The second article of this series included a discussion of Fox's
scheme, or thermal model, for overcoming the thermodynamic barrier
to the formation of proteins (amino acid polymers), and a discussion
of other polymerization schemes. It was pointed out that Fox's
thermal model involves a series of conditions and events, most
of which would have had such a vanishingly low order of probability
on any plausible primitive earth, that the overall probability
of protenoid microspheres arising through natural processes would
have been nil. It was further pointed out that, in any case, the
polymers produced by such a postulated process would have consisted
of randomly arranged amino acids with no significant biological
activity and thus Fox's model has no relevance to the origin of
living systems.

The problem of overcoming the thermodynamic barrier in the polymerization
of amino acids and nucleotides, as insolvable as this appears
to be, is dwarfed by a vastly greater problem—the origin of the
highly ordered, highly specific sequences in proteins, DNA, and
RNA which endow these molecules with their marvelous biological
activities. Proteins generally have from about a hundred up to
several hundred amino acids arranged in a precise order or sequence.
Twenty different kinds of amino acids are found in proteins, so
it may be said that the protein "language" has twenty
letters. Just as the letters of the alphabet must be arranged
in a precise sequence to write this sentence, or any sentence,
so the amino acids must be arranged in a precise sequence for
a protein to possess biological activity.

Human growth hormone has 188 amino acids arranged in a unique
and precise sequence. Ribonuclease, an enzyme that catalyzes the
hydrolysis of ribonucleic acids (RNA), has 124 amino acids arranged
in its own unique sequence. Bovine glutamate dehydrogenase, another
enzyme, has six identical chains of 506 amino acids each. The
alpha chain of human hemoglobin, the red blood protein, has 141
amino acids, and the beta chain has 146 amino acids. Hemoglobin
is a complex which includes four protein molecules, two each of
the alpha and beta proteins, plus iron, plus a complex chemical
called heme.

The particular amino acid sequence of each of these protein molecules
is responsible for their unique biological activity. Furthermore,
a change of a single amino acid generally destroys or severely
diminishes this activity. For example, some individuals inherit
a defective gene which causes the amino acid valine to be substituted
for glutamic acid at position 6 in the beta chain of their hemoglobin.
The other 286 amino acids (the remaining 145 in the beta chain
and the 141 in the alpha chain) remain unchanged—only one out
of 287 amino acids is affected. The defect, however, causes sickle
cell anemia, a disease that is invariably fatal.

The genetic messages are encoded in the genes, which are composed
of DNA, via the specific sequence of the nucleotides. There are
four different nucleotides, but each "letter" of the
genetic "language" consists of a set of three of the
four nucleotides. Sixty-four such sets (4³) can be
derived from these four nucleotides, and thus the genetic "language"
has an alphabet of 64 "letters." Genes generally have
from a hundred or so of these sets up to several thousand of the
sets. This would require the precise ordering of three times that
many nucleotides, since there are three in each set. The various
kinds of RNA would have equal complexity.

As mentioned earlier in the section of the last article in this
series, in which Fox's scheme was being discussed, when amino
acids and nucleotides are combined, or polymerized, by chemical
methods, the amino acids in polypeptides (proteins) and the nucleotides
in polynucleotides (DNA and RNA) so derived are arranged in disordered,
or random sequences, just as a string of letters typed by a monkey
would be randomly arranged. For biologically active molecules
to have arisen on the earth by naturalistic processes, there would
have had to be some machinery or mechanism in existence to cause
ordering of the subunits in a precise or nearly precise fashion.

The ordering mechanism would have had to be highly efficient,
since the precise structures required for biological activity
impose the severest restraints on the structures of these molecules,
just as writing this sentence correctly allows one way, and one
way only, for the letters composing it to be arranged. No such
ordering mechanism has yet been suggested, nor could any exist
under natural conditions. Once ordered sequences, such as enzymes,
DNA and RNA, as well as complex energy-coupling and energy-generating
systems existed, one might imagine how these ordered sequences
could have been duplicated, but that would never explain the origin
of these ordered sequences in the first place.

Some have imagined that random processes, given the four or five
billion years postulated by evolutionists for the age of the earth,
could have generated certain ordered sequences by pure chance.
The time required for a single protein molecule to arise by pure
chance, however, would exceed billions of times five billion years,
the assumed age of the earth.

For example, only seventeen different amino acids (one of each)
can be arranged in over 355 trillion (17 factorial) different
ways. Put another way, 17 people could line up over 355 trillion
different ways (if you don't believe it, get 16 friends
together and try it!). Furthermore, if one were to arrange a sequence
of 17 amino acids, and could choose from 20 (the number of different
amino acids found in proteins) instead of 17, and were allowed
to repeat amino acids (as would have been the case in the origin
of proteins), about ten sextillion sequences could be obtained
(20¹⁷, or 10²²)!

Immense as these numbers are, it could be argued that their origin
even by completely random processes would have a finite probability
in five billion years. But 17 is far too short for biological
activity. Proteins, DNA, and RNA usually contain hundreds of subunits.
A sequence of 100 might be more realistic. One hundred amino acids
of 20 different kinds could be arranged in 20¹⁰⁰, or
10¹³⁰ different ways. What would be the probability
of one unique sequence of 100 amino acids, composed of 20 different
amino acids, arising by chance in five billion years?

Let it be illustrated in the following fashion. The number of
different ways the letters in a sentence containing 100 letters
of 20 different kinds could be arranged would be equal to the
number of different protein molecules just mentioned (10¹³⁰).
A monkey typing 100 letters every second for five billion years
would not have the remotest chance of typing a particular sentence
of 100 letters even once without spelling errors.

In fact, if one billion (10⁹) planets the size
of the earth were covered eyeball-to-eyeball and elbow-to-elbow
with monkeys, and each monkey was seated at a typewriter (requiring
about 10 square feet for each monkey, of the approximately 10¹⁶
square feet available on each of the 10⁹ planets),
and each monkey typed a string of 100 letters every second
for five billion years (about 10¹⁷ seconds) the chances
are overwhelming that not one of these monkeys would have typed
the sentence correctly! Only 10⁴¹ tries could be made
by all these monkeys in that five billion years (10⁹ x
10¹⁶ x 10¹⁷ divided by 10 = 10⁴¹).
There would not be the slightest chance that a single one of the
10²⁴ monkeys (a trillion trillion monkeys) would have
typed a preselected sentence of 100 letters (such as "The
subject of this Impact article is the naturalistic origin
of life on the earth under assumed primordial conditions")
without a spelling error, even once.

The number of tries possible (10⁴¹) is such a minute
fraction of the total number of possibilities (10¹³⁰),
that the probability that one of the monkeys would have typed
the correct sentence is less than the impossibility threshold.
The degree of difference between these two numbers is enormous,
and may be illustrated by the fact that 10⁴¹ times
a trillion(10¹²) is still only 10⁵³, and
10⁵³ times a trillion is only 10⁶⁵, 10⁶⁵
times a trillion is only 10⁷⁷, etc. In fact, 10⁴¹
would have to be multiplied by a trillion more than seven times
to equal 10¹³⁰. Even after 10⁴¹ tries had
been made, there would still be much, much more than 10¹²⁹
arrangements that hadn't yet been tried (10⁴¹ is
such an insignificantly small number compared to 10¹³⁰ that
10¹³⁰ - 10⁴¹
is about equal to 10¹³⁰ minus zero!).

Considering an enzyme, then, of 100 amino acids, there would
be no possibility whatever that a single molecule could ever have
arisen by pure chance on the earth in five billion years. But
if by some miracle it did happen once, only a single molecule
would have been produced, yet billions of tons of each of many
different protein, DNA, and RNA molecules would have to be produced.
The probability of this happening, of course, is absolutely nil.
It must be concluded, therefore, that a naturalistic origin of
the many biologically active molecules required for the most primitive
organism imaginable would have been impossible.

Origin of Stable, Complex,
Biologically Active Systems

The problem of explaining the manner in which the above macromolecules
became associated into systems that would have had even the most
rudimentary ability to function as metabolically active systems
capable of assuring their own maintenance, reproduction, and diversification
is tremendously more complex and difficult than any attempts to
explain the origin of the macromolecules themselves. Green and
Goldberger have stated, " ... the macromolecule-to-cell transition
is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range
of testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture. The available
facts do not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose
on this planet."¹ Kerkut, in his little book exposing
the fallacies and weaknesses in the evidence usually used to support
evolution (although he, himself, is not a creationist) said, "It
is therefore a matter of faith on the part of the biologist that
biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis
happens to suit him personally; the evidence for what did happen
is not available."²

Nevertheless, there are those who persist in attempts to provide
a rational explanation for bridging the vast chasm separating
a loose mixture of molecules and a living system. The extent of
this chasm is enormous when we view the two extremes — an
ocean containing a random mixture of macromolecules — proteins,
nucleic acids; carbohydrates) and other molecules essential for
life, in contrast to an isolated, highly complex, intricately
integrated, enormously efficient, self-maintaining and self-replicating
system represented by the simplest living thing.

Assuming that there was, at one time, an ocean full of these
marvelous macromolecules that somehow had become endowed with
at least some measure of "biological" activity,
one must explain, first of all, how these macromolecules disassociated
themselves from this dilute milieu and became integrated into
some crude, but functional and stable system.

We can say immediately that under no naturally occurring conditions
could complex systems spontaneously arise from a random mixture
of macromolecules. There is absolutely no tendency for disordered
systems to spontaneously self-organize themselves into more ordered
states. On the contrary, all systems naturally tend to become
less and less orderly. The more probable state of matter is always
a random state. Evolution of life theories thus contradict natural
laws. Nevertheless, evolutionists persist in speculating that
life arose spontaneously.

Oparin's Coacervate Theory

Because of limitation of space, only one theory, that of A. I.
Oparin, the Russian biochemist and pioneer in origin of life theories,
will be discussed. Most of the basic objections to his theory
are applicable to Fox's microspheres and all similar suggestions.
Oparin has proposed that coacervates may have been the intermediates
between loose molecules and living systems (a review of Oparin's
proposals may be found in Kenyon and Steinman³). Coacervates
are colloidal particles which form when macromolecules associate
with one another and precipitate out of solution in the form of
tiny droplets. Complex coacervates are those that form between
two different types of macromolecules. For instance, such a coacervate
will form between a histone, which is a basic protein, and a nucleic
acid, which is acidic. Another example is the coacervate that
will form from a complex of gelatin (basic, and thus positively
charged) and negatively charged gum arabic.

Oparin, and others, have claimed that complex coacervates possess
properties that may have enabled them to form protocells. It was
shown that certain coacervates absorbed enzymes from the surrounding
medium and that these enzymes were able to function inside the
coacervate.^4,5 It should be understood, however, that
the association of macromolecules to form coacervates, and the
absorption of molecules from the surrounding medium, is due to
simple chemical and physical phenomena, and is thus not selective,
self-organizing or stable. Basic histones and nucleic acids form
coacervates simply because one is basic, thus positively charged,
and one is acidic, and thus negatively charged. There is a simple
electrostatic attraction between the two. Basic histones, of course,
would attract any acidic, or negatively charged, particles,
and nucleic acids would attract any basic, or positively
charged, particles. This attraction would not be selective, and
if a chaotic mixture prevailed in the medium, the coacervates
would be a chaotic mixture.

Enzyme activity is only useful when it is coordinated with other
enzyme activities. We have already given reasons why it would
have been impossible for any one particular macromolecule, such
as a protein enzyme, to have been formed in any significant amount.
But suppose that it did just happen that a few enzyme molecules
were absorbed into a coacervate. The action of this enzyme would
have been meaningless and useless unless some other enzyme was
also present which produced the substrate for the first enzyme,
and unless there was another enzyme that could utilize its product.
In other words, it would be useless for a coacervate to convert
glucose1-phosphate into glucose-6-phosphate unless it also possessed
a source of glucose-1-phosphate and unless it could further utilize
the glucose-6-phosphate once it was produced. A factory that has
no source of raw materials, or which has no market for its product
must shut down in a short time. Living systems are extremely complex,
having hundreds of series of metabolic pathways perfectly coordinated
and controlled. Substrates are passed along these pathways as
each enzyme performs its highly specialized chemical task, and
coordination in space and time is such that each enzyme is provided
with a controlled amount of substrate, and the successive enzyme
is there to receive the substrate and in turn to perform its task.
Each chemical task performed is useful and purposeful because
it is coordinated in a marvelous way with all the other activities
of the cell.

Without this coordination, enzyme activity would not only be
useless, it would be destructive. Let us assume, for example,
that a proteolytic enzyme (this is an enzyme which catalyzes the
hydrolysis, or breakdown, of proteins) somehow did arise in the
"primordial soup" and this enzyme was absorbed into
a coacervate or one of Fox's proteinoid microspheres. The results
would be totally disastrous, for the enzyme would "chew up"
all the protein in sight, and that would be the end of the coacervate
or microsphere! Similarly, a deaminase would indiscriminately
deaminate all amines, a decarboxylase would decarboxylate all
carboxylic acids, a DNAse would break down all DNA, and an RNAse
would break down all RNA. Uncontrolled, uncoordinated enzymatic
activity would be totally destructive.

Such control and coordination in a coacervate, microsphere, or
other hypothetical system would have been nonexistent. The complex
metabolic pathways and control systems found in living things
owe their existence to the highly complex structures found only
within living things, such as chloroplasts, mitochondria, Golgi
bodies, microsomes, and other structures found within the cell.
Some of these are enclosed within membranes, and the cell, itself,
is of course, enclosed within a very complex, dynamically functioning
multi-layered membrane. Control and coordination, absolutely essential
to any living thing or to any metabolically active system, could
only exist through the agency of complex structures similar to
those mentioned above, but they, in turn, can only be produced
by complex, metabolically active systems. One could not arise
or exist in the absence of the other. They must have coexisted
from the beginning, rendering evolutionary schemes impossible.

Another very serious objection to the idea of Oparin's coacervates
is their inherent instability. They form only under special conditions,
and readily dissolve with dilution, shift in pH, warming, pressure,
etc. This instability has been cited by Fox⁶, by Young⁷,
and by Kenyon and Steinman.⁸ Instability is a most
fundamental objection to any type of system that can be proposed
to bridge the gap between molecules and living cells. All of these
proposed models, whether they be Oparin's coacervates, Fox's microspheres,
or any other model, suffer this basic and fatal weakness. One
of the reasons living cells are stable and can persist is that
they have membranes that protect the system within the membrane
and hold it together. The membrane of a living cell is very complex
in structure and marvelous in its function. A coacervate or a
protein microsphere may have a pseudomembrane, or a concentration
or orientation of material at the point of contact with the surrounding
medium that gives it the appearance of having a membrane. There
are no chemical bonds linking the macromolecules in this pseudomembrane,
however, and it is easily broken up, and the contents of the coacervate
or microsphere are then released into the medium.

Since these coacervates have this inherent instability, no coacervate
could have existed for a length of time that would have had any
significance whatsoever to the origin of life. Even if we could
imagine a primitive "soup" concentrated sufficiently
in macromolecules to allow coacervates to form, their existence
would have been brief. Any organization that may have formed in
these coacervates by any imaginable process would then have been
irretrievably lost as the contents of the coacervate spilled out
into the medium.

Theories that attempt to account for the origin of stable metabolic
systems from loose macromolecules thus suffer from a number of
fatal weaknesses. First is the requirement that the necessary
macromolecules be produced in sufficiently vast amounts to saturate
the primeval seas to the point where complex coacervates or protenoid
microspheres would precipitate out of solution. Secondly, such
globular products are inherently unstable and would easily be
dissolved or disintegrated, spilling their contents out into the
medium. Geological ages, however, would have been required for
a loose system to evolve into a stable, living cell, assuming
such a process were possible at all. As we have seen above, however,
there is no tendency at all for complex systems to form spontaneously
from simple systems. There is a general natural tendency, on the
other hand, for organized systems to spontaneously disintegrate
to a disordered state. Thirdly, even if it were imagined that
a coacervate of some kind could accrete or inherently possess
some catalytic ability, this catalytic ability would have been
purposeless, and thus useless, and actually destructive.

The Origin of the First Completely
Independent, Stable, Self-Reproducing Unit—The First Living Cell

The simplest form of life known to science contains hundreds
of different kinds of enzymes, thousands of different kinds of
RNA and DNA molecules, and thousands of other kinds of complex
molecules. As mentioned above, it is enclosed within a very complex
membrane and contains a large number of structures many of which
are enclosed within their own membrane. The thousands of chemical
reactions which occur in this cell are strictly coordinated with
one another in time and space in a harmonious system, all working
together towards the self-maintenance and eventual reproduction
of this living cell. Every detail of its structure and function
reveals purposefulness; its incredible complexity and marvelous
capabilities reveal a master plan.

It seems futile enough to attempt to imagine how this amazingly
complex system could have come into existence in the first place
in view of the vast amount of contradictory evidence. Its continued
existence from the very start, however, would have required mechanisms
especially designed for self-maintenance and self-reproduction.
There are numerous injurious processes which would prove fatal
for the cell if repair mechanisms did not exist. These injurious
processes include dimerization of the thymine units in DNA, deamination
of cytosine, adenine, and guanine in DNA and RNA, deamidation
of glutamine and asparagine in proteins, and the production of
toxic peroxides, just to cite a few. The cell is endowed with
complex, defense mechanisms, in each case involving an enzyme
or a series of enzymes. Since these defense mechanisms are absolutely
necessary for the survival of the cell, they would have had to
exist from the very beginning. Life could not have waited until
such mechanisms evolved, for life would be impossible in their
absence.

The ultimate fate of a cell or any living thing is death and
destruction. No dynamically functioning unit therefore can survive
as a species without self-reproduction. The ability to reproduce,
however, would have had to exist from the very beginning in any
system, no matter how simple or complex, that could have given
rise eventually to a living thing. Yet the ability to reproduce
requires such a complex mechanism that the machinery required
for this process would have been the last thing that could
possibly have evolved. This dilemma has no solution and thus poses
the final insuperable barrier to the origin of life by a naturalistic
process.

We conclude that a materialistic, mechanistic, evolutionary origin
of life is directly contradicted by known natural laws and processes.
The origin of life could only have occurred through the acts of
an omniscient Creator independent of and external to the natural
universe. "In the beginning God created" is still the
most up-to-date statement we can make concerning the origin of
life.

REFERENCES

¹
D. E. Green and R. F. Goldberger, Molecular Insights into the
Living Process, Academic Press, New York, 1967, p. 407.

² G. A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution, Pergamon
Press, New York, 1960, p. 150.

³ D. H. Kenyon and G. Steinman, Biochemical Predestination,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1969, p. 245.

⁴ A. I. Oparin, The Origin of Life on the Earth,
Academic Press, New York, 1957, p. 428.

⁵ A. I. Oparin, in The Origins of Prebiological
Systems and of their Molecular Matrices, S. W. Fox, Ed., Academic
Press, New York, 1965, p. 331.

⁶ S. W. Fox in Reference 5, p. 345.

⁷ R. S. Young in Reference 5, p. 348.

⁸ Reference 3, p. 250.

*
An elaboration of this material in much greater detail may be
found in Dr. Gish's monograph, "Speculations and Experiments
Related to Theories on the Origin of Life." Creation-Life
Publishers, 1972.

**
Dr. Duane T. Gish is the Vice President of ICR. Dr. Gish has degrees
from both U.C.L.A. and the University of California at Berkeley
(Ph.D., Biochemistry), as well as 18 years experience in biochemical
and biomedical research at Berkeley, Cornell University, and the
Upjohn Company.