the origin of life five questions worth asking

THE ORIGIN OF LIFEFIVE QUESTIONS WORTH ASKING

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society ofNew York, Inc., Wallkill, New York, U.S.A.

Made in the U.S.A.

THE ORIGIN OF LIFEFIVE QUESTIONS WORTH ASKING

QUESTION 1 How Did Life Begin? PAGE 4

QUESTION 2 Is Any Form of Life Really Simple? PAGE 8

QUESTION 3 Where Did the Instructions Come From? PAGE 13

QUESTION 4 Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor? PAGE 22

QUESTION 5 Is It Reasonable to Believe the Bible? PAGE 30

Bibliography PAGE 31

This publication is not for sale.It is provided as part of a worldwideBible educational work supported byvoluntary donations.To make a donation, please visitwww.jw.org.

Unless otherwise indicated,Scripture quotations are from themodern-language New World Translationof the Holy Scriptures—With References.The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking2010 PrintingEnglish (lf-E)� 2010WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACTSOCIETYOF PENNSYLVANIAPublishers

On the cover: A stylized depiction of a DNAmoleculeNote: All three-dimensional models of moleculesand of molecular machines are simplifiedschematics and are not drawn to scale.Photo credits: Page 4: � Petit Format/PhotoResearchers, Inc.; page 5: � SPL/PhotoResearchers, Inc.; page 22, tree of life: Imagecourtesy of Biodiversity Heritage Library;page 27, skull: � Photolibrary/age fotostock;Ida: � Martin Shields/Alamy; page 28, skulls:� Medical-on-Line/Alamy; page 29, Java Manreconstruction: � The Print Collector/Alamy

Each school year, scenarios like theabove play out in thousands of class-rooms around the globe. What shouldPeter and students like him do? Wouldyou not agree that they really need tomake up their own minds on this matter?They need to examine the evidence forevolution and for creation and then de-cide for themselves which they will be-lieve.

In fact, the Bible warns against blind-ly believing what others teach. “Anyoneinexperienced puts faith in every word,”states one Bible writer, “but the shrewdone considers his steps.” (Proverbs 14:15) The Bible encourages Christians touse their “power of reason” and to proveto themselves the things they are taught.—Romans 12:1, 2.

This brochure is not designed to sup-

port the efforts of religious groups whowant to have creation taught in schools.The purpose of this brochure is to exam-ine claims made by those who teach thatlife appeared spontaneously and assertthat the Bible’s account of creation is amyth.

We will focus on the cell because thatis the most basic unit of life. You will beable to review some amazing facts abouthow cells are built. You will also be askedto analyze the assumptions that underpinthe theory of evolution.

Sooner or later, all of us need to con-front the question, Was life created, ordid it evolve? You likely have already giv-en this topic serious thought. This bro-chure will present just some of the evi-dence that has led many to believe thatlife was created.

A STUDENT’S DILEMMAPeter shifts uneasily in his chair, a knot forming in his stomach. His teacher,a woman he respects, has just finished describing how Charles Darwin and histheory of evolution advanced scientific understanding and liberated mankindfrom superstitious beliefs. Now she has invited her students to express theiropinions on this topic.

Peter faces a dilemma. His parents have taught him that God created the earthand all life on it. They say that the Bible’s account of creation is trustworthy andthat evolution is simply a theory—one not supported by the evidence. Peter’steacher and his parents all mean well. But whom should Peter believe?

A STUDENT’S DILEMMA 3

What do many scientists claim? Manywho believe in evolution would tell youthat billions of years ago, life beganon the edge of an ancient tidal pool ordeep in the ocean. They feel that in somesuch location, chemicals spontaneous-ly assembled into bubblelike structures,formed complex molecules, and beganreplicating. They believe that all life onearth originated by accident from one ormore of these “simple” original cells.

Other equally respected scientists whoalso support evolution disagree. Theyspeculate that the first cells or at leasttheir major components arrived on earthfrom outer space. Why? Because, despitetheir best efforts, scientists have been un-able to prove that life can spring fromnonliving molecules. In 2008, Professorof Biology Alexandre Meinesz highlight-ed the dilemma. He stated that over thelast 50 years, “no empirical evidence sup-

1HOW DID LIFE BEGIN?When you were a child, did you ever startle your parents by asking, “Where dobabies come from?” If so, how did they respond? Depending on your age andtheir personality, your parents might have ignored the question or given you ahurried, embarrassed answer. Or perhaps they told you some fanciful tales thatyou later found to be false. Of course, if a child is to be properly prepared foradulthood and marriage, he or she eventually needs to learn about the wondersof sexual reproduction.

Just as many parents feel awkward about discussing where babies come from,some scientists seem reluctant to discuss an even more fundamental question—Where did life come from? Receiving a credible answer to that question canhave a profound effect on a person’s outlook on life. So how did life begin?

A fertilized human egg cell, shown about800 times its actual size

4 THE ORIGIN OF LIFE

ports the hypotheses of the spontaneousappearance of life on Earth from nothingbut a molecular soup, and no significantadvance in scientific knowledge leads inthis direction.”1

What does the evidence reveal? Theanswer to the question, Where do babiescome from? is well-documented and un-controversial. Life always comes frompreexisting life. However, if we go backfar enough in time, is it really possible thatthis fundamental law was broken? Couldlife really spontaneously spring from non-living chemicals? What are the chancesthat such an event could happen?

Researchers have learned that for acell to survive, at least three differenttypes of complex molecules must worktogether—DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid),RNA (ribonucleic acid), and proteins.Today, few scientists would assert that acomplete living cell suddenly formed bychance from a mix of inanimate chemi-cals. What, though, is the probability thatRNA or proteins could form by chance?�

Many scientists feel that life couldarise by chance because of an experimentfirst conducted in 1953. In that year,Stanley L. Miller was able to producesome amino acids, the chemical buildingblocks of proteins, by discharging elec-tricity into a mixture of gases that wasthought to represent the atmosphere ofprimitive earth. Since then, amino acidshave also been found in a meteorite. Dothese findings mean that all the basicbuilding blocks of life could easily be pro-duced by chance?

“Some writers,” says Robert Shapiro,professor emeritus of chemistry at NewYork University, “have presumed that alllife’s building blocks could be formed

� The probability of DNA forming by chance willbe discussed in section 3, “Where Did the Instruc-tions Come From?”

with ease in Miller-type experiments andwere present in meteorites. This is not thecase.”2�

Consider the RNA molecule. It is con-structed of smaller molecules called nu-cleotides. A nucleotide is a different mol-ecule from an amino acid and is onlyslightly more complex. Shapiro says that“no nucleotides of any kind have been re-ported as products of spark-discharge ex-periments or in studies of meteorites.”3

He further states that the probability ofa self-replicating RNA molecule random-ly assembling from a pool of chemicalbuilding blocks “is so vanishingly smallthat its happening even once anywherein the visible universe would count as apiece of exceptional good luck.”4

What about protein molecules? Theycan be made from as few as 50 or asmany as several thousand amino acidsbound together in a highly specific order.The average functional protein in a “sim-ple” cell contains 200 amino acids. Even

� Professor Shapiro does not believe that life wascreated. He believes that life arose by chance in somefashion not yet fully understood. In 2009, scientists atthe University of Manchester, England, reported mak-ing some nucleotides in their lab. However, Shapirostates that their recipe “definitely does not meet mycriteria for a plausible pathway to the RNA world.”

STANLEY MILLER, 1953

1 HOW DID LIFE BEGIN? 5

in those cells, there are thousands of dif-ferent types of proteins. The probabilitythat just one protein containing only 100amino acids could ever randomly formon earth has been calculated to be aboutone chance in a million billion.

Researcher Hubert P. Yockey, whosupports the teaching of evolution, goesfurther. He says: “It is impossible that theorigin of life was ‘proteins first.’ ”5 RNAis required to make proteins, yet proteinsare involved in the production of RNA.What if, despite the extremely smallodds, both proteins and RNA moleculesdid appear by chance in the same placeat the same time? How likely would it

be for them to cooperate to form a self-replicating, self-sustaining type of life?“The probability of this happening bychance (given a random mixture of pro-teins and RNA) seems astronomicallylow,” says Dr. Carol Cleland�, a memberof the National Aeronautics and Space

� Dr. Cleland is not a creationist. She believes thatlife arose by chance in some fashion not yet fully un-derstood.

Administration’s Astrobiology Institute.“Yet,” she continues, “most researchersseem to assume that if they can makesense of the independent production ofproteins and RNA under natural primor-dial conditions, the coordination willsomehow take care of itself.” Regardingthe current theories of how these build-ing blocks of life could have arisen bychance, she says: “None of them haveprovided us with a very satisfying storyabout how this happened.”6

Why do these facts matter? Think ofthe challenge facing researchers whofeel that life arose by chance. They havefound some amino acids that also appearin living cells. In their laboratories, theyhave, by means of carefully designed anddirected experiments, manufactured oth-er more complex molecules. Ultimately,they hope to build all the parts neededto construct a “simple” cell. Their situa-tion could be likened to that of a scientistwho takes naturally occurring elements;transforms them into steel, plastic, sili-cone, and wire; and constructs a robot.He then programs the robot to be able tobuild copies of itself. By doing so, whatwill he prove? At best, that an intelligententity can create an impressive machine.

Similarly, if scientists ever did con-struct a cell, they would accomplish

If the creation of complex molecules in thelaboratory requires the skill of a scientist,could the far more complex molecules ina cell really arise by chance?

1

23

RNA – is required to make proteins —, yetproteins are involved in the production of RNA.How could either one arise by chance, let aloneboth? Ribosomes ˜ will be discussed insection 2.


1 HOW DID LIFE BEGIN? 7

˛ Fact: All scientific research indicates that lifecannot spring from nonliving matter.Question:What is the scientific basis for sayingthat the first cell sprang from nonliving chemi-cals?˛ Fact: Researchers have recreated in the lab-oratory the environmental conditions that theybelieve existed early in the earth’s history. Inthese experiments, a few scientists have manu-factured some of the molecules found in livingthings.Question: If the chemicals in the experimentrepresent the earth’s early environment and themolecules produced represent the buildingblocks of life, whom or what does the scientist

who performed the experiment represent? Doeshe or she represent blind chance or an intelli-gent entity?˛ Fact: Protein and RNA molecules must worktogether for a cell to survive. Scientists admitthat it is highly unlikely that RNA formed bychance. The odds against even one protein form-ing by chance are astronomical. It is exceeding-ly improbable that RNA and proteins should formby chance in the same place at the same timeand be able to work together.Question: What takes greater faith—to believethat the millions of intricately coordinated partsof a cell arose by chance or to believe that thecell is the product of an intelligent mind?

FACTS AND QUESTIONS

something truly amazing—but would theyprove that the cell could be made by acci-dent? If anything, they would prove thevery opposite, would they not?What do you think? All scientific evi-dence to date indicates that life can comeonly from previously existing life. To be-lieve that even a “simple” living cell aroseby chance from nonliving chemicals re-quires a huge leap of faith.

Given the facts, are you willing tomake such a leap? Before answering thatquestion, take a closer look at the way acell is made. Doing so will help you dis-cern whether the theories some scientistspropound about where life came from aresound or are as fanciful as the tales someparents tell about where babies comefrom.

If it takes an intelligent entity to create andprogram a lifeless robot, what would it taketo create a living cell, let alone a human?


What do many scientists claim? All liv-ing cells fall into two major categories—those with a nucleus and those without.Human, animal, and plant cells have anucleus. Bacterial cells do not. Cells witha nucleus are called eukaryotic. Thosewithout a nucleus are known as prokary-otic. Since prokaryotic cells are relativelyless complex than eukaryotic cells, manybelieve that animal and plant cells musthave evolved from bacterial cells.

In fact, many teach that for millionsof years, some “simple” prokaryotic cellsswallowed other cells but did not digest

2IS ANY FORM OF LIFEREALLY SIMPLE?Your body is one of the most complexstructures in the universe. It is made upof some 100 trillion tiny cells—bone cells,blood cells, brain cells, to name a few.7In fact, there are more than 200 differenttypes of cells in your body.8

Despite their amazing diversity in shapeand function, your cells form an intricate,integrated network. The Internet, withits millions of computers and high-speeddata cables, is clumsy in comparison. Nohuman invention can compete with thetechnical brilliance evident in even themost basic of cells. How did the cells thatmake up the human body come intoexistence?

BRAIN CELL

EYE CELLS

BONE CELL

MUSCLE CELLS

RED BLOOD CELLS

Could the more than 200 differentkinds of cells that make up yourbody really form by accident?

them. Instead, the theory goes, unintelli-gent “nature” figured out a way not onlyto make radical changes in the functionof the ingested cells but also to keep theadapted cells inside of the “host” cellwhen it replicated.9�What does the Bible say? The Biblestates that life on earth is the productof an intelligent mind. Note the Bible’sclear logic: “Of course, every house isconstructed by someone, but he that con-structed all things is God.” (Hebrews3:4) Another Bible passage says: “Howmany your works are, O Jehovah! Allof them in wisdom you have made. Theearth is full of your productions. . . .There are moving things without number,living creatures, small as well as great.”—Psalm 104:24, 25.What does the evidence reveal? Ad-vances in microbiology have made it pos-sible to peer into the awe-inspiring interi-or of the simplest living prokaryotic cellsknown. Evolutionary scientists theorizethat the first living cells must have lookedsomething like these cells.10

If the theory of evolution is true, itshould offer a plausible explanation ofhow the first “simple” cell formed bychance. On the other hand, if life wascreated, there should be evidence ofingenious design even in the smallestof creatures. Why not take a tour of aprokaryotic cell? As you do so, ask your-self whether such a cell could arise bychance.

� No experimental evidence exists to show thatsuch an event is possible.

THE CELL’S PROTECTIVE WALLTo tour a prokaryotic cell, you would

have to shrink to a size that is hundredsof times smaller than the period at theend of this sentence. Keeping you outof the cell is a tough, flexible membranethat acts like a brick and mortar wall sur-rounding a factory. It would take some10,000 layers of this membrane to equalthe thickness of a sheet of paper. But themembrane of a cell is much more sophis-ticated than the brick wall. In what ways?

Like the wall surrounding a factory,the membrane of a cell shields the con-tents from a potentially hostile environ-ment. However, the membrane is notsolid; it allows the cell to “breathe,” per-mitting small molecules, such as oxy-gen, to pass in or out. But the membraneblocks more complex, potentially damag-ing molecules from entering without thecell’s permission. The membrane alsoprevents useful molecules from leavingthe cell. How does the membrane man-age such feats?

Think again of a factory. It might havesecurity guards who monitor the prod-ucts that enter and leave through thedoorways in the factory wall. Similarly,the cell membrane has special proteinmolecules embedded in it that act like thedoors and the security guards.

Could even a “simple” cell really arisefrom nonliving chemicals?

2 IS ANY FORM OF LIFE REALLY SIMPLE? 9


Some of these proteins (1) have a holethrough the middle of them that allowsonly specific types of molecules in andout of the cell. Other proteins are openon one side of the cell membrane (2) andclosed on the other. They have a dock-ing site (3) shaped to fit a specific sub-stance. When that substance docks, theother end of the protein opens and releas-es the cargo through the membrane (4).All this activity is happening on the sur-face of even the simplest of cells.

INSIDE THE FACTORYImagine that you have been allowed

past the “security guard” and are now in-side the cell. The interior of a prokaryoticcell is filled with a watery fluid that is richin nutrients, salts, and other substanc-es. The cell uses these raw ingredients tomanufacture the products it needs. Butthe process is not haphazard. Like an ef-ficiently run factory, the cell organizesthousands of chemical reactions so thatthey take place in a specific order and ac-cording to a set timetable.

A cell spends a lot of its time makingproteins. How does it do so? First, you

would see the cell make about 20 differ-ent basic building blocks called aminoacids. These building blocks are deliv-ered to the ribosomes (5), which may belikened to automated machines that linkthe amino acids in a precise order toform a specific protein. Just as the op-erations of a factory might be governedby a central computer program, many ofthe functions of a cell are governed by a“computer program,” or code, known asDNA (6). From the DNA, the ribosomereceives a copy of detailed instructionsthat tell it which protein to build and howto build it (7).

What happens as the protein is madeis nothing short of amazing! Each onefolds into a unique three-dimensionalshape (8). It is this shape that determinesthe specialized job that the protein willdo.� Picture a production line where en-gine parts are being assembled. Each partneeds to be precisely constructed if the

� Enzymes are one example of proteins made bycells. Each enzyme is folded in a special way to accel-erate a particular chemical reaction. Hundreds of en-zymes cooperate to regulate the cell’s activities.

The cell membrane has“security guards” that allowonly specific substances topass in or out

1

23

4

5

6

7

8

engine is to work. Similarly, if a protein isnot precisely constructed and folded toexactly the right shape, it will not be ableto do its work properly and may evendamage the cell.

How does the protein find its way fromwhere it was made to where it is needed?Each protein the cell makes has a built-in“address tag” that ensures that the pro-tein will be delivered to where it is need-ed. Although thousands of proteins arebuilt and delivered each minute, each onearrives at the correct destination.Why do these facts matter? The com-plex molecules in the simplest livingthing cannot reproduce alone. Outsidethe cell, they break down. Inside thecell, they cannot reproduce without thehelp of other complex molecules. For ex-ample, enzymes are needed to producea special energy molecule called adeno-sine triphosphate (ATP), but energyfrom ATP is needed to produce enzymes.Similarly, DNA (section 3 discusses thismolecule) is required to make enzymes,but enzymes are required to make DNA.Also, other proteins can be made only by

the cell “factory”How Proteins Are Made

Like an automated factory, the cellis full of machines that assembleand deliver complex products

Some bacteria can make replicas of them-selves within 20 minutes. Each cell copies allthe controlling “computer programs.” Then itdivides. If it had unlimited access to fuel, justone cell could increase in number exponential-ly. At that rate, it would take only two days toproduce a clump of cells with a weight morethan 2,500 times greater than that of theearth.15 Cells that are more complex can alsoreplicate quickly. For example, when you weredeveloping in your mother’s womb, new braincells formed at the astounding rate of 250,000per minute!16

Human manufacturers often have to sacrificequality to produce an item at a fast pace. Howis it possible, then, that cells can reproduceso fast and so accurately if they are the productof undirected accidents?

HOW FAST CAN A CELL REPRODUCE?


a cell, but a cell can be made only withproteins.�

Microbiologist Radu Popa does notagree with the Bible’s account of cre-

� Some of the cells in the human body are made upof about 10,000,000,000 protein molecules11 of sever-al hundred thousand different kinds.12

ation. Yet, in 2004 he asked: “How cannature make life if we failed with all theexperimental conditions controlled?”13

He also stated: “The complexity of themechanisms required for the functioningof a living cell is so large that a simul-taneous emergence by chance seems im-possible.”14

What do you think? The theory of evolu-tion tries to account for the origin of lifeon earth without the necessity of divineintervention. However, the more thatscientists discover about life, the less like-ly it appears that it could arise by chance.To sidestep this dilemma, some evolu-tionary scientists would like to make adistinction between the theory of evolu-tion and the question of the origin of life.But does that sound reasonable to you?

The theory of evolution rests on thenotion that a long series of fortunate acci-dents produced life to start with. It thenproposes that another series of undirect-ed accidents produced the astonishing di-versity and complexity of all living things.However, if the foundation of the theoryis missing, what happens to the other the-ories that are built on this assumption?Just as a skyscraper built without a foun-dation would collapse, a theory of evolu-tion that cannot explain the origin of lifewill crumble.

After briefly considering the structureand function of a “simple” cell, what doyou see—evidence of many accidents orproof of brilliant design? If you are stillunsure, take a closer look at the “masterprogram” that controls the functions ofall cells.

If this skyscraper must collapse because it has a flimsyfoundation, must not the theory of evolution collapsebecause it has no explanation for the origin of life?

˛ Fact: The extraordinarily complex moleculesthat make up a cell—DNA, RNA, proteins—seemdesigned to work together.Question:What seems more likely to you? Didunintelligent evolution construct the intricatemachines depicted on page 10, or were thosemachines the product of an intelligent mind?˛ Fact: Some respected scientists say that evena “simple” cell is far too complex to have arisenby chance on earth.Question: If some scientists are willing to specu-late that life came from an extraterrestrial source,what is the basis for ruling out God as thatSource?

FACTS AND QUESTIONS

What do many scientists claim? Manybiologists and other scientists feel thatDNA and its coded instructions cameabout through undirected chance eventsthat took place over the course of mil-lions of years. They say that there is noevidence of design in the structure of thismolecule nor in the information that itcarries and transmits nor in the way thatit functions.17

What does the Bible say? The Bible sug-gests that the formation of our differentbody parts—and even the timing of theirformation—involves a figurative bookthat originates with God. Notice howKing David was inspired to describe mat-

ters, saying of God: “Your eyes saw eventhe embryo of me, and in your book all itsparts were down in writing, as regards thedays when they were formed and therewas not yet one among them.”—Psalm139:16.What does the evidence reveal? If evo-lution is true, then it should seem atleast reasonably possible that DNA couldhave come about by means of a series ofchance events. If the Bible is true, thenDNA should provide strong evidencethat it is the product of an orderly, intelli-gent mind.

When considered in the simplest ofterms, the subject of DNA is quite

3WHERE DID THEINSTRUCTIONS COME FROM?Why do you look the way you do? What determines the color ofyour eyes, your hair, your skin? What about your height, yourbuild, or your resemblance to one or both of your parents? Whattells the ends of your fingers to grow soft pads on one side andhard, protective nails on the other?

In Charles Darwin’s day, the answers to such questions wereshrouded in mystery. Darwin himself was fascinated by the waytraits are passed along from one generation to the next, but heknew little about the laws of genetics and even less about themechanisms within the cell that govern heredity. Now, however,biologists have spent decades studying human genetics andthe detailed instructions that are embedded in the amazing mole-cule called DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). Of course, the big ques-tion is, Where did these instructions come from?

3 WHERE DID THE INSTRUCTIONS COME FROM? 13


understandable—and fascinating. So letus take another trip to the inside of acell. This time, though, we will visit a hu-man cell. Imagine that you are going toa museum designed to teach you abouthow such a cell works. The whole mu-seum is a model of a typical human cell—but magnified some 13,000,000 times.It is the size of a giant sports arena, thekind that can seat an audience of about70,000 people.

You enter the museum and stare awe-struck at this wondrous place full ofstrange forms and structures. Near thecenter of the cell stands the nucleus, asphere about 20 stories tall. You makeyour way there.

You go through a door in the nucleus’outer skin, or membrane, and lookaround you. Dominating this chamberare 46 chromosomes. Arranged in identi-cal pairs, they vary in height, but the pairnearest you is about 12 stories tall (1).Each chromosome has a pinched placenear the middle, so it looks a bit like alink sausage but is as thick as a massivetree trunk. You see a variety of bandsrunning across the model chromosomes.As you draw closer, you see that eachhorizontal band is divided by verticallines. Between those are shorter horizon-tal lines (2). Are they stacks of books?No; they are the outer edges of loops,packed tightly in columns. You pull atone of them, and it comes free. You areamazed to see that the loop is composedof smaller coils (3), also neatly arranged.Within those coils is the main feature ofall of this—something resembling a long,long rope. What is it?

THE STRUCTURE OFAN AMAZING MOLECULE

Let us simply call this part of the mod-el chromosome a rope. It is about an

inch thick. It is looped tightly aroundspools (4), which help to form the coilswithin coils. These coils are attachedto a kind of scaffold that holds them inplace. A sign on the display explains thatthe rope is packed very efficiently. If youwere to pull the rope from each of thesemodel chromosomes and lay it all out,from end to end it would stretch abouthalfway around the earth!�

One science book calls this efficientpackaging system “an extraordinary featof engineering.”18 Does the suggestionthat there was no engineer behind thisfeat sound credible to you? If this mu-seum had a huge store with millions ofitems for sale and they were all so ti-

� The textbook Molecular Biology of the Cell uses adifferent scale. It says that trying to pack these longstrands into a cell nucleus would be like trying to pack24 miles of very fine thread into a tennis ball—butin such a neat, organized way that each part of thethread remains easily accessible.

1

1

dily arranged that you could easily findany item you needed, would you assumethat no one had organized the place? Ofcourse not! But such order would be asimple feat by comparison.

In the museum display, a sign invitesyou to take a length of this rope in yourhands for a closer look (5). As you run itbetween your fingers, you see that this isno ordinary rope. It is composed of twostrands twisted around each other. Thestrands are connected by tiny bars, even-ly spaced. The rope looks like a ladderthat has been twisted until it resembles aspiral staircase (6). Then it hits you: Youare holding a model of the DNA mole-cule—one of the great mysteries of life!

A single DNA molecule, tidily pack-aged with its spools and scaffold, makesup a chromosome. The rungs of the lad-der are known as base pairs (7). What dothey do? What is all of this for? A displaysign offers a simplified explanation.

THE ULTIMATE INFORMATIONSTORAGE SYSTEM

The key to the DNA, the sign says,lies in those rungs, the bars connect-ing the two sides of the ladder. Imag-ine the ladder split apart. Each side haspartial rungs sticking out. They come inonly four types. Scientists dub them A,T, G, and C. Scientists were amazed to

2

3

4

5

6

7

a “feat of engineering”How DNA Is Packed

Packing the DNA into the nucleus isan amazing feat of engineering—likepacking 24 miles of very fine threadinto a tennis ball


discover that the order of those lettersconveys information in a sort of code.

You may know that Morse code wasinvented in the 19th century so that peo-ple could communicate by telegraph.That code had only two “letters”—a dotand a dash. Yet, it could be used to spellout countless words or sentences. Well,DNA has a four-letter code. The order inwhich those letters—A, T, G, and C—ap-pear forms “words” called codons. Co-dons are arranged in “stories” calledgenes. Each gene contains, on average,27,000 letters. These genes and the longstretches between them are compiledinto chapters of a sort—the individu-al chromosomes. It takes 23 chromo-somes to form the complete “book”—thegenome, or total of genetic informationabout an organism.�

The genome would be a huge book.How much information would it hold?All told, the human genome is made upof about three billion base pairs, or rungs,on the DNA ladder.19 Imagine a set ofencyclopedias in which each volume isover a thousand pages long. The genomewould fill 428 of such volumes. Addingthe second copy that is found in eachcell would make that 856 volumes. If youwere to type out the genome by yourself,it would be a full-time job—with no vaca-tions—lasting some 80 years!

Of course, what you would end upwith after all that typing would be use-less to your body. How would you fit hun-dreds of bulky volumes into each of your100 trillion microscopic cells? To com-press so much information so greatly isfar beyond us.

A professor of molecular biology andcomputer science noted: “One gram of

� Each cell contains two complete copies of the ge-nome, 46 chromosomes in all.

DNA, which when dry would occupy avolume of approximately one cubic cen-timeter, can store as much informationas approximately one trillion CDs [com-pact discs].”20 What does that mean? Re-member, the DNA contains the genes,the instructions for building a unique hu-man body. Each cell has a complete setof instructions. DNA is so dense with in-formation that a single teaspoonful of itcould carry the instructions for buildingabout 350 times the number of humansalive today! The DNA required for theseven billion people living on earth nowwould barely make a film on the surfaceof that teaspoon.21

A BOOK WITH NO AUTHOR?Despite advances in miniaturization,

no man-made information storage devicecan approach such a capacity. Yet, thecompact disc offers an apt comparison.Consider this: A compact disc may im-press us with its symmetrical shape, itsgleaming surface, its efficient design. We

replicationHow DNA Is Copied

– This part of the enzyme machine splitsthe DNA into two separate strands

— This part of the machine takes in asingle strand of DNA and uses it as atemplate to create a double strand

˜ Ring-shaped sliding clamp that guidesand stabilizes the enzyme machine

™ Two complete DNA strands are formed

see clear evidence that intelligent peoplemade it. But what if it is embedded withinformation—not random gibberish, butcoherent, detailed instructions for build-ing, maintaining, and repairing complexmachinery? That information does notperceptibly change the weight or the sizeof the disc. Yet, it is the most importantfeature of that disc. Would not those writ-ten instructions convince you that theremust be some intelligent mind at workhere? Does not writing require a writer?

It is not far-fetched to compare DNAto a compact disc or to a book. In fact,one book about the genome notes: “Theidea of the genome as a book is not, strict-ly speaking, even a metaphor. It is literal-ly true. A book is a piece of digital infor-mation . . . So is a genome.” The authoradds: “The genome is a very clever book,because in the right conditions it canboth photocopy itself and read itself.”22

That brings up another important aspectof DNA.

MACHINES IN MOTIONAs you stand there in the quiet, you

find yourself wondering if the nucleusof a cell is really as still as a museum.Then you notice another display. Abovea glass case containing a length of modelDNA is a sign that reads: “Push Buttonfor Demonstration.” You push the but-ton, and a narrator explains: “DNA hasat least two very important jobs. The firstis called replication. DNA has to be cop-ied so that every new cell will have a com-plete copy of the same genetic informa-tion. Please watch this simulation.”

Through a door at one end of the dis-play comes a complex-looking machine.It is actually a cluster of robots close-ly linked together. The machine goes tothe DNA, attaches itself, and begins tomove along the DNA as a train might fol-low a track. It moves a little too fast foryou to see exactly what it is doing, but

1

2

2

3

3

3

4

4

If DNA were the size of a railroadtrack, the enzyme machine wouldbe moving at the rate of over50 miles per hour

17

you can easily see that behind it, there arenow two complete DNA ropes instead ofone.

The narrator explains: “This is a great-ly simplified version of what goes onwhen DNA is replicated. A group of mo-lecular machines called enzymes travelalong the DNA, first splitting it in two,then using each strand as a template tomake a new, complementary strand. Wecannot show you all the parts involved—such as the tiny device that runs aheadof the replication machine and snipsone side of the DNA so that it can twirlaround freely instead of getting woundup too tight. Nor can we show you howthe DNA is ‘proofread’ several times.Errors are detected and corrected to anamazing degree of accuracy.”—See thediagram on pages 16 and 17.

The narrator continues: “What we canshow you clearly is the speed. You no-ticed this robot moving at a pretty goodclip, didn’t you? Well, the actual enzymemachinery moves along the DNA ‘track’at a rate of about 100 rungs, or basepairs, every second.23 If the ‘track’ werethe size of a railroad track, this ‘engine’would be barreling along at the rate ofover 50 miles per hour. In bacteria, these

little replication machines can move tentimes faster than that! In the human cell,armies of hundreds of these replicationmachines go to work at different spotsalong the DNA ‘track.’ They copy the en-tire genome in just eight hours.”24 (Seethe box “A Molecule That Can Be Readand Copied,” on page 20.)

“READING” DNAThe DNA-replicating robots trundle

off the scene. Another machine appears.It too moves along a stretch of DNA,but more slowly. You see the DNA ropeentering one end of this machine andemerging from the other—unchanged.But a single strand, a new one, is comingout of a separate opening in the machine,like a growing tail. What is going on?

Again the narrator provides an expla-nation: “DNA’s second job is called tran-scription. The DNA never leaves thesafe shelter of the nucleus. So how canits genes—the recipes for all the proteinsyour body is made of—ever be read andused? Well, this enzyme machine findsa spot along the DNA where a gene hasbeen switched on by chemical signalscoming in from outside the cell nucleus.Then this machine uses a molecule calledRNA (ribonucleic acid) to make a copyof that gene. RNA looks a lot like a sin-gle strand of DNA, but it is different. Its

3

One gram of DNA carries as muchinformation as a trillion CDs could

18

job is to pick up the information codedin the genes. The RNA gets that informa-tion while in the enzyme machine, thenexits the nucleus and heads to one of theribosomes, where the information will beused to build a protein.”

As you watch the demonstration, youare filled with wonder. You are deeply im-pressed by this museum and the ingenu-ity of those who designed and built itsmachines. But what if this entire placewith all its exhibits could be set in mo-tion, demonstrating all the thousandsupon thousands of tasks that go on in the

human cell at the same time? What anawe-inspiring spectacle that would be!

You realize, though, that all theseprocesses carried out by tiny, complexmachines are actually going on right nowin your own 100 trillion cells! Your DNAis being read, providing directions tobuild the hundreds of thousands of dif-ferent proteins that make up your body—its enzymes, tissues, organs, and so on.Right now your DNA is being copied andproofread for errors so that a fresh set ofdirections is there to be read in each newcell.

transcriptionHow DNA Is “Read”

– The DNA is unwound here. An exposed strandpasses information to the RNA

— The RNA “reads” the DNA, picking up the codewithin a gene. The DNA code tells the transcriptionmachine where to start and stop

˜ Loaded with information, the RNA exits the cellnucleus and goes to a ribosome, where it will impartthe instructions on how to build a complex protein

™ Transcription machine

1

2

4

19

How can DNA be read and copied so reliably? The four chemi-cal bases used in the DNA ladder—A, T, G, and C—form theladder’s individual rungs by always pairing in the same way:A with T, and G with C. If one side of a rung is A, the other sideis always T; G always meets C. Therefore, if you have one sideof the ladder, you know the other side of the ladder. Where oneside of the ladder reads GTCA, the other side must read CAGT.The partial rungs differ in length, but when they pair up withtheir complements, they make complete rungs of one uniformlength.Discovering that fact led scientists to another breakthroughabout this remarkable molecule: DNA is perfectly suited forbeing copied over and over. The enzyme machine that repli-cates DNA takes in free-floating units of those four chemicalsfrom the environment in the nucleus. Then it uses them tocomplete each rung on the split DNA strand.So a DNA molecule really is like a book that is read and copiedover and over again. In the average life span of a human, DNAis copied some 10,000,000,000,000,000 times, with amazingfidelity.28

A MOLECULE THAT CAN BE READ AND COPIED

WHY DO THESE FACTS MATTER?Again, let us ask ourselves, ‘Where did all these

instructions come from?’ The Bible suggests thatthis “book” and its writing originate with a super-human Author. Is that conclusion really out-of-date or unscientific?

Consider this: Could humans even build themuseum just described? They would run into realdifficulty if they tried. Much about the human ge-nome and how it functions is little understood asyet. Scientists are still trying to figure out whereall the genes are and what they do. And the genescomprise only a small part of the DNA strand.What about all those long stretches that do notcontain genes? Scientists have called those partsjunk DNA, but more recently they have beenmodifying that stance. Those parts may controlhow and to what extent the genes are used. Andeven if scientists could create a full model of the

G C

A T

C G

A T

G C

˛ Fact: DNA is packaged within the chromosomesin a manner so efficient that it has been called a“feat of engineering.”Question: How could such order and organizationarise by undirected chance events?˛ Fact: DNA’s capacity to store information stillhas no equal in today’s computer age.Question: If human computer technicians cannotachieve such results, how could mindless matterdo so on its own?˛ Fact: DNA contains all the instructions neededto build a unique human body and maintain itthroughout life.Question: How could such writing come aboutwithout a writer, such programming without aprogrammer?˛ Fact: For DNA to work, it has to be copied, read,and proofread by a swarm of complex molecularmachines called enzymes, which must worktogether with precision and split-second timing.Question: Do you believe that highly complex,highly reliable machinery can come about bychance? Without solid proof, would not such abelief amount to blind faith?

FACTS AND QUESTIONS

DNA and the machines that copy andproofread it, could they make it actuallyfunction as the real one does?

Famous scientist Richard Feynmanleft this note on a blackboard shortly be-fore his death: “What I cannot create, Ido not understand.”25 His candid humil-ity is refreshing, and his statement, ob-viously true in the case of DNA.Scientists cannot create DNA with allits replication and transcription machin-ery; nor can they fully understand it. Yet,some assert that they know that it allcame about by undirected chance and ac-cidents. Does the evidence that you haveconsidered really support such a conclu-sion?

Some learned men have decided thatthe evidence points the other way. Forexample, Francis Crick, a scientist whohelped to discover DNA’s double-helixstructure, decided that this molecule isfar too organized to have come aboutthrough undirected events. He proposedthat intelligent extraterrestrials may havesent DNA to the earth to help get lifestarted here.26

More recently, noted philosopher An-tony Flew, who advocated atheism for 50years, did an about-face of sorts. At 81years of age, he began to express a beliefthat some intelligence must have beenat work in the creation of life. Why thechange? A study of DNA. When asked ifhis new line of thought might prove un-popular among scientists, Flew reported-ly answered: “That’s too bad. My wholelife has been guided by the principle. . . [to] follow the evidence, wherever itleads.”27

What do you think? Where does the ev-idence lead? Imagine that you found acomputer room in the heart of a facto-ry. The computer is running a complex

master program that directs all the work-ings of that factory. What is more, thatprogram is constantly sending out in-structions on how to build and main-tain every machine there, and it is makingcopies of itself and proofreading them.What would that evidence lead you toconclude? That the computer and its pro-gram must have made themselves or thatthey were produced by orderly, intelli-gent minds? Really, the evidence speaksfor itself.

21

What do many scientists claim? Manygive the impression that the fossil recordsupports the theory of a common originfor life. They also claim that because allliving things use similar “computer lan-guage,” or DNA, that all life must haveevolved from a common ancestor.What does the Bible say? The Genesisaccount states that plants, sea creatures,land animals, and birds were created “ac-cording to their kinds.” (Genesis 1:12,20-25) This description allows for varia-tion within a “kind,” but it implies thatthere are fixed barriers separating the dif-ferent kinds. The Bible account of cre-ation also leads us to expect that newtypes of creatures would appear in thefossil record suddenly and fully formed.What does the evidence reveal? Doesthe evidence support the Bible’s descrip-tion of events, or was Darwin correct?

What have discoveries over the past 150years revealed?

DARWIN’S TREE CHOPPED DOWNIn recent years, scientists have been

able to compare the genetic codes of doz-ens of different single-celled organisms aswell as those of plants and animals. Theyassumed that such comparisons wouldconfirm the branching “tree of life” pro-posed by Darwin. However, this has notbeen the case.

What has the research uncovered?In 1999 biologist Malcolm S. Gordonwrote: “Life appears to have had manyorigins. The base of the universal treeof life appears not to have been a singleroot.” Is there evidence that all the majorbranches of life are connected to a singletrunk, as Darwin believed? Gordon con-tinues: “The traditional version of the the-ory of common descent apparently does

4HAS ALL LIFE DESCENDED FROMA COMMON ANCESTOR?Darwin thought that all life might be traced to a commonancestor. He imagined that the history of life on earth resem-bled a grand tree. Later, others believed that this “tree oflife” started as a single trunk with the first simple cells. Newspecies branched from the trunk and continued to divide intolimbs, or families of plants and animals, and then into twigs,all the species within the families of plants and animals alivetoday. Is that really what happened?

BEGINNING OF THE EARTH’S HISTORY TIME

122

not apply to kingdoms as presently rec-ognized. It probably does not apply tomany, if not all, phyla, and possibly alsonot to many classes within the phyla.”29�

Recent research continues to contra-dict Darwin’s theory of common descent.For example, in 2009 an article in NewScientist magazine quoted evolutionaryscientist Eric Bapteste as saying: “Wehave no evidence at all that the tree oflife is a reality.”30 The same article quotesevolutionary biologist Michael Rose assaying: “The tree of life is being polite-ly buried, we all know that. What’s lessaccepted is that our whole fundamentalview of biology needs to change.”31�

WHAT ABOUT THE FOSSIL RECORD?Many scientists point to the fossil

record as support for the idea that lifeemerged from a common origin. They ar-gue, for example, that the fossil recorddocuments the notion that fish becameamphibians and reptiles became mam-mals. What, though, does the fossil evi-dence really show?

“Instead of finding the gradual unfold-ing of life,” says evolutionary paleontolo-gist David M. Raup, “what geologists ofDarwin’s time, and geologists of the pres-

� The biological term phyla (singular, phylum) re-fers to a large group of animals that have the same dis-tinctive body plan. One way that scientists classify allliving things is by a seven-step system in which eachstep is more specific than the one before it. Step oneis kingdom, the broadest category. Then come the cat-egories phylum, class, order, family, genus, and spe-cies. For example, the horse is categorized in the fol-lowing way: kingdom, Animalia; phylum, Chordata;class, Mammalia; order, Perissodactyla; family, Equi-dae; genus, Equus; species, Caballus.� It should be noted that neither the New Scientist

article nor Bapteste nor Rose mean to suggest thatthe theory of evolution is wrong. Their point, rather,is that Darwin’s proposed tree of life, a mainstay ofhis theory, is not supported by the evidence. Suchscientists still seek other explanations involving evolu-tion.

ent day actually find is a highly unevenor jerky record; that is, species appearin the sequence very suddenly, show lit-tle or no change during their existence inthe record, then abruptly go out of therecord.”32

In reality, the vast majority of fossilsshow stability among types of creaturesover extensive amounts of time. The evi-dence does not show them evolving fromone type into another. Unique body plansappear suddenly. New features appearsuddenly. For example, bats with sonarand echolocation systems appear with noobvious link to a more primitive ances-tor.

In fact, more than half of all the ma-jor divisions of animal life seem to haveappeared in a relatively short period oftime. Because many new and distinct lifeforms appear so suddenly in the fossilrecord, paleontologists refer to this peri-od as “the Cambrian explosion.” Whenwas the Cambrian period?

Let us assume that the estimates of re-searchers are accurate. In that case, thehistory of the earth could be represent-ed by a time line that stretches the lengthof a soccer field (1). At that scale, youwould have to walk about seven eighthsof the way down the field before youwould come to what paleontologists callthe Cambrian period (2). During a smallsegment of that period, the major divi-sions of animal life show up in the fos-sil record. How suddenly do they appear?As you walk down the soccer field, allthose different creatures pop up in thespace of less than one step!

The relatively sudden appearance ofthese diverse life forms is causing someevolutionary researchers to question thetraditional version of Darwin’s theory.

“CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION” TODAY

223

For example, in an interview in 2008, evolu-tionary biologist Stuart Newman discussed theneed for a new theory of evolution that could ex-plain the sudden appearance of novel forms oflife. He said: “The Darwinian mechanism that’sused to explain all evolutionary change will berelegated, I believe, to being just one of severalmechanisms—maybe not even the most impor-tant when it comes to understanding macroevo-lution, the evolution of major transitions in bodytype.”33

PROBLEMS WITH THE “PROOF”What, though, of the fossils that are used to

show fish changing into amphibians, and rep-tiles into mammals? Do they provide solid proofof evolution in action? Upon closer inspection,several problems become obvious.

First, the comparative size of the creaturesplaced in the reptile-to-mammal sequence issometimes misrepresented in textbooks. Ratherthan being similar in size, some creatures in theseries are huge, while others are small.

A second, more serious challenge is the lackof proof that those creatures are somehow re-

lated. Specimens placed in the series areoften separated by what researchers es-timate to be millions of years. Regard-ing the time spans that separate many

of these fossils, zoologist Henry Geesays: “The intervals of time that sep-arate the fossils are so huge that we

cannot say anything definite abouttheir possible connection through an-

cestry and descent.”34�

Commenting on the fossils of fish andamphibians, biologist Malcolm S. Gordon

states that the fossils found represent only asmall, “possibly quite unrepresentative, sample

� Henry Gee does not suggest that the theory of evolution iswrong. His comments are made to show the limits of what canbe learned from the fossil record.

AS SHOWNIN SOMETEXTBOOKS

REAL RELATIVE SIZE Why do some textbooks change the scale of the fossilsthat they depict as following a proposed sequence?

of the biodiversity that existed in thesegroups at those times.” He further says:“There is no way of knowing to what ex-tent, if at all, those specific organismswere relevant to later developments, orwhat their relationships might have beento each other.”35�

WHAT DOES THE “FILM”REALLY SHOW?

An article published in National Geo-graphic in 2004 likened the fossil recordto “a film of evolution from which 999 ofevery 1,000 frames have been lost on thecutting-room floor.”36 Consider the impli-cations of that illustration.

Imagine that you found 100 frames ofa feature film that originally had 100,000frames. How would you determine theplot of the movie? You might have a pre-conceived idea, but what if only 5 of the100 frames you found could be organizedto support your preferred plot, while theother 95 frames tell a very different story?Would it be reasonable to assert that yourpreconceived idea of the movie was right

� Malcolm S. Gordon supports the teaching of evo-lution.

because of the five frames? Could it bethat you placed the five frames in the or-der you did because it suited your theory?Would it not be more reasonable to al-low the other 95 frames to influence youropinion?

How does that illustration relate to theway evolutionists view the fossil record?For years, researchers did not acknowl-edge that the vast majority of fossils—the95 frames of the movie—showed that spe-cies change very little over time. Why thesilence about such important evidence?Author Richard Morris says: “Apparent-ly paleontologists had adopted the ortho-dox idea of gradual evolutionary changeand had held onto it, even when they dis-covered evidence to the contrary. They

“To take a line of fossils and claim thatthey represent a lineage is not a scientifichypothesis that can be tested, but an as-sertion that carries the same validity asa bedtime story—amusing, perhaps eveninstructive, but not scientific.”—In Search ofDeep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a NewHistory of Life, by Henry Gee, pp. 116-117

The dotted lines show the supposedrelationships

Jawles

sfish

Extinctarm

oredfi

shwithjaw

s

Cartilagino

usfish

Bony

fish

Amphibians

Reptiles

Birds

Mamm

als

GEOLOG

ICAL

TIMEPERIOD

Sª

Jawles

sfish

Extinctarm

oredfi

shwithjaw

s

Cartilagino

usfish

Bony

fish

Amphibians

Reptiles

Birds

Mamm

als

Actual fossil evidence shows no relationships

4 HAS ALL LIFE DESCENDED FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR? 25


had been trying to interpret fossil evi-dence in terms of accepted evolutionaryideas.”37

What about evolutionists today?Could it be that they continue to placefossils in a certain order, not becausesuch a sequence is well-supported bythe majority of fossil and genetic evi-dence, but because doing so is in harmo-ny with currently accepted evolutionaryideas?�

� See, for example, the box “What About HumanEvolution?”

What do you think? Which conclusionfits the evidence best? Consider the factswe have discussed so far.˛ The first life on earth was not “simple.”˛ The odds against even the componentsof a cell arising by chance are astronomi-cal.˛ DNA, the “computer program,” orcode, that runs the cell, is incredibly com-plex and gives evidence of a genius thatfar surpasses any program or informationstorage system produced by humans.˛ Genetic research shows that life didnot originate from a single commonancestor. In addition, major groups ofanimals appear suddenly in the fossilrecord.

In light of these facts, do you think it isreasonable to conclude that the evidenceis in harmony with the Bible’s explana-tion of the origin of life? Many people,however, assert that science contradictsmuch of what the Bible says about cre-ation. Is that true? What does the Biblereally say?

If “95 frames” of the fossil record show thatanimals do not evolve from one type intoanother, why do paleontologists arrange theremaining “5 frames” to imply that they do?

˛ Fact: Two of evolution’s fundamental ideas—that life has a common origin and that majornew body types appear as a result of the slowaccumulation of small changes—are beingchallenged by researchers who do not supportthe Bible account of creation.Question: Given the controversy over thesepillars of Darwin’s theory, can his version ofevolution honestly be referred to as scientificfact?

˛ Fact: All living organisms share similarlydesigned DNA, the “computer language,” orcode, that governs much of the shape andfunction of their cell or cells.Question: Could this similarity exist, not becausethey had the same ancestor, but because theyhad the same Designer?

FACTS AND QUESTIONS

Look up the topic of human evolution in manytextbooks and encyclopedias and you will see aseries of pictures—on one side a stooped, ape-like creature followed by creatures that have pro-gressively more upright posture and largerheads. At the end stands modern man. Suchrenderings along with sensational media reportsof the discovery of so-called missing links givethe impression that there is ample evidence thatman evolved from apelike creatures. Are suchassertions based on solid evidence? Considerwhat evolutionary researchers say about the fol-lowing topics.�

WHAT THE FOSSIL EVIDENCEACTUALLY SHOWS˛ Fact: At the beginning of the 20th century, allthe fossils that were used to support the theorythat humans and apes evolved from a commonancestor could fit on a billiard table. Since then,the number of fossils used to support that theoryhas increased. Now it is claimed that they wouldfill a railroad boxcar.38 However, the vast majorityof those fossils consist only of single bones andisolated teeth. Complete skulls—let alone com-plete skeletons—are rare.39

Question: Has the increased number of fossilsattributed to the human “family tree” settled thequestion among evolutionary experts as to whenand how humans evolved from apelike crea-tures?Answer: No. In fact, the opposite is true.When it comes to how these fossils should beclassified, Robin Derricourt of the University ofNew South Wales, Australia, wrote in 2009:“Perhaps the only consensus now is that there isno consensus.”40 In 2007 the science journal

� Note: None of the researchers quoted in this boxbelieve in the Bible’s teaching of creation. All accept theteaching of evolution.

Nature published an ar-ticle by the discoverersof another claimed link inthe evolutionary tree, say-ing that nothing is knownabout when or how the hu-man line actually emerged from that of apes.41

Gyula Gyenis, a researcher at the Departmentof Biological Anthropology, Eotvos Lorand Univer-sity, Hungary, wrote in 2002: “The classificationand the evolutionary place of hominid fossils hasbeen under constant debate.”� This author alsostates that the fossil evidence gathered so farbrings us no closer to knowing exactly when,where, or how humans evolved from apelikecreatures.42

ANNOUNCEMENTSOF “MISSING LINKS”˛ Fact: The media often widely broadcaststhe announcement that a new “missing link” hasbeen discovered. For example, in 2009 a fossildubbed Ida was unveiled with what one journalcalled “rock-star hype.”43 Publicity included thisheadline in The Guardian newspaper of the Unit-ed Kingdom (UK): “Fossil Ida: Extraordinary FindIs ‘Missing Link’ in Human Evolution.”44 How-ever, just days later, the UK science journal NewScientist said: “Ida is not a ‘missing link’ in hu-man evolution.”45

Question:Why is each unveiling of a new “miss-ing link” given wide media attention, whereasthe removal of that fossil from the “family tree”is hardly mentioned?

� The term “hominid” is used to describe what evo-lutionary researchers feel make up the human family andprehistoric humanlike species.

What abouthuman evolution?

Answer: Regarding those who make thesediscoveries, Robin Derricourt, quoted earli-er, says: “The leader of a research teammay need to over-emphasize the unique-ness and drama of a ‘discovery’ in order toattract research funding from outside theconventional academic sources, and theywill certainly be encouraged in this by theprint and electronic media, looking for a dra-matic story.”46

TEXTBOOK DRAWINGSAND MODELS OF APE-MEN˛ Fact: Depictions in textbooks and mu-seums of the so-called ancestors of humansare often shown with specific facial fea-tures, skin color, and amount of hair. Thesedepictions usually show the older “ances-tors” with monkeylike features and the onessupposedly closer to humans with more hu-manlike facial features, skin tone, and hair.Question: Can scientists reliably recon-struct such features based on the fossilizedremains that they find?Answer: No. In 2003, forensics expertCarl N. Stephan, who works at the Depart-ment of Anatomical Sciences, The Universityof Adelaide, Australia, wrote: “The facesof earlier human ancestors cannot be objec-tively constructed or tested.” He says thatattempts to do so based on modern apes“are likely to be heavily biased, grossly in-accurate, and invalid.” His conclusion? “Anyfacial ‘reconstructions’ of earlier hominidsare likely to be misleading.”47

DETERMINING INTELLIGENCEBY BRAIN SIZE˛ Fact: The brain size of a presumedancestor of humans is one of the main waysby which evolutionists determine how close-ly or distantly the creature is supposed to berelated to humans.

Question: Is brain size a reliable indicator ofintelligence?Answer: No. One group of researcherswho used brain size to speculate which ex-tinct creatures were more closely relatedto man admitted that in doing so they “of-ten feel on shaky ground.”48 Why? Consid-er the statement made in 2008 in Scientif-ic American Mind: “Scientists have failedto find a correlation between absolute or rel-ative brain size and acumen among humansand other animal species. Neither have theybeen able to discern a parallel between witsand the size or existence of specific regionsof the brain, excepting perhaps Broca’sarea, which governs speech in people.”49

What do you think? Why do scientists lineup the fossils used in the “ape-to-man”chain according to brain size when it isknown that brain size is not a reliable mea-sure of intelligence? Are they forcing the ev-idence to fit their theory? And why are re-searchers constantly debating which fossilsshould be included in the human “familytree”? Could it be that the fossils they studyare just what they appear to be, extinctforms of apes?What, though, about the humanlike fossilsof the so-called Neanderthals, often por-trayed as proof that a type of ape-man exist-ed? Researchers are beginning to altertheir view of what these actually were. In2009, Milford H. Wolpoff wrote in the Amer-ican Journal of Physical Anthropology that“Neandertals may have been a true humanrace.”50

Honest observers readily recognize thategos, money, and the need for media atten-tion influence the way that “evidence” forhuman evolution is presented. Are you will-ing to put your trust in such evidence?


WHAT IS WRONGWITH THISPICTURE?

˛ Such pictures as this are based on thebiases and assumptions of researchersand artists, not on facts.51

˛ The majority of such drawings arebased on partial skulls and isolated teeth.Complete skulls, let alone completeskeletons, are rare.

˛ There is no consensus among researchersas to how the fossils of the various creaturesshould be classified.

˛ Artists cannot reliably reconstruct the facialfeatures, skin tone, and hair of these extinctcreatures.

˛ Each creature is placed in its position leading tomodern man largely because of the size of its braincase. This is done despite evidence that brain sizeis not a reliable indicator of intelligence.

4 HAS ALL LIFE DESCENDED FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR? 29


In the course of reading this brochure,were you surprised to learn that whatthe Bible says is scientifically accurate?Many people are. They are equally sur-prised to learn that the Bible does not saysome of the things that many religionsclaim that it says. Some say, for exam-ple, that the Bible teaches that God madethe universe and all life in it within six24-hour days. In fact, there is nothing inthe Bible that contradicts scientists’ vari-ous estimates on the age of the universeor the earth.�

Furthermore, the Bible’s brief out-line of how God brought life into be-ing on this planet leaves ample roomfor scientific inquiry and theory. The Bi-ble does state that God created all lifeand that living things are made “accord-ing to their kinds.” (Genesis 1:11, 21, 24)These statements may be at odds with

� For more information, see the brochure Was LifeCreated? published by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

certain scientific theories, but not withestablished scientific fact. The history ofscience shows that theories come and go;the facts remain.

There are many people, though, whohesitate to investigate the Bible becausethey are disillusioned with religion. Theylook at organized religion and see hypoc-risy, corruption, warmongering. But is itfair to judge the Bible by the behavior ofsome who claim to represent it? Manyhumane and sincere scientists have beenhorrified by the way that some violentbigots have used the evolution theory tosupport their racist aims. Would it be fairto judge the theory of evolution on thatbasis? Surely it is better to investigate thetheory’s claims and compare them withthe available evidence.

We urge you to do the same with theBible. You may be pleasantly surprised tolearn how profoundly its teachings differfrom those of most organized religions.

5IS IT REASONABLE TOBELIEVE THE BIBLE?Have you ever been misled about a person? Maybe you heard others talk abouthim or quote him. You expected to dislike him—only to find, on getting to know him,that he had been misrepresented. Many have had such an experience regardingthe Bible.

More than a few educated people take a dim view of the Bible. Can you under-stand why? That book is often represented or quoted in such a way that it soundsunreasonable, unscientific, or just plain wrong. Is it possible that the Bible hasbeen misrepresented?

Far from promoting wars and ethnic vio-lence, the Bible teaches that God’s ser-vants must repudiate war and even thehatred that leads to such violence. (Isaiah2:2-4; Matthew 5:43, 44; 26:52) Far fromadvocating fanaticism and belief withoutevidence, the Bible teaches that evidenceis essential to genuine faith and that thepower of reason is an indispensable aidto serving God. (Romans 12:1; Hebrews11:1) Far from squelching curiosity, theBible encourages us to probe some of themost fascinating and challenging ques-tions that humans have ever faced.

For example, have you ever wondered,‘If there is a God, why does he allowwickedness?’ The Bible addresses thatquestion, as well as many others, in a sat-isfying way.�We urge you to pursue yourquest for truth. You can find answers thatare fascinating, thrilling, reasonable—andbased on convincing evidence. And thatis no accident.

� See chapter 11 of the book What Does the BibleReally Teach? published by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

1. How Did Life Begin?1. How Life Began—Evolution’s ThreeGeneses, by Alexandre Meinesz, translat-ed by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.a. Life Itself—Its Origin and Nature, byFrancis Crick, 1981, pp. 15-16, 141-153.2. Scientific American, “A Simpler Originfor Life,” by Robert Shapiro, June 2007,p. 48.a. The New York Times, “A Leading Mys-tery of Life’s Origins Is SeeminglySolved,” by Nicholas Wade, May 14,2009, p. A23.3. Scientific American, June 2007, p. 48.4. Scientific American, June 2007, pp. 47,49-50.5. Information Theory, Evolution, and theOrigin of Life, by Hubert P. Yockey,2005, p. 182.

6. NASA’s Astrobiology Magazine,“Life’s Working Definition—DoesIt Work?” (http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/life’s�working�definition.html),accessed 3/17/2009.

2. Is Any Form of Life ReallySimple?7. Princeton Weekly Bulletin, “Nuts, Boltsof Who We Are,” by Steven Schultz,May 1, 2000, (http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/00/0501/p/brain.shtml), accessed3/27/2009.a. “The Nobel Prize in Physiology orMedicine 2002,” Press Release, Octo-ber 7, 2002, (http://nobelprize.org/nobel�prizes/medicine/laureates/2002/press.html), accessed 3/27/2009.8. “The Nobel Prize in Physiology orMedicine 2002,” October 7, 2002.

9. Encyclopædia Britannica, CD 2003,“Cell,” “The Mitochondrion and theChloroplast,” subhead, “The Endosym-biont Hypothesis.”10. How Life Began—Evolution’s ThreeGeneses, p. 32.11. Molecular Biology of the Cell, SecondEdition, by Bruce Alberts et al, 1989,p. 405.12. Molecular Human Reproduction,“The Role of Proteomics in Definingthe Human Embryonic Secretome,”by M. G. Katz-Jaffe, S. McReynolds,D. K. Gardner, and W. B. Schoolcraft,2009, p. 271.13. Between Necessity and Probability:Searching for the Definition and Originof Life, by Radu Popa, 2004, p. 129.14. Between Necessity and Probability:Searching for the Definition and Originof Life, pp. 126-127.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

lf-E

20

05

01

(Box) How Fast Can a CellReproduce?15. Origin of Mitochondria and Hydro-genosomes, by William F. Martin andMiklos Muller, 2007, p. 21.16. Brain Matters—Translating ResearchInto Classroom Practice, by Pat Wolfe,2001, p. 16.

3. Where Did the InstructionsCome From?17. Research News Berkeley Lab, (http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/LSD-molecular-DNA.html), article:“Molecular DNA Switch Found to Bethe Same for All Life,” contact: LynnYarris, p. 1 of 4; accessed 2/10/2009.18. Life Script, by Nicholas Wade, 2001,p. 79.19. Bioinformatics Methods in ClinicalResearch, edited by Rune Matthiesen,2010, p. 49.20. Scientific American, “ComputingWith DNA,” by Leonard M. Adleman,August 1998, p. 61.21. Nano Letters, “Enumeration of DNAMolecules Bound to a NanomechanicalOscillator,” by B. Ilic, Y. Yang, K. Au-bin, R. Reichenbach, S. Krylov, andH. G. Craighead, Vol. 5, No. 5, 2005,pp. 925, 929.22. Genome—The Autobiography of aSpecies in 23 Chapters, by Matt Ridley,1999, pp. 7-8.23. Essential Cell Biology, Second Edi-tion, by Bruce Alberts, Dennis Bray,Karen Hopkin, Alexander Johnson,Julian Lewis, Martin Raff, Keith Rob-erts, and Peter Walter, 2004, p. 201.24. Molecular Biology of the Cell, FourthEdition, by Bruce Alberts et al, 2002,p. 258.25. No Ordinary Genius—The IllustratedRichard Feynman, edited by ChristopherSykes, 1994, photo with no page numbersupplied; note caption.a. New Scientist, “Second Genesis—Life, but Not As We Know It,” byBob Holmes, March 11, 2009, (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126990.100) accessed 3/11/2009.26. The Search for Extraterrestrial Intel-ligence—A Philosophical Inquiry, by DavidLamb, 2001, p. 83.

27. Associated Press Newswires, “Fa-mous Atheist Now Believes in God,” byRichard N. Ostling, December 9, 2004.

(Box) A Molecule That Can BeRead and Copied28. Intelligent Life in the Universe, SecondEdition, by Peter Ulmschneider, 2006,p. 125.

4. Has All Life Descended Froma Common Ancestor?29. Biology and Philosophy, “The Con-cept of Monophyly: A Speculative Es-say,” by Malcolm S. Gordon, 1999,p. 335.30. New Scientist, “Uprooting Darwin’sTree,” by Graham Lawton, January 24,2009, p. 34.31. New Scientist, January 24, 2009,pp. 37, 39.32. Field Museum of Natural HistoryBulletin, “Conflicts Between Darwinand Paleontology,” by David M. Raup,January 1979, p. 23.33. Archaeology, “The Origin ofForm Was Abrupt Not Gradual,”by Suzan Mazur, October 11, 2008,(www.archaeology.org/online/interviews/newman.html),accessed 2/23/2009.34. In Search of Deep Time—Beyond theFossil Record to a New History of Life,by Henry Gee, 1999, p. 23.35. Biology and Philosophy, p. 340.36. National Geographic, “Fossil Evi-dence,” November 2004, p. 25.37. The Evolutionists—The Struggle forDarwin’s Soul, by Richard Morris, 2001,pp. 104-105.

(Box) What About HumanEvolution?38. The Human Lineage, by Matt Cart-mill and Fred H. Smith, 2009, Preface,p. xi.39. Fossils, Teeth and Sex—New Per-spectives on Human Evolution, by CharlesE. Oxnard, 1987, Preface, pp. xi, xii.a. From Lucy to Language, by Donald Jo-hanson and Blake Edgar, 1996, p. 22.b. Anthropologie, XLII/1, “Palaeodemog-raphy and Dental Microwear of HomoHabilis From East Africa,” by Laura M.Martınez, Jordi Galbany, and AlejandroPerez-Perez, 2004, p. 53.

c. In Search of Deep Time—Beyond theFossil Record to a New History of Life,p. 22.40. Critique of Anthropology, Vol-ume 29(2), “Patenting Hominins—Tax-onomies, Fossils and Egos,” by RobinDerricourt, 2009, pp. 195-196, 198.41. Nature, “A New Species of GreatApe From the Late Miocene Epoch inEthiopia,” by Gen Suwa, Reiko T. Kono,Shigehiro Katoh, Berhane Asfaw,and Yonas Beyene, August 23, 2007,p. 921.42. Acta Biologica Szegediensis, Vol-ume 46(1-2), “New Findings—New Prob-lems in Classification of Hominids,”by Gyula Gyenis, 2002, pp. 57, 59.43. New Scientist, “A Fine Fossil—But aMissing Link She’s Not,” by Chris Bead,May 30, 2009, p. 18.44. The Guardian, London, “FossilIda: Extraordinary Find Is ‘Missing Link’in Human Evolution,” by James Rander-son, May 19, 2009, (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/19/ida-fossil-missing-link),accessed 8/25/2009.45. New Scientist, May 30, 2009,pp. 18-19.46. Critique of Anthropology, Vol-ume 29(2), p. 202.47. Science and Justice, Vol. 43,No. 4, (2003) section, Forensic Anthro-pology, “Anthropological Facial ‘Recon-struction’—Recognizing the Fallacies,‘Unembracing’ the Errors, and RealizingMethod Limits,” by C. N. Stephan,p. 195.48. The Human Fossil Record—VolumeThree, by Ralph L. Holloway, Douglas C.Broadfield, and Michael S. Yuan, 2004,Preface xvi.49. Scientific American Mind, “Intelli-gence Evolved,” by Ursula Dicke andGerhard Roth, August/September 2008,p. 72.50. American Journal of Physical Anthro-pology, “How Neandertals Inform Hu-man Variation,” by Milford H. Wolpoff,2009, p. 91.51. Conceptual Issues in Human ModernOrigins Research, Editors G. A. Clarkand C. M. Willermet, 1997, pp. 5, 60.a. Wonderful Life—The Burgess Shale andthe Nature of History, by Stephen JayGould, 1989, p. 28.

For more information, visit www.jw.org or contact Jehovah’s Witnesses.

s

http://www.jw.org/finder?wtlocale=E&srcid=pdf

the origin of life five questions worth asking

Documents