Prigogine's speculative model is enshrouded with a considerable
amount of complex mathematics that is difficult if not impossible
to understand by nonmathematicians. This immediately renders it
incomprehensible to most scientists, certainly to most biologists.
Nevertheless, Prigogine's model sounds deliciously scientific
and it has been eagerly welcomed by evolutionists who are looking
for a way to overcome the insuperable barrier the Second Law of
Thermodynamics poses against an evolutionary origin of life. When
Prigogine moves his mathematical model off of paper and out into
the real world, however, it then becomes possible for a nonmathematician
to examine the chemical and biological assumptions which serve
as the basis of his model. An examination of these assumptions
reveals that they are totally devoid of any foundation. His model
offers no solution whatsoever.

In Prigogine's "evolution model",¹ a system
open to the flow of two monomer species a and b (which may correspond
to two kinds of nucleotides, for example, adenylic acid and thymidylic
acid) is assumed. Although he doesn't say much about it, a steady
in-flow of energy in the form of energy-rich organic chemical
molecules must also somehow be provided, and a way must exist
to link this in-flow of energy to the synthetic process assumed
in the model. Right at this preliminary stage, even before the
more serious difficulties of his model are encountered, the model
loses all plausibility.

In the absence of living organisms, it would be impossible to
supply a sufficient quantity of either the nucleotides or the
energy-rich organic molecules to provide the required concentration
of these molecules. Under any plausible primitive earth conditions,
the rate of destruction of these compounds would so far exceed
their rate of formation that no detectable quantities of either
could ever accumulate.^2,3

Even if the ocean were swarming with these molecules, however,
Prigogine's model could not explain how life could have evolved.
From monomer a, which for the purpose of illustration Prigogine
takes to be the nucleotide, adenylic acid (A), Prigogine assumes
that the homopolymer, poly-adenylic acid (poly-A) is formed. Poly-A
codes for (provides the template for) poly-thymidylic acid (poly-T),
so in the presence of poly-A and a supply of thymidylic acid,
Prigogine assumes that poly-T will form. Since poly-A not only
codes for poly-T, but poly-T codes for poly-A, Prigogine asserts
that when this stage is reached, an autocatalytic cycle is switched
on. Let us pause here to examine assumptions made at this stage
of the model.

First of all, Prigogine assumes that the monomers (the nucleotides)
will combine to form polymers in huge quantities (many billions
of tons of each polymer must form in order to produce a significant
concentration in an ocean containing 350 million cubic miles of
water). Actually, for all practical purposes, no polymer at all
could form. To form the bonds linking the monomers to form the
polymer requires an input of energy. As a consequence this process
is energetically highly unfavorable. Rupture of the bonds linking
the nucleotides in the polymer, or rupture of the bonds within
each nucleotide sub-unit (such as the sugarpurine bond), on the
other hand, releases energy and is thus energetically favorable.
Furthermore, to form a polymer of, say 100 nucleotides, requires
the formation of 100 inter-nucleotide bonds, the formation of
each bond being energetically highly unfavorable. The destruction
of the polymer, however, requires the rupture of only a single
bond, the rupture of which releases energy and is thus energetically
favorable. As a consequence, formation of polymer of even just
a few nucleotides would be incredibly slow, but if any polymer
did exist, it would break down at a relatively rapid rate. The
rate of destruction would enormously exceed the rate of formation,
and thus no significant concentration of polymer, even of a di-nucleotide,
could form under any plausible primitive earth conditions.

Secondly, even if formation of polymer occurred at a significant
rate to produce a significant overall amount of polymer, with
two monomers present, such as adenylic acid (A) and thymidylic
acid (T), it would still be impossible for a significant amount
of a particular polymer to form. How in the world would formation
of polymers be restricted to poly-A (A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A----A) and
poly-T (T-T-T-T-T-T-T-T ----- T)? Every possible sequence of A
and T would form. For example, the polymer T-A-A-T-A-T-T-T-A-T-A-A-A-T-T,
or any other sequence of A and T, would be just as likely to form
as a polymer containing 15 A's or 15 T’s exclusively. If
polymers of 100 nucleotides were formed under assumed primitive
earth conditions from only two monomers, 2¹⁰⁰ (10³⁰,
or a million billion billion) different combinations would be
produced. This would completely eliminate the possibility of producing
a significant quantity of any one particular polymer.

Thirdly, to claim that the presence of two polymers, such as
poly-A and poly-T, would establish an autocatalytic cycle is sheer
nonsense. Such a system could not be autocatalytic, since neither
poly-A nor poly-T (or any other polynucleotide) is catalytic.
Neither has the ability to speed up any chemical reaction, in
this case the rate at which the bonds linking the nucleotides
are formed. Thus neither can be called a catalyst. Prigogine nevertheless
calls the assumed cycle autocatalytic, since poly-A codes (provides
a template) for poly-T, which in turn codes for poly-A. Thus,
he asserts, the rate of production of poly-A would at least be
proportional to its concentration. But what Prigogine neglects
to mention is that the rate of destruction of poly-A (or poly-T)
would also, be proportional to its concentration. Since both
the rate of production and the rate of destruction would tend
to increase as the concentration tended to increase, no net effect
on the overall concentration would result.

But now, going on with further assumptions in Prigogine's model
(in spite of the impossibilities encountered so far), Prigogine
assumes that in the formation of poly-A under the coding action
of poly-T, errors occur, and as a result a new polymer is formed
(let us call it polymer-X). Polymer-X, Prigogine assumes, may
now direct the synthesis of a new substance E. He further assumes
that E might possibly be a "primitive" protein enzyme
which catalyzes the production of polymer-X, as well as its own
production. The appearance of this catalyst, it is assumed, produces
polymer-X at a much more rapid rate than either poly-A or poly-T
is being produced, so the system rapidly shifts far from equilibrium
until a new equilibrium is established. Now let us pause once
again to see what is wrong with Prigogine's assumptions.

Firstly, no polynucleotide can direct the synthesis of
a protein. All enzymes are proteins, and consist of long chains
of amino acids. In living organisms the gene (a polynucleotide
consisting of deoxyribonucleic acid or DNA) for each protein provides
only the code for the sequence in which the amino acids occur
in the protein, and that is all it does. The translation
of this information, and the actual synthesis of the protein,
requires much, much more.

DNA is only one of many different kinds of molecules required
for the synthesis of a protein. To assert that a DNA molecule
could direct the synthesis of a protein in the absence of the
entire complex apparatus required for this task is simply absurd.

Furthermore, to say that the process was much simpler in the
first step toward a living thing is totally contradicted by the
evidence. For example, amino acids cannot align themselves along
either a DNA or an RNA molecule. There is no "lock-and-key"
fit, or any other kind of fit, between any amino acid and any
nucleotide. It is chemically and physically impossible, for this
reason alone, then, for a DNA or RNA molecule to "direct"
the synthesis of a protein. In fact, the chemistry that would
naturally occur would wreak havoc on any evolving life.

Secondly, no enzyme is capable of catalyzing both the
synthesis of a polynucleotide, such as DNA or RNA, and itself.
Thus, there is no enzyme known that catalyzes the formation of
chemical bonds between nucleotides to form polynucleotides, and
which also catalyzes the formation of chemical bonds between amino
acids to form proteins. The chemistry involved in the formation
of inter-nucleotide bonds is just too different from the chemistry
involved in the formation of chemical bonds between amino acids
for that to be possible.

Thirdly, as mentioned above, Prigogine assumes that the
"primitive enzyme" catalyzes the production of polymer-X,
which codes for his "primitive enzyme." The action of
an enzyme cannot be restricted to the formation of any particular
polynucleotide, however. There is a single DNA-polymerase in a
cell which catalyzes the formation of all DNA molecules. Thus,
if Prigogine's hypothetical primitive enzyme did arise, it would
not only catalyze the formation of polymer-X, but it would also
catalyze the formation of every other polynucleotide that could
possibly exist. Thus it would catalyze the formation of the original
polymers, poly-A and poly-T, just as readily as it would catalyze
the formation of polymer-X. Polymer-X, since it arose originally
in a very small amount by error, would remain in very small quantity,
relative to the original polymers.

Fourthly, the possibility that just by chance an error
in the synthesis of poly-A would produce a new polymer (polymer-X)
that is capable of directing the synthesis of a primitive enzyme
defies the laws of probability, even if a polynucleotide could
indeed direct the synthesis of a protein. No one knows just how
an enzyme is capable of catalyzing a particular chemical reaction,
but we do know that for the catalysis of a particular chemical
reaction only one, or a very few, of the almost infinite possible
arrangements of the amino acids in the protein enzyme will work.
Each particular chemical task establishes rigid limits on what
particular molecules can act as catalysts.

Most present day enzymes consist of protein molecules containing
several hundred amino acids (there are 20 different kinds of amino
acids in these proteins). Thus, even a "primitive" enzyme
would probably require at least a hundred amino acids. No one
really knows, of course, for we have no "primitive"
enzymes to study today. Usually the removal of just a few amino
acids from either end of present day enzymes completely destroys
their activity, leaving nothing that possesses "primitive"
enzyme activity. If we assume, however, that the "primitive"
enzyme consists or 100 of the 200 different amino acids that now
exist in proteins and that a hundred billion (10¹¹)
different possible arrangements of these 100 amino acids, rather
than only one or a very few, precise arrangements (as is true
in present day living things) might be able to function as the
primitive enzyme, the possibility by chance of getting even a
single molecule, let alone billions of tons, of any one of these
hundred billion primitive enzymes would essentially be nil.

One hundred amino acids of 20 different kinds can be arranged
in 20¹⁰⁰ (10¹³⁰) different ways. If 10¹¹
of these could function as the primitive enzyme, and if a billion
trillion (10²¹) of the various protein molecules of
100 amino acids formed each second for five billion years (approximately
10¹⁷ seconds) the chance of getting a single molecule
of one of the required sequences is 10¹³⁰/10²¹
x 10¹⁷ x 10¹¹, or only one chance out of
10⁸¹. This is, for all practical purposes, equal to
zero probability, since on a cosmic scale the value of negligible
probabilities may be set at 1/10⁵⁰.⁴

Summarizing, in Prigogine's model he assumes:

1. A steady net production of enormous quantities of nucleotides
   and amino acids on the hypothetical primitive earth by the simple
   interaction of raw energy and simple gases.
2. A steady net production of enormous quantities of energy-rich
   organic molecules to supply the required energy.
3. The combination, in enormous quantities, of the nucleotides
   to form polymers (DNA).
4. The selective formation of homopolymers (such as poly-A and
   poly-T) rather than the formation of mixed polymers of random
   sequences.
5. The establishment of an autocatalytic cycle.
6. Errors in the formation of the polymers producing a new polymer
   which directs the synthesis of a primitive protein enzyme.
7. The primitive protein enzyme catalyzes the formation of both
   itself and the nucleotide polymer (DNA).
8. The above molecules somehow manage to spontaneously separate
   themselves from the rest of the world and concentrate into condensed
   systems coordinated in time and in space.

Not a single one of the above assumptions has any shred of probability
under any plausible primitive earth conditions. Improbability
piled on improbability equals impossibility.

A mathematical model of almost any imagined process can be made
to work on paper as certain assumptions are made. When the model
is moved off the paper and out into the real world of chemistry
and physics and the assumptions of the model are translated into
processes which can actually be tested, it then becomes possible
to determine whether the model has any validity. As can be seen
from the above discussion, Prigogine's model has no validity whatsoever.

References

¹ I. Prigogine, G. Nicolis, and A. Babloyantz,
Physics Today, Dec. 1972, p. 42.

² D.T. Gish, Speculations and Laboratory Experiments
Related to Theories on the Origin of Life: A Critique, Creation-Life
Publishers, San Diego, 1972.

³ D.T. Gish, "Origin of Life: Critique of Early
Stage Chemical Evolution Theories" (ICR Impact Series No.
31) Acts and Facts, January 1976.

⁴ Emil Borel, Probabilities and Life, Dover
Pub. Co., New York, 1962, p. 28.

* Part 1, by Henry M. Morris, appeared in the March, 1978 Acts
and Facts as Impact No. 57. These articles are in response
to suggestions that Dr. Ilya Prigogine, a 1977 Nobel Prize winner
in physics, has solved the problem the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
poses for an evolutionary origin of life.

** Dr. Gish is Vice President of the Institute for
Creation Research.