When the newspaper headline "Life in a Test Tube" appeared in 1953, the evolutionist community was ecstatic. Miller's work was viewed by them as scientific evidence that life could be formed from chemical reagents as a result of a random natural process. In that classic experiment, the researcher combined a mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water vapor and passed it through an electrical discharge to simulate lightning. At the end of the experiment, several amino acids were found among the reaction products. Since amino acids are separate units of long polymers called proteins, and proteins play an important role in organisms, newspapers began to report laboratory confirmation that life originated naturally from chemical elements.
As a chemist with a Ph. D., I must admit that obtaining amino acids under these conditions is intriguing in itself. But here we are faced with a serious problem. Life was not obtained in that experiment. The products of the reactions were amino acids - common chemical compounds that “don't live”. To this day, no process is known that would convert amino acids into a life form. But this fact does not prevent evolutionists from claiming that the experiment proves the accidental origin of life from chemicals. Evolutionists are well aware that amino acids "do not live", but, nevertheless, they call this experiment a proof of the accidental natural origin of life, since in their opinion amino acids are the "building blocks" of life. Such a statement suggeststhat under the right conditions and a sufficient amount of "material", life is formed by itself. But this claim is really nothing more than an assumption that has never been demonstrated. Amino acids can be components of proteins, which in turn are important for life, but this does not mean that amino acids are the "building blocks" of life. I can go to an auto parts store and buy parts to build a car, but that doesn't guarantee me a functional vehicle. Just as in this case a car collector is needed, so there must be an amino acid collector to form proteins for life to exist.and they, in turn, are important for life, but this does not mean that amino acids are the "building blocks" of life. I can go to an auto parts store and buy parts to build a car, but that doesn't guarantee me a functional vehicle. Just as in this case a car collector is needed, so there must be an amino acid collector to form proteins for life to exist.and they, in turn, are important for life, but this does not mean that amino acids are the "building blocks" of life. I can go to an auto parts store and buy parts to build a car, but that doesn't guarantee me a functional vehicle. Just as in this case a car collector is needed, so there must be an amino acid collector to form proteins for life to exist.
Two * chiral * forms.
Since 1953, scientists have been asking the question: does the production of amino acids in that experiment prove the origin of life from chemicals? There has been much debate as to whether the experiment confirms evolution or indicates an Almighty Creator. For 50 years, scholars have been debating this issue, and discussions always end in controversy. As a scientist, I've always wondered why people argue more than discuss facts. Then I realized that the discussion of facts inevitably leads to the question of chirality. Chirality is one of the best scientific evidence against accidental evolution, and it totally destroys chemical claims for life. Chirality is a fact that evolutionists don't even want to discuss.
A geometric figure or a group of points is called chiral if the image in an ideal flat mirror cannot be aligned with it. The type of disimetry, which determines the incompatibility of an object with its mirror image, is called chirality in chemistry.
Two molecules can be identical in composition, but their structures in space are mirror images of each other. Such objects refer to each other as right and left hand, or right and left threaded screws. For this reason, chirality can exist in the form of right-handed R-molecules and left-handed L-molecules. Each individual molecule is called an optical isomer.
What is the problem of evolution with chirality? In our bodies, proteins and DNA have a unique three-dimensional spatial shape and thanks to it, biochemical processes occur as they occur. It is chirality that provides the unique form of proteins and DNA, and without it, biochemical processes would not work.
Promotional video:
In our body, all amino acids of all proteins are found in the form of "left" isomers. And although Miller got amino acids at the end of the experiment, it was a mixture of "left" and "right" isomers. The amino acids lacked chirality. It is a well-known fact in organic chemistry: homochirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process. When a random chemical reaction is used to form molecules with chirality, there is an equal opportunity to produce both "left" and "right" isomers. It is a scientifically proven fact that a random process forming a chiral product results in a proportional (50% / 50%) mixture of two optical isomers. There are no exceptions. The lack of chirality in the amino acids of Miller's experiment is not just a problem for discussion. This fact indicates the catastrophic failure of the idea of the origin of life from chemical elements and proves that life cannot and could not occur naturally.
Let's take a look at chirality in proteins and DNA. Proteins are polymers of amino acids, and each amino acid exists in the protein as the "left" L-isomer. Although the "right" R isomer exists in non-living nature and can be synthesized in the laboratory, this isomer is not found in natural proteins. The DNA molecule is made up of billions of complex chemical molecules called nucleotides, which exist in DNA as "right-handed" optical isomers. Again, left-handed nucleotide isomers can be prepared in the laboratory, but they do not exist in natural DNA. No random process could have formed proteins and DNA with their unique chirality.
If proteins and DNA were formed by chance, then each individual component would be a mixture (50% / 50%) of two different optical isomers. But this is not at all what we see in natural proteins or DNA. How can a random natural process create proteins with thousands of exclusively L-molecules, and then also create DNA with billions of exclusively R-molecules? Does it all look like an accident or a product of design? Even if there was a magical process leading to chirality, it would only create one isomer. If such a process existed, then we know nothing either about it or about how it worked. Even if it existed, how were structures with different chiralities formed? If there were two magical processes, what determined when and which one was used? The idea of two processes requires a control mechanism,but this kind of control is not possible under natural conditions.
In fact, the problem with chirality is much deeper and deeper. When nucleotides combine to form DNA, they form a bend that gives the DNA a double helix. DNA exhibits a bend in the chain, since each of its components is chiral. It is chirality that provides DNA with the structure of the helix. If even one molecule in DNA had the wrong chirality, DNA would not exist in the form of a double helix and would not function correctly. The entire replication process would go off the rails like a train gets off bad damaged tracks. For DNA evolution to work, billions of R molecules need to be formed without error in our body at the same time. The probability that billions of nucleotides "converge" at the same time, and all with the same chirality, is infinitely small. If evolution cannot provide a mechanism that creates one product with chirality, how can it explain the formation of two products with two opposite chiralities?
Chirality is not just a problem - it is a dilemma. According to the theory of evolution, everything should be explained through the laws of nature and time. However, the process that formed chirality in biomolecules cannot be explained by the laws of nature for any period of time. This is the dilemma: either a natural process can explain everything, or chirality does not exist.
If you are in doubt, then look at yourself. After all, you are a living example of the reality of chirality. Without it, proteins and enzymes would not be able to do their job; DNA would not function at all. Without functional DNA and proteins, there would be no life on earth. The existence of chirality more than any other evidence convinced me of the reality of an Almighty Creator. I hope this will convince you too.
When creationists start talking about God's supernatural creation, evolutionists object, arguing that everything must be explained by natural processes and that divine intervention is not science. I find this remark particularly amusing. When we demonstrate to them the inability of the laws of nature to explain the existence of chirality, as well as the fact that in fact the very laws of nature stand in the way of its formation, evolutionists claim that the process occurred in a long, unknown way, about which they know nothing. So who relies on a supernatural explanation? While they will never call it divine intervention, they definitely rely on faith and not scientific facts. Evolution just hopes that you don't know chemistry.
There is another problem with the DNA molecule and how it works in the human body. As part of the normal DNA replication (copying) process, the enzyme travels down the molecular chain to form a copy of the DNA chain and reads the sequence of the molecules. If a wrong nucleotide is found, a "repairing mechanism" gets down to business, which uses another enzyme to "cut" the wrong nucleotide and insert the correct one, thus correcting the DNA.
Let's take a look at DNA and this "repair mechanism". Were they really formed by random natural processes? If a "repairing mechanism" appeared first, then what is the use of it if DNA has not yet formed? If the DNA molecule first appeared, how did she know that she would need a "repairing mechanism"? Can molecules think? DNA is an unstable molecule, and without a system of constant "repair", it will quickly decay as a result of chemical oxidation and other processes. There is no explanation for how DNA could have existed for millions of years while the "repair mechanism" evolved. DNA would simply disintegrate back into "foam pond" before the supposed billions of random mutations could ever create a "repair mechanism."
Once we realize that design does not come about by chance, we then understand that the universe and life in it did not come about as a result of a chaotic random process; it is the creation of the Almighty Creator, who created everything through His Word. I hope you are starting to see the problem. Evolution can give you a theory that on the surface may seem possible, but when true science gets down to business and scientists start asking questions, the problems and false logic of the theory of evolution become apparent. So evolution just hopes that you don't know chemistry.
Dr. Charles McComb