if you will read the present author’s chapter on Mutations, they are always harmful. The best places to produce Huxley’s mutational "improvements" would be high-radiation locations. In the 20th century, the three best places were: (1) The jars of irradiated fruit flies; but the flies are always damaged, not improved by the mutational changes. (2) The August 6, 1945, nuclear explosion at Hiroshima. It produced many horrors, but no evolutionary improvements to man, beast, or plants. (3) The April 27, 1990, Chernobyl nuclear meltdown. Over 800,000 children urgently needed medical treatment and livestock were born with terrible abnormalities. None of Huxley’s improvements occurred.

Mutational damage to the DNA code can only produce flaws (such as sickle-cell anemia); it cannot produce new species.

• It was not until the 1960s, when biomathematicians had powerful computers available to them for research, that they could figure out the probabilities of evolution having had occurred in the preceding billions of years. Prior to that time, they could only guess. But, using computers, they discovered that evolutionary development of organic structures, codes, and functions was impossible.

The 1967 Wistar Symposium in Philadelphia, attended by leading scientists and mathematicians from around the world, discussed this fact. No scientist was able to repudiate it. Yet the public was never told the truth. Instead, the gullible masses continued to be pointed to such things as prior existence of dinosaurs, previous glaciation, and back-and-forth variations in the peppered moth as evidence of evolution!

It was repeatedly admitted at the Wistar Institute that computers had proven the impossibility of evolution—even in billions of years—to produce living things. Many mathematical calculations were cited.

One Wistar speaker, M. Eden, said that the code within the DNA molecule is actually arranged in a structured form, like words in a language. Letters in a language are structured in a certain sequence, and only because of the sequence can they have meaning. Eden then went on to explain that DNA, like other languages, cannot be tinkered with by random variational changes; if done, the result will always be confusion.

"No currently existing formal language can tolerate random changes in the symbol sequences which express its sentences. Meaning is invariably destroyed."—M. Eden, "Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Study," in Mathematical Challenges to the New-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, p. 11.

• The instructions in DNA would fill a thousand 600-page books (Rick Gore, National Geographic, September 1976). Imagine evolution producing that book!

• Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA propounded, what he called, the "central dogma." It is this: Data can come from the DNA to the cell, not the other way around. (See Richard Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, p. 77.) That means that one species cannot change to another one; there is no transmission of acquired characteristics. Scientists claim to have rejected Lamarckism (the inheritance of acquired characteristics), yet evolutionists cling to it. (Darwin admitted in a letter that he believed it.)

• Francis Crick, himself, the co-discoverer of DNA, later wrote a book repudiating the possibility that DNA could be produced by evolutionary processes! He said the code was too complicated for random production of it.

• You can now ignore the evolutionary claim that life began with the lowest, simplest form of life, which is the amoeba. "Some specials of the unjustly called ‘primitive’ amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1,000 Encyclopedia Britannicas" (R. Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 116). That means that not even an amoeba could be produced by evolution!

• Evolutionists imagine that time could solve the problem. Given enough time, they say, the impossible could become possible. But Pitman explains that time works directly against success!

"Time is no help. Biomolecules outside a living system tend to degrade with time, not build up. In most cases, a few days is all they would last. Time decomposes complex systems. If a large ‘word’ (a protein) or even a paragraph is generated by chance, time will operate to degrade it. The more time you allow, the less chance there is that fragmentary ‘sentence’ will survive the chemical maelstrom of matter."—Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, p. 233.

• Attempting to prove something by the argument that it could be done in near infinite time and that a vast number of polymers were available to make it happen is a desperate, self-defeating argument. "This is to invoke probability and statistical considerations when such considerations are meaningless" (P. T. Mora, et. al., p. 45).

All the above is only a hint of all that you will find in our three-volume set on this subject. (Click on Bookstore, and then on Creation Books. The three-volume set is at the top and separate sections of it, in smaller booklet form, are below.)

As we are able, we will put the complete set on this pathlights.com web site. At the present time, only a brief summary is online.

Conclusion. So we find it is impossible for evolution to produce protein or DNA. That settles that. Well, we didn’t need protein anyway,—or did we?

Let me serve you a nice dinner of broccoli, a little dish of beans, a slice of whole wheat bread, with a little salt and vegetable oil. A wholesome meal. After chewing it well, you swallow it. Your tongue and mouth are made of protein. Down the meal goes to your stomach and small intestines, where it is acted on by digestive juices. Both the gullet, stomach, intestines, and the organs producing those juices are made of protein.

Through the lacteals, the food is absorbed into your blood stream, thence to travel all over your body—to nourish your liver, heart, brain, muscles, skin, lymphatics, glands, and all your other body organs. Along with the blood cells, arteries, and veins, all those organs are also made of protein.

Since evolution cannot produce protein, let’s get rid of it. So there you stand in front of me, with all your protein gone. Nothing is left but bones, with some fat and chemically diluted water draining down onto the floor.

So apparently you need protein, after all! Well, you did not get it from "evolutionary development"!

If you decide to read my three-volume book, it will explain that nothing else in this world was made by evolution either. (You will there learn that stellar and geological facts also disprove evolutionary theory.)

Not only amino acids, proteins, and DNA,—but everything else about us reveals careful planning by a Higher Intelligence, not random purposeless as the cause.

You need to stop believing the errors of these men who preach evolution. They are stuck with an outmoded mid-19th century theory that was devised when almost nothing was known about proteins, genetics, or microbiology. And they are ashamed to admit that modern research has shown evolution to be a hoax. Although they choose to defend an error, you do not have to be part of it.

Instead, go alone by yourself, kneel down and ask God, who made you and keeps you alive every moment, to forgive you of your sins. Ask Him to accept you as His little child. He will do it, and you will experience a new peace in your heart you have never had before.

But do not stop there. Get a Bible and read in it every day and obey it. Through the enabling grace of Jesus Christ, obey God’s Ten Commandment law. He will help you live a clean, godly life.

Is not this what you really want?

E-mail me at our pathlights.com address, and ask for books to help you in this matter, and I will send some.

For further study. The data in the first two-thirds of this article were based on the following sources:

J. Monod, Chance and Necessity. London: Collins (1972).

G. Stix, "Waiting for Breakthroughs." Scientific American 274(4):78-83 (1996).

N. P. Pavletich and C. O. Pabo, "Zinc Finger-DNA Recognition: Crystal Structure of a Zif 268-DNA Complex at 2.1 A." Science 252:809-817 (1991).

M. Suzuki and N. Yagi, "DNA Recognition Code of Transcription Factors in the Helix Turn Helix, Probe Helix, Hormone Receptor and Zinc Finger Families." Prc. Natl. Acad. Sd. USA 91:12357-12361 (1994).

"News and Views," Nature Structural Biology 4:424-427 (1997).

Isaac Asimov, Photosynthesis. New York: Basic Books (1969).

C. O. Pabo and R. T. Sauer, "Protein DNA Recognition." Annual Review of Biochemistry 53:293-321; see pp. 313-314 (1984).

J. Watson, The Molecular Biology of the Gene, 3rd ed. (Menlo Park, Calif.: W. A. Benjamin). Chap. 4 contains a discussion of the role and biochemical significance of weak bonds (1976).

Earnest Baldwin, Dynamic Aspects of Biochemistry (5th cd.). New York: Cambridge University Press (1967).

Y. Cho, et al., "Crystal Structure of a p53 Tumor Suppressor-DNA Complex: Understanding Tumorigenic Mutations." Science 265:346-355 (1995).

Earnest Baldwin, The Nature of Biochemistry. New York: Cambridge University Press (1962).

M. F. Perutz, "X-Ray Analysis: Structure and Function of Enzymes." European Journal of Biochemistry 8:455-466 (1969).

Harold A. Harper, Review of Physiological Chemistry (8th ed.). Los Altos, Calif., Lange Medical Publications (1961).

Martin Kamen, Isotopic Tracers in Biology. New York: Academic Press (1957).

Karlson, P., Introduction to Modern Biochemistry. New York: Academic Press (1963).

G. J. Narilkar and G. Herschlag, "Mechanistic Aspects of Enzymic Catalysis." Annual Review of Biochemist, 66:19-59 (1977).

Albert L. Lehninger, Biochemistry (2nd cd.). New York: Worth Publishers (1975).

I. Hirao and A. D. Ellingron, "Re-creating the RNA World." Current Biology (1995).

Albert L. Lehninger, Bioenergetics. New York: Benjamin Company (1965).

Nature Structural Biology, 5:100 (1998).