THE MYTH OF CHEMICAL EVOLUTION

adapted from an article by

Lawrence Croft

B.Sc., Ph.D.

Used with the kind permission of the Creation Science Movement, 50 Brecon Avenue, Cosham, Portsmouth, England, P06 2AW.

A central doctrine of ancient Greek philosophy was the theory of spontaneous generation. This theory proposed that life arose of its own accord from inanimate matter. The idea survived well into the nineteenth century, until it was finally discredited by the Louis Pasteur. But, following the publication of The Origin of Species and the advent of Darwinism, there emerged a need for a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. This led to a revival of the theory of spontaneous generation. The new version became known as “chemical evolution.” One of its principle proponents was the Marxist biochemist Alexander Oparin (1894 - 1980). His ideas were set out in The Origins of Life, a book published in Russia in 1924 and translated into English in 1938. Oparin's theories were widely circulated by the late Cambridge professor, J.B.S. Haldane. For many years, Haldane, a communist and a militant atheist, edited the Daily Worker. He entered the origin of life debate in 1929 was an article in the Rationalist Annual. He proposed the notion that large quantities of organic compounds had formed on the early earth and accumulated in a “hot dilute soup.” This concept later became known as the “primeval soup.”

Today, the dual concepts of spontaneous generation and the primeval soup are referred to as the Oparin-Haldane theory of the origin of life. The theory is widely accepted, being taught in grade schools and colleges alike.

It is the purpose of this pamphlet to draw attention to the fundamental errors inherent in the concept of chemical evolution beginning with a primeval soup. But first, let us enumerate the postulates of Oparin-Haldane theory.

The Oparin-Haldane theory hypothesizes the following:

1. The primitive earth had a reducing (i.e., oxygen-free) atmosphere.
2. When this atmosphere was exposed to various natural energy sources, such as lightning and volcanic heat, the essential chemical building blocks of life formed spontaneously.
3. Over time, the organic molecules accumulated in the oceans until they reached the consistency of the hot, dilute, “soup.” In certain regions, there were chance concentrations of the essential molecules of life and, at such sites, nucleic acids and proteins formed.
4. Some of these molecules were able to self-replicate.
5. The random interaction between nucleic acids and proteins eventually gave rise to the genetic code.
6. Over time, these molecules assembled themselves into the first living cell.
7. The first cells were heterotrophs: being unable to manufacture their own components, they obtained them from the soup. Over time, many of the compounds in the soup used up, but cells were able to develop metabolic pathways that allowed them to manufacture the components themselves.
8. These early cells evolved by the process of natural selection into all of the living organisms that have ever existed on earth.

The Oparin-Haldane theory was given a great boost in 1953, when an experiment carried out by Stanley Miller, an American postgraduate student, was widely publicized.

The Miller Experiment

Charles Darwin believed (as did his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin) that inanimate matter could be brought to life by electricity. Indeed, Erasmus Darwin had been the inspiration of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. The idea that electrical pyrotechnics could give rise to life has long had enormous popular appeal, so it is not surprising that when Stanley Miller published the results of just such an experiment, it created great interest and became a landmark in this field of research.

Miller's experiment was extremely simple. The apparatus (see cover illustration) consisted of two glass flasks connected in a closed circuit. One of the flasks had two electrodes, across which sparks of about 60,000 volts could be discharged. The device was designed to mimic the electrical effects of a thunderstorm. In the other flask water was boiling. The apparatus was filled with the postulated atmosphere of primitive earth (i.e., methane, hydrogen, and ammonia) and left to operate for a week. After this time, the products were examined. The principal product was found to be a tarry “goo,” but in solution there were a large number of organic substances that included the simple amino acids glycine (NH₂CH₂COOH and alanine (NH₂CH(CH₃)COOH).

The publication of Miller's experiment caused unprecedented excitement. Soon many other scientists are doing similar work. It was discovered that with a slight modification of the experimental conditions, minute amounts of other amino acids could be produced. The experiments were tedious and difficult to repeat, and only the few experiments giving the desired results were reported.

It has been claimed that these experiments produced the basic components of life. We read in the widely used textbook Biochemistry, by Lehninger (1970), that “representatives of all the important types of molecules found in cells” were generated. This statement is quite incorrect, for of the many biochemicals found in cells, only two consistently appear in the Miller-type experiment; namely, glycine and alanine. And these are present only in very low concentrations. Furthermore, no nucleic acid, protein, lipid, or polysaccharide has ever been found in experiments of this type, even though these molecules constitute over ninety percent of the cell.

Let us now look at some specific criticisms of the Miller-type experiment:

1. These experiments produced very small amounts of biochemicals only in a reducing atmosphere. But this kind of atmosphere for the early earth is contrary to the current opinion of evolution geologists, who now favour an oxidizing atmosphere of carbon dioxide, water vapour, and nitrogen, with small amounts of hydrogen. If this mixture is placed in the Miller apparatus, no amino acids other than glysine are formed. Complicated amino acids only form if methane is present, yet this gas is not thought to have been present in any significant amount in the atmosphere of the early earth.
2. Even if there was a methane-rich atmosphere, it seems very unlikely that a “primeval soup” would have formed in the oceans. This conclusion is derived from calculations of the amount of energy that would be needed to drive the random chemical processes onward from a position of equilibrium, when the concentration of organic substances would have been insignificant in the enormous volume and tremendous surface area of the oceans.
3. An ancient atmosphere lacking oxygen would have been devoid of the ozone (O₃) layer that protects living organisms today - particularly nucleic acids - from harmful ultraviolet radiation. Even if organic substances were produced in the primeval atmosphere, they would have been destroyed by the intense ultra-violet radiation from the sun long before they had time to produce more complicated molecules, and certainly before they had reached the ocean. On the other hand, if oxygen were present in the primeval atmosphere, organic molecules, such as amino acids, would be oxidized before they could synthesize a living cell.
4. All of the amino acids formed in these experiments are racemic mixtures; that is, both “right-handed” (D) and “left-handed” (L) forms. Life simply could not have developed from such mixtures. Enzymes are active only because they consist of chains made up exclusively of the L-form; and without enzymes, life cannot exist. So far, evolutionists have been unable to explain how only the L-form was selected out of the racemic mixtures.
5. Hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and formaldehyde (HCHO) are supposed to have formed in the primeval atmosphere. But if this were so, they would have quickly reacted with any other organic compounds nearby, converting them into tarry goo. It is further speculated that HCHO would have polymerized to give sugars - possibly ribose, a sugar ingredient of nuclear acid. Although this is feasible, there are several problems with such a simplistic idea: (i) The ribose would have been mixed with an immense complex of other sugars. How would ribose have been selected from among them? (ii) The ribose would have been a mixture of D- and L-forms - a racemic mixture. Since nucleic acids contain only the D-form, how was the L-form resolved out of the mixture? (iii) sugars react quickly with any excess HCHO to form caramel - a tarry goo.
6. Even if organic molecules were formed on the primeval earth, how could they have been purified sufficiently to take part in further synthesis? Today, chemistry students are taught that unless starting materials are pure, it is extremely difficult to synthesize more complex substances.
7. None of the essential protein amino acids are found in significant amounts in Miller-type experiments. The complex ones, which are vital to the formation of the enzymes (tyrosine, tryptophan, and phenylalanine), are not found at all. In fact, most of the amino acids found in “soup” experiments - e.g., alanine, sercosine, and diaminopropionic acid - are not even found in proteins! It is facts like these that have been glossed over and largely ignored by the proponents of chemical evolution.
8. The postulated primeval soup environment would have been incompatible with the development of life. By definition, it would have been a hodgepodge of every conceivable chemical. In such a mixture, there would have been innumerable enzyme inhibitors, or “poisons,” present, quickly deactivating any enzyme that happened to form. The same applies to the nucleic acids; replication would have been impossible in a soup containing many compounds of similar structure. Even if a primitive metabolism could have emerged, it would have soon been snuffed out.

Let us now consider some other difficulties inherent in any theory of chemical evolution. These concern the origin of nucleic acids, cell replication requirements, the nature of the genetic code, and the complexity of cells and metabolic processes.

The Genetic Material

All living cells have the chemical basis for the storage of genetic information. The nucleic acids DNA and RNA have the necessary properties for storing genetic information, and we know of no other type of molecule capable of doing so, not even protein. This leads to the conclusion that the first life must have been based on nucleic acid. But is this possible? Proteins (viz., enzymes) are needed to make a nucleic acid, so how could nucleic acids have existed without pre-existent protein?

It was recently discovered that certain RNA molecules have limited enzymic activity, leading to speculation that life was first based on RNA. Moreover, RNA must be produced before DNA can be made, and the nucleotides (the building blocks of nucleic acids) going into the manufacture of RNA are made before those used in the production of DNA.

But an original cell based on RNA presents certain difficulties. First, RNA is relatively unstable compared to DNA. Second, RNA is not sufficiently versatile to have formed enzyme molecules. Third, there is no feasible, theoretical route to formulate RNA using chemical evolution. Thus, a major problem in chemical evolution is: How did nucleic acids ever arise in the first place?

The Origin of Nucleic Acids

The nucleic acids RNA and DNA are in essence the nucleotide chains. Each nucleotide consists of an organic base, plus a sugar and a phosphate. (In RNA, the sugar is ribose; and in DNA, 2-(deoxy)ribose.) There are many different ways of joining these three units together; yet, in nucleic acids, they are always joined in the same way. Random base, sugar, and phosphate combinations would yield innumerable mixtures contributed nothing to the formation of nucleic acids. Another way of looking at nucleic acids is to see them as chains of “nucleosides” joined together by phosphoric acid, a nucleoside being a base plus a sugar (ribose). If we suppose the primeval soup contained both bases and sugars, then nucleosides could have formed. But they would have existed in a vast number of isomeric forms and, therefore, could not have formed nucleic acids. Furthermore, the presence of many similar isomers would have inhibited a replication process. This sort of inhibition has been demonstrated in laboratory studies.

The Origin of Replication

Genetic message copying is known as “replication.” When replication occurs within a cell, it takes place at an extremely high speed and is accomplished with very few errors. This is because a battery of enzymes continuously proofread the results of the process. When errors are detected, they are instantly corrected. In this process, many proteins and enzymes work in unison. How could such a sophisticated process have arisen by chance?

A complex system such as this would required genetic material that was stable enough for its rate of reproduction to have exceeded its rate of decomposition. On the early earth, there would have had to have been a ready supply of building units (nucleosides) and a system for ordering them. To date, it has not been possible to construct a theoretical model for the spontaneous origin of a self-replicating nucleic acid, nor is there any experimental support for such a concept, despite the tremendous amount of research effort in this field.

The Origin of the Genetic Code

All life on earth is based upon the interaction between nucleic acids and proteins. We have discussed the problem as to how replication could have arisen in the “soup,” but this is a minor consideration compared with the difficulty of explaining how a mechanism for synthesizing proteins arose.

Cellular activity is the most complex biochemical process known. It involves more than one hundred different proteins, each with a specific task, and at least thirty different types of RNA. Protein is needed to make a protein; this presents a dilemma for the chemical evolutionist. Furthermore, the translation of information from nucleic acid to protein depends on the genetic code. This code is universal throughout the biosphere. Evolutionists have absolutely no idea as to how such a precise mechanism could have originated. Despite tremendous efforts to correct this deficiency, a viable theory has yet to emerge. Indeed, there is a consensus developing around the view that the genetic code could not have evolved. The new science of information theory makes it clear that genetic information simply could not have arisen by chance; it needed intelligent input. The latest thinking is that the genetic code arose suddenly, in toto, a view more in agreement with special creation than evolution.

The First Cells

The living cell contains amazingly precise and complex regulatory mechanisms. In Darwin's day the cell was looked upon as simply a blob of jelly. There was no knowledge of sub-cellular structure or processes. These have only become apparent in the last few decades. Even one Oparin and Haldane proposed their primeval-soup hypothesis in the 1930s, they had no knowledge of the amazing order and design present within the cell.

Consequently, some of Oparin's work on so-called proto-cells is far too simplistic to be of any value, yet it is still incorporated into textbooks. In one of his experiments he produced droplets of gum arebic and protein; these he called “co-acervates.” When an enzyme was incorporated and its substrate dissolved in the surrounding solution, the droplet increased in size and eventually divided in two. This, Oparin declared, was analogous to cell division. He overlooked the fact that the substances going into making the co-acervate had all been derived from living cells in the first place. Furthermore, the solution contained only substrate molecules, little resembling the heterogeneous mixture proposed for the primeval soup. Even though Oparin's co-acervates have no relevance for the origin of the first cell, proponents of evolution persist with this false analogy.

Sidney Fox of the University of Miami has for many years worked on an idea involving droplets of polymerized amino acid, which he calls “proteinoids.” He has argued that protein was the first material on which life was based. Dr. Fox theorized that after amino acids had formed in a primeval soup they became concentrated in pools scattered over the earths surface, and the heat from volcanic activity caused them to undergo polymerization. He believes the proteinoids, when dissolved in water, could have developed into microspheres bounded by a skin or membrane. These, Fox argued, would resemble a cell - they have been referred to as “proto-cells” or “primordial cells.” As it turns out, however, the entire concept has so little experimental support, it is now considered to be of dubious merit.

The Origin of Metabolic Processes

There are two kinds of cells: autotrophs and heterotrophs. Autotrophic cells are those which are able to survive on simple inorganic sources, manufacturing for themselves all of the complex substances necessary for life. Heterotrophs, on the other hand, are unable to produce their own component substances; they have to obtain many of their molecules from outside sources.

Evolutionists have argued that the first cells were probably heterotrophs, needing none of the complex metabolic pathways that exist in cells today. They would have depended on the primeval soup for nourishment. But how could these simple cells have recognized particular molecules in the soup? Not only would they have had to distinguish between similar molecules, such as glycine and alanine, they would have had to distinguish between their optical isomers, as well. Such discrimination would have required extremely complex biological machinery.

Even more difficult is the problem of how metabolic processes yielding autotrophic organisms could have arisen. One suggestion is that, as time went on, essential substances in the primeval soup were used up, put a mutant organism was able to synthesize nutrients, enabling it to survive, thereby giving rise to the metabolic pathways we see today. All other organisms perished. The problem here is the need for very large molecules to be available to the rogue organism. Since many of these are extremely complex, the idea that they could have been formed by chance in the primeval soup is simply ludicrous!

Conclusion

The fundamental assumptions of the theory of chemical evolution have been found to be false. That geological consensus now favours an oxidizing atmosphere for the early earth is a severe blow to the usefulness of the Miller experiment in providing an answer as to how life could have arisen spontaneously, because Miller assumed that a reducing environment had prevailed. Under oxidizing conditions, the synthesis of organic molecules would have been extremely difficult. Also, it is now realised that the ultraviolet rays in sunlight are very destructive to organic molecules. Ignoring the fact that old ideas have been revised, some evolutionists still cling to the reducing-atmosphere hypothesis.

And try as they might, those contending for unconditional acceptance of the theory of evolution have not been able to generate a possible explanation as to how organic materials could have assembled themselves to form the first living cells. Neither has a satisfactory model been devised explaining how the complex metabolic processes of the cell could have arisen.

The primeval soup hypothesis is not science, it is a myth. It lacks both a sound theoretical basis and experimental support. So why is it still found in textbooks and taught in schools and colleges?

The answer is that evolutionists need to believe in chemical evolution because they have excluded God from their thoughts. This, despite the fact that an original source of genetic information, a Logos, is needed to explain the origin of life. Materialistic and naturalistic assumptions are the foundation of evolution. A blind eye is turned to the obvious design exists in nature. When Oparin proposed these ideas in the 1920s, atheistic Marxism had just been imposed on the Soviet intelligentsia. Oparin provided the necessary naturalistic explanation for the origin and progression of life demanded by official atheism. In the process, he also convinced most Western scientists, conditioned as they were by Darwin's naturalistic explanation for the original of species. His myth-making was so powerful that towards the end of his life, Oparin was awarded the Order of Lenin and made a Hero of the U.S.S.R. for his service to the Marxist cause!