Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All
Our planet is a diverse and thriving hub of life. Spanning the frigid Arctic to the lush Amazon rainforest, from the desolate Sahara Desert to the verdant Everglades swamp, and from the mysterious depths of the ocean to the majestic mountain summits—life thrives in a myriad of forms, continually inspiring awe and wonder.
The incredible variety of life on Earth encompasses a staggering range of types, sizes, and quantities. With over a million insect species, more than 20,000 fish species, at least 350,000 plant species, and over 9,000 bird species, the Earth is home to an awe-inspiring array of organisms, including humans. Collectively, these organisms create the intricate tapestry and harmonious symphony that we refer to as life.
Perhaps even more astounding than the diverse array of life forms is the profound unity that connects them all. Biochemists, who delve into the fundamental components of living organisms, have revealed that all living things, from amoebas to humans, rely on an intricate interplay between nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) and protein molecules. The complex processes involving these components are ubiquitous throughout the cells of all living organisms, be they hummingbirds, lions, or whales. This remarkable unity underpins the splendid mosaic of life. But how did this magnificent orchestration of life come into existence? What is the true origin of life?
It is generally accepted that at some point, our planet was devoid of life. This notion is supported by both scientific consensus and numerous religious texts. However, the explanation for how life initially emerged on Earth remains a point of contention between science and religion.
A multitude of individuals from diverse educational backgrounds maintain the belief that life on Earth is the product of an intelligent Creator or original Designer. Conversely, many scientists argue that life originated from nonliving matter through a series of serendipitous chemical reactions. Which perspective holds the key to understanding the genesis of life?
It is crucial to recognize the significance of this question, as it forms the basis of one of the most fundamental inquiries of human existence: How did we, as living beings, come into existence?
Although many science courses primarily focus on the adaptation and survival of life forms, they often overlook the central question of life’s very origin. Explanations for the emergence of life tend to be generalized, suggesting that over millions of years, molecular collisions eventually gave rise to life. This would imply that in the presence of energy sources such as the sun, lightning, or volcanic activity, lifeless matter underwent a process of organization and ultimately became living, all without any directed assistance. Such a monumental transition from nonliving to living matter raises the question: Is it plausible for life to have originated in this manner?
During the Middle Ages, the concept of spontaneous generation, or the idea that life could arise spontaneously from nonliving matter, was widely accepted. In the 17th century, Italian physician Francesco Redi conducted experiments that debunked this belief by proving that maggots appeared in rotting meat only after flies had laid eggs on it. Subsequent experiments further demonstrated that even microbes did not arise spontaneously. However, the debate persisted until the groundbreaking work of Louis Pasteur.
Pasteur is well-known for his contributions to understanding fermentation and infectious diseases. Additionally, he conducted experiments to investigate the possibility of spontaneous generation of microscopic life forms. Pasteur’s research demonstrated that even minuscule bacteria did not form in sterilized water protected from contamination. In 1864, he declared, “Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment.” To this day, Pasteur’s assertion holds true, as no experiment has successfully produced life from nonliving matter.
Contemporary efforts to elucidate the origin of life on Earth can be traced back to the 1920s, with the work of Russian biochemist Alexander I. Oparin. Over the years, Oparin and other scientists have developed a theoretical three-act narrative that seeks to explain the transformative events that transpired on Earth’s stage. The first act involves Earth’s elemental constituents undergoing chemical changes to form various molecules. The second act sees the development of larger, more complex molecules, and the final act culminates in the genesis of the first living cell. But is this an accurate depiction of how life emerged on our planet?
A central aspect of this theoretical narrative is the understanding that Earth’s primordial atmosphere was vastly different from its present state. One theory posits that free oxygen was virtually nonexistent, and elements such as nitrogen, hydrogen, and carbon combined to form ammonia and methane. The hypothesis suggests that when lightning and ultraviolet light interacted with this gaseous mixture and water vapor, sugars and amino acids were generated. It is important to note, however, that this remains a theoretical conjecture.
According to this hypothetical narrative, the newly formed molecular compounds accumulated in the oceans or other bodies of water over time. As a result, sugars, acids, and other compounds coalesced into a “prebiotic soup,” wherein amino acids combined to create proteins. Building upon this theoretical progression, other compounds called nucleotides formed chains, eventually giving rise to nucleic acids such as DNA. This purported sequence of events sets the stage for the final act of the molecular saga.
The concluding act of this speculative narrative can be likened to a love story. Protein molecules and DNA molecules fortuitously encounter one another, recognize their compatibility, and unite. Just before the metaphorical curtain falls, the first living cell is brought into existence. Observing this narrative unfold, one might question its veracity: Is this a realistic account or mere fiction? Could life on Earth truly have originated in this manner?
Information and Intelligence: A Compelling Perspective
“Chance, and chance alone, did it all, from the primeval soup to man,” declared Nobel laureate Christian de Duve, discussing the origin of life. However, is chance a logical explanation for life’s emergence?
What exactly is chance? Some people think of it in terms of mathematical probability, like the odds involved in flipping a coin. Nonetheless, many scientists employ the term “chance” differently when discussing the origin of life. The ambiguous word “chance” is used as a substitute for a more accurate term, such as “cause,” particularly when the cause remains unidentified.
Biophysicist Donald M. MacKay observes, “To personify ‘chance’ as if we were talking about a causal agent is to make an illegitimate switch from a scientific to a quasi-religious mythological concept.” Similarly, Robert C. Sproul asserts: “By calling the unknown cause ‘chance’ for so long, people begin to forget that a substitution was made… The assumption that ‘chance equals an unknown cause’ has come to mean for many that ‘chance equals cause.’”
Nobel laureate Jacques L. Monod, for instance, employed this chance-as-cause line of reasoning. He wrote: “Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, [is] at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution… Man knows at last that he is alone in the universe’s unfeeling immensity, out of which he emerged only by chance.” Monod states ‘BY chance,’ and like many others, elevates chance to a creative principle. Chance is proposed as the mechanism through which life arose on Earth.
In reality, dictionaries define “chance” as “the assumed impersonal purposeless determiner of unaccountable happenings.” Consequently, when someone claims that life came about by chance, they are asserting that it resulted from an unknown causal power. Is it possible that some individuals are, in essence, capitalizing “Chance,” effectively equating it with a Creator?
Genesis in the Laboratory?
In the early 1950s, scientists endeavored to test Alexander Oparin’s theory of life’s origin. Although it was well established that life could only arise from pre-existing life, researchers hypothesized that under different conditions in the past, life might have gradually emerged from nonliving matter. To investigate this possibility, scientist Stanley L. Miller, working in Harold Urey’s laboratory, combined hydrogen, ammonia, methane, and water vapor (assumed to be the components of Earth’s primitive atmosphere) in a sealed flask containing boiling water (representing an ocean) and subjected the mixture to electric sparks (simulating lightning). Within a week, Miller observed a reddish residue, which upon analysis was found to be rich in amino acids—essential components of proteins. This experiment has been widely cited in science textbooks and educational courses as a potential explanation for the origin of life on Earth. But does it truly provide such an explanation?
In recent years, the validity of Miller’s experiment has been increasingly scrutinized (see “Classic but Questionable,” pages 36-7). Nevertheless, its perceived success inspired further experiments that even managed to synthesize components of nucleic acids (DNA or RNA). Experts in the field, sometimes referred to as origin-of-life scientists, were initially optimistic, as these findings seemed to corroborate the first act of the molecular narrative. It appeared that laboratory recreations of the remaining two acts were imminent. A chemistry professor confidently asserted, “The explanation of the origin of a primitive living system by evolutionary mechanisms is well within sight.” Similarly, a science writer noted, “Pundits speculated that scientists, like Mary Shelley’s Dr. Frankenstein, would shortly conjure up living organisms in their laboratories and thereby demonstrate in detail how genesis unfolded.” Many believed that the enigma of life’s spontaneous origin had been solved.
Shifts in Sentiment—Unsolved Enigmas Persist
In the years that followed those initial experiments, the once pervasive optimism has dissipated. Decades have passed, and the enigma of life’s origin remains unresolved. Reflecting on his experiment 40 years later, Professor Miller told Scientific American, “The problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and most other people, envisioned.” This shift in sentiment is shared by other scientists. For instance, in 1969, Biology Professor Dean H. Kenyon coauthored Biochemical Predestination. However, in more recent years, he concluded that it is “fundamentally implausible that unassisted matter and energy organized themselves into living systems.”
In fact, laboratory research supports Kenyon’s assertion that there is “a fundamental flaw in all current theories of the chemical origins of life.” Following the successful synthesis of amino acids by Miller and other scientists, researchers endeavored to create proteins and DNA, both of which are essential for life on Earth. After thousands of experiments conducted under putative prebiotic conditions, what were the results? The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories highlights the stark contrast between the successful synthesis of amino acids and the consistent failure to produce proteins and DNA, which are marked by “uniform failure.”
The conundrum extends beyond the mere formation of the first protein and nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) molecules; it also encompasses their intricate interdependence. As stated in The New Encyclopædia Britannica, “It is only the partnership of the two molecules that makes contemporary life on Earth possible.” Yet, the encyclopedia acknowledges that the emergence of this partnership remains “a critical and unsolved problem in the origin of life.” This is undoubtedly true.
See “Collaboration for Existence” below, which provides an overview of the fascinating collaboration between proteins and nucleic acids within our cells. While this brief insight into cellular processes elicits admiration for the scientists who have illuminated these remarkably complex systems, it also underscores the immense complexity and precision required for these processes to occur, prompting the question: How did all of this come about?
Although origin-of-life scientists continue to seek a plausible explanation for the inception of life, their revised hypotheses have not proven convincing (see Appendix B, “From ‘the RNA World’ or Another World?” page 48). Klaus Dose of the Institute for Biochemistry in Mainz, Germany, noted, “At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.”
At the 1996 International Conference on the Origin of Life, the nearly 300 attending scientists failed to provide definitive solutions. Instead, as reported by the journal Science, they “grappled with the riddle of how [DNA and RNA] molecules first appeared and how they evolved into self-reproducing cells.”
Given that intelligence and advanced education are prerequisites for studying and even beginning to understand molecular processes within our cells, is it reasonable to believe that such intricate steps occurred spontaneously and by chance in a “prebiotic soup,” without any guidance? Or was something more involved?
Pondering the Enigmas
Upon reflecting on nearly half a century of conjecture and countless attempts to prove that life originated spontaneously, one may find it challenging to disagree with Nobel laureate Francis Crick. Discussing origin-of-life theories, Crick noted that there is “too much speculation running after too few facts.” Consequently, it is understandable that some scientists, when examining the available evidence, conclude that life is far too complex to emerge even in a highly controlled laboratory setting, let alone in an unregulated environment.
If cutting-edge science cannot substantiate the notion that life could spontaneously arise, why do some scientists continue to adhere to such theories? Several decades ago, Professor J.D. Bernal provided some insight in his book The Origin of Life, stating: “By applying the strict canons of scientific method to this subject [the spontaneous generation of life], it is possible to demonstrate effectively at several places in the story, how life could not have arisen; the improbabilities are too great, the chances of the emergence of life too small.” He further added: “Regrettably from this point of view, life is here on Earth in all its multiplicity of forms and activities and the arguments have to be bent round to support its existence.” The situation has not significantly improved since then.
Consider the implications of such reasoning. It is tantamount to asserting that while it is scientifically accurate to state that life could not have originated spontaneously, self-emerging life is the only possibility that will be entertained. Consequently, it is necessary to manipulate the arguments to uphold the hypothesis of life’s spontaneous emergence. Does such logic sit well with you? Does this approach not necessitate a significant distortion of the facts?
Nonetheless, there are well-informed, esteemed scientists who do not feel compelled to contort the facts to accommodate a prevailing philosophy regarding life’s origin. Instead, they allow the facts to guide them toward a rational conclusion. What facts are they considering, and what conclusion do they draw?
Information and Intelligence: A Compelling Perspective
In a documentary film interview, Professor Maciej Giertych, a renowned geneticist from the Institute of Dendrology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, stated:
“We have become aware of the massive information contained in genes. There is no known way in science for that information to arise spontaneously. It requires intelligence; it cannot result from random events. Merely mixing letters does not produce words.” He further elaborated: “For instance, the highly complex DNA, RNA, and protein replication system in cells must have been flawless from the outset. If not, life systems could not exist. The only logical explanation is that this vast quantity of information originated from an intelligent source.”
The more one learns about the marvels of life, the more logical it becomes to concur with this conclusion: The origin of life necessitates an intelligent source. What could this source be?
As mentioned earlier, millions of educated individuals have concluded that life on Earth must have been created by a higher intelligence, a designer. Indeed, after conducting a fair examination, they have accepted that even in our scientifically advanced age, it is reasonable to concur with the Biblical poet who long ago expressed about God, “For with you is the source of life.”—Psalm 36:9.
Whether you have reached a definitive conclusion on this topic or not, it is worthwhile to explore some wonders that directly impact you. Doing so can be both gratifying and illuminating, shedding considerable light on this matter that deeply touches our lives.
Reevaluating the Classic but Questionable Experiment
Stanley Miller’s 1953 experiment is frequently cited as evidence supporting the possibility of spontaneous generation in the past. However, the credibility of his explanation relies on the assumption that Earth’s primordial atmosphere was “reducing,” meaning it contained minimal free (chemically uncombined) oxygen. Why is this important?
The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories explains that if a significant amount of free oxygen were present, amino acids could not form, and even if they did, they would decompose quickly. How valid was Miller’s assumption about the so-called primitive atmosphere?
In a seminal paper published two years after his experiment, Miller acknowledged: “These ideas are of course speculation, for we do not know that the Earth had a reducing atmosphere when it was formed… No direct evidence has yet been found.”—Journal of the American Chemical Society, May 12, 1955.
Did evidence eventually emerge? In 1981, science writer Robert C. Cowen noted: “Scientists are having to rethink some of their assumptions… Little evidence has emerged to support the notion of a hydrogen-rich, highly reducing atmosphere, but some evidence speaks against it.”—Technology Review, April 1981.
What has happened since then? In 1991, John Horgan wrote in Scientific American: “Over the past decade or so, doubts have grown about Urey and Miller’s assumptions regarding the atmosphere. Laboratory experiments and computerized reconstructions of the atmosphere… suggest that ultraviolet radiation from the sun, which today is blocked by atmospheric ozone, would have destroyed hydrogen-based molecules in the atmosphere… Such an atmosphere [carbon dioxide and nitrogen] would not have been conducive to the synthesis of amino acids and other precursors of life.”
So, why do many still maintain that Earth’s early atmosphere was reducing, with little oxygen? Sidney W. Fox and Klaus Dose provide an answer in Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life: The atmosphere must have lacked oxygen because “laboratory experiments show that chemical evolution… would be largely inhibited by oxygen,” and compounds like amino acids “are not stable over geological times in the presence of oxygen.”
Is this not an example of circular reasoning? It is argued that the early atmosphere was reducing because spontaneous generation of life could not have occurred otherwise, but there is no actual evidence to support a reducing atmosphere.
Furthermore, consider the following: If the gas mixture represents the atmosphere, the electric spark symbolizes lightning, and boiling water signifies the sea, what or who does the scientist orchestrating and executing the experiment represent?
The Enigma of Handedness in Amino Acids
Much like right-handed and left-handed gloves, amino acid molecules also exhibit handedness. Among the approximately 100 known amino acids, only 20 are used in proteins, and all of them are left-handed. When scientists synthesize amino acids in laboratories, attempting to mimic what might have occurred in a hypothetical prebiotic soup, they observe an equal distribution of right-handed and left-handed molecules. The New York Times reports that “this kind of 50-50 distribution” is not characteristic of life, which exclusively relies on left-handed amino acids. The exclusive presence of left-handed amino acids in living organisms remains a profound mystery. Interestingly, even amino acids discovered in meteorites exhibit a predominance of left-handed forms. Dr. Jeffrey L. Bada, a researcher focusing on the origin of life, suggests that “some influence outside the earth might have played some role in determining the handedness of biological amino acids.”
The Intricacy of Life and the Notion of Intelligent Design
Sir Fred Hoyle, a renowned British astronomer, has spent decades examining the universe and life within it, even proposing that life on Earth originated from outer space. During a lecture at the California Institute of Technology, Hoyle discussed the order of amino acids in proteins.
He posited that the central challenge in biology is not merely the fact that a protein is composed of a chain of amino acids linked together in a specific way, but that the precise ordering of these amino acids bestows the chain with extraordinary properties. Hoyle argued that if amino acids were connected randomly, an immense number of arrangements would be ineffectual in fulfilling the needs of a living cell. Considering that a typical enzyme consists of approximately 200 links, with 20 possible variations for each link, it is evident that the quantity of nonviable arrangements is astronomical, surpassing the number of atoms in all the galaxies observable with the most advanced telescopes. This applies to just one enzyme, yet there are more than 2,000 enzymes, primarily serving distinct functions. Hoyle questioned how such a situation could have come to exist.
He further asserted that instead of accepting the extraordinarily low probability of life emerging through the blind forces of nature, it seemed more plausible to assume that the origin of life was a deliberate intellectual act.
Professor Michael J. Behe shared a similar perspective, stating that for someone not compelled to limit their search to unintelligent causes, the apparent conclusion is that numerous biochemical systems were designed intentionally. Behe maintained that life on Earth, at its most fundamental level and in its most critical components, is the result of intelligent activity.
Even a brief examination of the elaborate world and intricate functions within each body cell leads to the question: How did all of this originate?
Cell membrane: (Regulates what enters and exits the cell.) The cell membrane, also known as the plasma membrane, is a selectively permeable barrier that encloses the cell’s contents. It is composed of a lipid bilayer and embedded proteins, which regulate the transport of substances in and out of the cell. This selective permeability allows the cell to maintain its internal environment while exchanging necessary nutrients, waste products, and signaling molecules with its surroundings.
Nucleus: (Functions as the cell’s control center.) The nucleus is the cell’s control center, containing the majority of the cell’s genetic material in the form of DNA. It is enclosed by a double membrane called the nuclear envelope, which contains nuclear pores that regulate the exchange of materials between the nucleus and the cytoplasm. The nucleus directs cellular activities by controlling the synthesis of proteins, which are essential for various cellular functions, growth, and reproduction.
Chromosomes: (Contain the DNA, the genetic master plan) Chromosomes are thread-like structures found in the nucleus, containing DNA molecules that carry genetic information. Each chromosome consists of a single, long DNA molecule wrapped around proteins called histones, which provide structural support and help regulate gene expression. Chromosomes ensure that DNA is accurately replicated and distributed during cell division, maintaining genetic continuity across generations of cells.
Ribosomes: (Location where proteins are synthesized.) Ribosomes are small, complex structures responsible for protein synthesis in cells. They are composed of ribosomal RNA (rRNA) and proteins and can be found either free-floating in the cytoplasm or attached to the endoplasmic reticulum. Ribosomes translate the genetic information from messenger RNA (mRNA) into a sequence of amino acids, ultimately forming a polypeptide chain that will fold into a functional protein.
Nucleolus: (Site where ribosomes are assembled.) The nucleolus is a small, dense structure within the nucleus, primarily involved in the synthesis and assembly of ribosomes. It contains the genes for ribosomal RNA (rRNA) and is the site where rRNA is transcribed and combined with ribosomal proteins. These ribosomal subunits are then exported through nuclear pores into the cytoplasm, where they will join together to form functional ribosomes.
Mitochondrion: (Production center for the molecules that provide energy for the cell) Mitochondria are double-membraned organelles, often referred to as the “powerhouses” of the cell, as they generate the majority of the cell’s energy supply in the form of adenosine triphosphate (ATP). They achieve this through a process called cellular respiration, which involves the conversion of nutrients, such as glucose, into ATP. Mitochondria also have their own DNA and can replicate independently of the cell, which has led to the theory that they originated from a symbiotic relationship between an ancestral host cell and a bacterium.
Collaboration for Existence
Life on Earth is reliant upon the intricate cooperation between protein and nucleic acid molecules (DNA or RNA) inside a living cell. It is worthwhile to briefly examine the fascinating molecular collaboration, as this complexity leads many to question the likelihood that living cells originated by chance.
When we scrutinize the human body down to the cellular level, we discover that it primarily consists of protein molecules. Most proteins are composed of ribbon-like strands of amino acids that are bent and twisted into various configurations. Some proteins fold into spherical shapes, while others adopt a structure resembling accordion pleats.
Certain proteins collaborate with lipid molecules to create cell membranes. Others assist in transporting oxygen from the lungs to the rest of the body. Some proteins function as enzymes (catalysts) that digest our food by breaking down proteins into amino acids. These are merely a few examples of the thousands of roles proteins play. It is accurate to say that proteins are the specialized workers of life; without them, life would cease to exist. In turn, proteins would not exist without their connection to DNA. But what exactly is DNA? What are its properties, and how is it linked to proteins? Renowned scientists have earned Nobel prizes for uncovering these answers. Nevertheless, we do not need to be expert biologists to comprehend the fundamental concepts.
The Quintessential Molecule
Cells predominantly consist of proteins, which are perpetually required for maintaining cells, creating new cells, and facilitating chemical reactions within cells. The instructions for producing proteins are encoded within DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) molecules. To gain a deeper understanding of protein synthesis, let us closely examine DNA.
DNA molecules are housed in the cell nucleus. They not only carry instructions essential for protein production but also store and transmit genetic information from one generation of cells to another. The structure of DNA molecules resembles a twisted rope ladder, known as a “double helix.” Each of the two strands in the DNA ladder is composed of an extensive number of smaller components called nucleotides, which come in four types: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). Using this DNA “alphabet,” a pair of letters—either A with T or G with C—forms a single rung in the double-helix ladder. The ladder encompasses thousands of genes, the fundamental units of heredity.
A gene possesses the information required to construct a protein. The arrangement of letters within the gene generates a coded message or blueprint that dictates the type of protein to be created. Consequently, DNA, with all its subunits, serves as the paramount molecule of life. Without its encoded instructions, a diverse array of proteins could not exist—hence, no life would be possible.
Given that the blueprint for constructing a protein is stored in the cell nucleus and the actual protein-building site is outside the nucleus, assistance is required to transfer the coded blueprint from the nucleus to the “construction site.” RNA (ribonucleic acid) molecules provide this crucial aid. RNA molecules are chemically akin to DNA molecules, and multiple forms of RNA are necessary to perform the task. Let us delve deeper into these extraordinarily complex processes that create our essential proteins with the assistance of RNA.
The process commences in the cell’s nucleus, where a segment of the DNA ladder unzips. This action enables RNA letters to connect with the exposed DNA letters of one DNA strand. An enzyme traverses the RNA letters, linking them into a strand. As a result, DNA letters are transcribed into RNA letters, forming what can be referred to as a DNA dialect. The newly formed RNA chain detaches, and the DNA ladder re-zips.
Following further modification, this specific type of messenger RNA is ready. It exits the nucleus and proceeds to the protein-production site, where the RNA letters are decoded. Each group of three RNA letters constitutes a “word” that calls for one particular amino acid. Another form of RNA searches for that amino acid, captures it with the assistance of an enzyme, and transports it to the “construction site.” As the RNA sequence is read and translated, an expanding chain of amino acids is generated. This chain curls and folds into a unique shape, resulting in one type of protein. Remarkably, there may be over 50,000 different types in our body.
Protein folding itself is significant. In 1996, scientists worldwide, equipped with their most sophisticated computer programs, competed to solve one of biology’s most complex problems: how a single protein, composed of a lengthy string of amino acids, folds itself into the intricate shape that determines its role in life. In summary, the computers were defeated, and the proteins prevailed. Scientists have estimated that for an average-sized protein, comprised of 100 amino acids, solving the folding problem by attempting every possibility would take 10^27 (a billion billion billion) years. — The New York Times.
We have only discussed a brief overview of protein formation, but it is evident that the process is incredibly intricate. Can you imagine how long it takes to form a chain of 20 amino acids? Just about one second! This activity occurs continuously within our body cells, from our head to our feet and everywhere in between.
What is the implication? While countless other factors are involved, the teamwork necessary to create and sustain life is truly awe-inspiring. The term “teamwork” scarcely captures the precise interaction required to produce a protein molecule, as a protein necessitates information from DNA molecules, and DNA requires several specialized RNA molecules. Additionally, we cannot overlook the various enzymes, each fulfilling a unique and vital function. As our bodies generate new cells, which happens billions of times daily without our conscious direction, copies of all three components—DNA, RNA, and protein—are essential. It is clear why New Scientist magazine remarks, “Take away any one of the three and life grinds to a halt.” Furthermore, without a complete and functioning team, life could not have originated.
Is it plausible that each of the three molecular team members spontaneously emerged simultaneously, in the same location, and with such precision that they could collaborate to perform their wonders?
Alternatively, there is an explanation for the origin of life on Earth. Many have come to believe that life is the meticulous creation of a Designer with intelligence of the highest caliber.
Leave a Reply