A recent study out of Germany has raised a few eyebrows in the origin of life community. The study, from a university in Munich, is claiming that the componentry of DNA could have arisen millions of years before they had previously thought. However, digging into the study, reveals some very startling disparities between the claims, and the facts. This article will discuss the troubling issues in this article and how it affects the discussion of origins.
There are two common ways to approach the origin of life problem. One is a sort of top-down approach, while the other is a sort of bottom-up view of origins. One starts from basic chemicals and attempts to mix them to create “life in a test tube”. This method followed the other method and took existing parts of the DNA strand and modified them to see if they would still work in a “simpler” form. The researchers assume that if the “simpler” DNA pieces still work, then that must have been the path DNA followed to get to its functional state.
The essence of this experiment had to do with the sugar backbone of the DNA strand. In normal DNA, the backbone is composed of deoxyribose. Deoxyribose is the sugar ribose with a single oxygen molecule removed. This study used a different sugar. This sugar was attached to a preformed nucleotide base. While the article does not explicitly state which sugar was used, the fact that the comparison is made between DNA and RNA leads me to suspect that they are referencing ribose. The full paper is regrettably unavailable yet.
One other feature of this paper is the formation of the special nucleotides, not found in normal DNA. These nucleotides were derivatives of the normal nucleotides, the pyrimidines, and the purines. They were derived using acetylaldehydes. The acetylaldehydes reacted to form the new purines and pyrimidines.
There are huge problems with this study just based on the limited information available. The first one is the study is going the wrong direction. Making existing structures somewhat worse or damaged does nothing to illustrate how they developed. In fact, all it demonstrates is that the existing structure had to arise through a mechanism that did not involve the slightly broken structures created by the experiment. This experiment did nothing to show how DNA could arise. All it did was demonstrate the DNA could be broken down.
Going even further, creating this new DNA strand does not happen organically. It requires pre existing nucleotide bases and pre existing sugars. This study does not demonstrate how either of those components evolved, which they must have done in the atheistic worldview of the evolutionist. Without these pre existing peoples, this study does not work, and provides not explanation for anything.
Worse for the evolutionists is the mechanism they chose to break down the DNA strand. Acetylaldehyde is a very interesting chemical compound, which has the structure C<sub>2</sub>OH<sub>4</sub>. The structure has numerous negative effects. It is a carcinogen in the intestinal tract, and it is also toxic. In other words, the mechanism the evolutionists use to generate their new DNA structures is toxic to life. Toxicicity is not the ideal trait for forming the first life.
Unfortunately, this study illustrates the issue with a lot of origin of life work, particularly in the chemistry. While I do not agree with everything Dr. James Tour says, Tour is right when he says that origin of life research has not advanced in decades. The evolutionists wheels are spinning on this topic. They have no explanation for the existance of complex molecules like DNA, or really even RNA. Further, in the prebiotic soup world which supposedly evolved DNA and RNA, the water would have rapidly degraded both the DNA and RNA, most likely before they could replicate or be copied. The evolutionists like to claim the origin of life is a simple problem. It is not. It is actually one of the most complicated problems for the evolutionists in science. This explains the hesitance of most evolutionists to even discuss the origin of life. They have no answers, therefore they do not want to discuss it. This study, like all others released to date, provides not evidence for the origin of life. All it does is prove that DNA can be damaged.