Without a Designer
1. To explain how natural proteins, with their exquisite functions, could have appeared by accident is a monumental challenge. This challenge can be divided into a more extreme aspect and a less extreme aspect, both of which are proving to be major obstacles for evolutionary theory. The more extreme challenge is to explain how mutations and selection could have produced completely new structural themes for proteins, called folds (Figure 6.2). The less extreme challenge is to explain how mutations and selection could have produced functional variations on existing fold themes. My colleagues and I have studied both of these challenges. To focus on the less extreme one, biologist Ann Gauger and I chose to work with two strikingly similar yet functionally distinct natural enzymes, which we’ll call enzyme A and enzyme B (Figure 6.3). Our aim was to determine whether it would be possible for enzyme A to evolve the function of enzyme B within a time frame of billions of years. If natural selection really coaxed sponges into becoming orcas in less time, inventing many new proteins along the way, we figured it should have ample power for this small transformation. But after carefully testing the mutations most likely to cause this functional change, we concluded it probably isn’t feasible by Darwinian evolution.2 Additional work supports this conclusion. Mariclair Reeves—like Ann Gauger, a biologist at Biologic Institute—painstakingly tested millions upon millions of random mutations, searching for any evolutionary possibility that we may have overlooked in our first study. She found none.3
Doublas Axe “Undeniable” PG80
2.A. K. Gauger and D. D. Axe, “The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway,” BIO-Complexity, no. 1 (2011): 1–17.
3.M. A. Reeves, A. K. Gauger, and D. D. Axe, “Enzyme Families: Shared Evolutionary History or Shared Design? A Study of the GABA-Aminotransferase Family,” BIO-Complexity, no. 4 (2014): 1–16.
It should be noted that I know of no one that disputes Doublas Axe’s brilliant work on this subject. It is peer reviewed and accepted. There are no other tests done that contradict anything he has done. So how is it that we are expected to believe that evolution was able to overcome this impossible lottery not once but millions of times just for the protein problem alone? How can you accept that it is impossible to start a car and yet think you will be traveling 100mph?
2. What’s left of a theory of origins once it has been conceded that it doesn’t explain how things originate?
Douglas Axe “Undeniable”
3. John Lennox, professor at Oxford University, said, "We have only to see a few letters of the alphabet spelling our name in the sand to recognize at once the work of an intelligent agent. How much more likely, then is the existence of an intelligent Creator behind human DNA, the colossal biological database that contains no fewer than 3.5 billion "letters"
There are no known mechanisms that make the impossible math of evolution and abiogenesis possible or even less impossible. Saying that “We don’t know yet” implies that there is no God no matter what. It is saying that something that is impossible is possible because you do not want to believe in the alternative. The ID person is not saying “that looks crazy or incredible or I don’t understand so therefore = God” They are saying the universe as we know it today is impossible without God.
Darwin’s Doubt Pg174
4. A typical protein would require far, far more than just four amino acids linked in sequence, and necessary genes require far, far more than just a few bases. Most genes—sections of DNA that code for a specific protein —consist of at least one thousand nucleotide bases. That corresponds to 4^1000—an unimaginably large number—possible base sequences of that length. Moreover, it takes three bases in a group called a codon to designate one of the twenty protein-forming amino acids in a growing chain during protein synthesis. If an average gene has about 1000 bases, then an average protein would have over 300 amino acids, each of which are called “residues” by protein chemists. And indeed proteins typically require hundreds of amino acids in order to perform their functions. This means that an average-length protein represents just one possible sequence among an astronomically large number—20^300, or over 10^390—of possible amino-acid sequences of that length. Putting these numbers in perspective, there are only 10^65 atoms in our Milky Way galaxy and 10^80 elementary particles in the known universe.
The “simplest” self-sufficient, replicating cell has the capacity to produce thousands of different proteins and other molecules, at different times and under variable conditions. Synthesis, degradation, energy generation, replication, maintenance of cell architecture, mobility, regulation, repair, communication—all of these functions take place in virtually every cell, and each function itself requires the interaction of numerous parts.
Proteins are the machines within living tissue that build the structures and carry out the chemical reactions necessary for life. Nonetheless, a given protein has only one or a few uses: rhodopsin cannot form skin, and collagen cannot interact usefully with light. Therefore a typical cell contains thousands and thousands of different kinds of proteins to perform the many tasks of life.
5. One has to only contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet we are here - as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.
[George Wald, "The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48, May 1954.]
What I find interesting is that from the start from origin of life to evolution what we are looking at is an alternative to an intelligent designer. In order to form a theory to replace the idea of an original intelligent designer you have to come up with something that sounds reasonable. But in the end it is a theory. And the theory changes over and over again because ultimately it is an attempt to find that alternative. For example now we are looking at thermal vents, clay, ponds that were dry then wet then dry, and on and on. But there never was any proof for any of this. But these theories must be created otherwise we have to deal with the dreaded “designer”. And no one really wants that.
Evidence for Intelligent Design is obvious upon close examination of any mechanical machine. The concept and design inherent in a machine, whether simple or complex, is self-evident. Whether a machine is high quality or low quality, its designer is both necessary and apparent. Information Theory states that concept and design can only result from a mind. Even the diminished quality of a poorly constructed machine cannot obscure the necessity of an intelligent designer.
6. Machines, as defined by French Biochemist and Nobel Laureate Jacques Lucien Monod (1910-1976), are "purposeful aggregates of matter that, utilizing energy, perform specific tasks." By this authoritative definition, living systems are also recognized as machines. A living organism fulfills the definition of a machine all the way down to the molecular level.
7. Back in the mid-1700's, David Hume successfully invalidated the "machine" analogy in biologic systems because we could only guess at what existed at the molecular level. However, the phenomenal discoveries in the last few decades have finally and unequivocally demonstrated that living systems are, in fact, machines - even to the deepest, molecular level!
8. The analogy between organisms and machines has at last become convincing… In every direction the biochemist gazes, as he journeys through the weird molecular labyrinth, he sees devices and appliances reminiscent of our world of advanced technology.
Because of the metaphysical implications of life resulting from "Intelligent Design", a surprisingly large number of us seek to reject the foregoing statements and find a mechanism by which complex biologic machines may arise naturally by unguided processes. https://www.allaboutthejourney.org
* 8. (I believe this site was written by a former atheist like myself)
I would add that I myself had a serious problem leaving my own atheism upon seeing the information for myself. It was easy for me to just say “well we are here there is no God so some how it happened”. But this is shallow and won’t last and it didn’t. As I dug deeper I began to see the truth and the reason for this website.
9. When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!
[George Wald, "The Origin of Life," "Scientific American", 191:48, May 1954.]
* 9. Notice how way back in the 50’s you can see even in the "Scientific American" that people were seeing the religion of evolution take shape. Now though the solidification and radicalization of this religion is near if not complete. Now it would be impossible to see something like this in "Scientific American". Believe me I read SA all the time. Their unrestrained hatred and disdain for those that don’t agree is on display pretty much every month. I will be doing my best to show you this. That will be able to be found in [[[[[[[Killing the Designer]]]]]]]
10. …"an intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a message sequence."
[Charles B. Thaxton, PhD in Chemistry and Postdoctoral Fellow at Harvard University]
11. In the last 30 years a number of prominent scientists have attempted to calculate the odds that a free-living, single-celled organism, such as a bacterium, might result by the chance combining of pre-existent building blocks. Harold Morowitz calculated the odds as one chance in 10^100,000,000,000. Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of only the proteins of an amoebae arising by chance as one chance in 10^40,000.
[Mark Eastman, MD, Creation by Design, T.W.F.T. Publishers, 1996]
And then these fun gems:
Sir Fred Hoyle compared the probability of life arising by chance to lining up 1050 (ten with fifty zeros after it) blind people, giving each one a scrambled Rubik's Cube, and finding that they all solve the cube at the same moment.
But for me this is of course beyond something reasonable any reasonable person should consider but yet as a former atheist I held on tight. Until I realized you had to do something like millions of times in a row. That’s when I jumped off the ship into the cold ice waters of ID. Its cold because you said to be an idiot but its refreshing because the cold wakes you up.
So the atheists out there will say that it's just arguing by incredulity and all you have is a bunch of big math equations and so on. Well then I am incredulous by the numbers that are only on the side of ID and not on the side of Atheism. The math is completely and horribly against Atheism. That alone should be enough but there are plenty of other things you will find on this and other websites. It is what it is. You may not like it but the math and the science is the math and the science. I won’t fight it.
The problem is so great that now we have to look for alien seeding or multi-verse possibilities. That is where our number one atheist scientist is at now Richard Dawkins. He must go to the Sci-Fi realm because anything else would be “Designer” and well “Designer” is off the table no matter what so anything is fine as long as it still gives us hope. Consider this:
Does this sound like a man trying to find the truth or a man trying to find a lifeline to keep his belief?These were exactly the types of things that made me abandon atheism. I knew there was something completely off.
Assume for a moment that there was some way to produce simple organic molecules on the early Earth. Perhaps they did form a "primordial soup," or perhaps these molecules arose near some hydrothermal vent. Either way, origin of life theorists must then explain how amino acids or other key organic molecules linked up to form long chains (polymers) like proteins (or RNA).
Chemically speaking, however, the last place you'd want to link amino acids into chains would be a vast water-based environment like the "primordial soup" or underwater near a hydrothermal vent. As the National Academy of Sciences acknowledges, "Two amino acids do not spontaneously join in water. Rather, the opposite reaction is thermodynamically favored." In other words, water breaks protein chains back down into amino acids (or other constituents), making it very difficult to produce proteins (or other polymers) in the primordial soup.
Richard Van Noorden, "RNA world easier to make," Nature news (May 13, 2009),
This is the problem but there are many other problems in order for the Ribose sugar to form it would be difficult for the nucleotides to form and so on. So you would need a very crazy environment that would allow for the impossible to happen first before we get into the impossible math of it forming in the first place. So from the start we see an environment that is very difficulty to imagine or construct but even if it was perfect we would still be faced with the impossible math.
It's nice to talk about replicating DNA molecules arising in a soupy sea, but in modern cells this replication requires the presence of suitable enzymes. … [T]he link between DNA and the enzyme is a highly complex one, involving RNA and an enzyme for its synthesis on a DNA template; ribosomes; enzymes to activate the amino acids; and transfer-RNA molecules. … How, in the absence of the final enzyme, could selection act upon DNA and all the mechanisms for replicating it? It's as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless. There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don't see them at the moment.
Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution," American Biology Teacher, 33: 335-338 (September, 1971).
However, there are no known chemical or physical laws that dictate the order of those nucleotides.
Michael Polanyi, "Life's Irreducible Structure," Science, 160 (3834): 1308-1312 (June 21, 1968).
So we have to then ask the obvious:
But what if the instructions for building the first DVD player were only found encoded on a DVD? You could never play the DVD to learn how to build a DVD player. So how did the first disk and DVD player system arise? The answer is obvious: a goal directed process -- intelligent design -- is required to produce both the player and the disk at the same time.
Yes of course we have a problem of design. How do we explain design without explaining design? How can we formulate a process that could possibly do something intelligent without being intelligent?