DNA – The Language For Life

Iinformational Language For Life

December 5, 2015

Could DNA Emerge Through Purely Naturalistic Processes?

The general theory of evolution theorizes an ancient primordial “soup” (body of water) over eons of time, randomly, using non-living chemical compounds, self-assembled the first living cell. In this first living cell, not only did it come to life from non-life, it also must have contained DNA.  DNA is the informational blueprints required for any living organism to function and ultimately reproduce itself.  DNA is information.

Just like a piece of paper with a story printed on it, the information is not the sum of the paper and the ink (the media) it is the received message or what is gained upon communication that is the information. This is also the way DNA functions—the structure is the media but life is orchestrated by information. How this incredible amount of information could have occurred randomly simply cannot be explained in any rational way, therefore it is ignored by most scientific textbook or it is explained away in “just so” stories.  Scientists today acknowledge that the answer to how life first emerged on earth remains unknown.

Diana Northup of the University of New Mexico said “Many theories of the origin of life have been proposed, but since it is hard to prove or disprove then, no fully accepted theory exists”1.

Some have grasped at the idea perhaps a meteor or comet seeded the earth providing the ingredients for life. Or perhaps the abundant chemical compounds needed were already on earth.  Or even more outrageous, perhaps aliens started life on earth.

Could DNA form via random chance?

The evolutionary thought that DNA could have come about through random chance is mathematically impossible, logically unfeasible, and scientifically unobservable. Consider each strand of human DNA measuring about 69 inches long and consisting of over 3.2 billion base pair elements2. The information contained in this coded language would take a person that could type 60 words per minute (with absolute accuracy) at 8 hours a day about 50 years to complete. This is the language of only one single strand of DNA2. The result would fill over 200 phone directories in small font and the stack of papers would climb over 60 feet tall.

This is only the language medium within the DNA strand, the information still needs to be conveyed, translated, and executed by the cell. Letters in the DNA sequence represent a language of communication and ultimately information for each cell function. Every human has approximately 100 trillion cells in their bodies. These cells are controlled by DNA which provides the information which self-modifies, self-manufacturers, self-diagnosis, self-repairs, self-programs (reads and writes), and self-corrects reproduction errors. Scientists estimate that humans produce up to 100,000 different proteins within our cells2 and all this complexity comes from DNA. There is nothing in the known universe more complex than DNA.

Other Arguments

  1. The ingredients thought to be required for life are amino acids which have been called “the building blocks of life”. However, amino acids are non-living chemical compounds. While they have been shown to form outside of living organisms in rare and specialized experimentation such as the Miller-Urey experiment, living organisms transform amino acids (from within the living cell) into proteins. Proteins are used by cells for all manner of life and function including reproduction. Don’t let this pass unnoticed: science knows that only a living organism can modify amino acids into proteins.
  2. Science shows that amino acids formed in water as in the Miller-Urey5 experiment are destroyed by that same water if the structure is not immediately removed from the liquid and oxygen. The paradox is water as a medium is required for amino acid formation but the water itself will destroy amino acids6. Cells, through information provided by DNA, use and self-produce amino acids to form proteins for use within the living cells of the organism.
  3. Amino acid structures fare either “left handed” or “right handed” in how their shaped atomically. Living organisms only use “left handed” amino acids and these are not observed outside the living cell6 as found in the Miller-Urey experiment.
  4. Evolutionary tree of life implies that more complex life forms evolved from lower life forms, therefore more complex life forms would have more complex DNA. Humans (we all agree we are very complex), cows, rabbits, and even the lowly field mouse each have similar genome sizes of about 3 billion each3. The salamander has about 50 billion3. The marbled lung fish has a huge genome of 139 billion3. Even a certain flowering plant (Fritillaria Assyrianca) has a genome of 124.9 billion3 and it is a plant! These findings shatter the idea that over time evolution sequentially adds information and complexity through DNA as organisms “evolve” from “simpler life forms” to more complex life forms.
  5. Textbook’s in the recent past referred to human “races”. Race was defined to mean “type” 9, so what “type” of human are you? Some humans were considered less evolved from one to the other. Of course scientists theorized that “white” Europeans were the most “evolved” while some aborigines or African “bushmen” were perhaps more ape then human10. However, the cultural morals and ultimately the human genome project completed in 2003 finally buried these false beliefs once and for all. DNA mapping determined that all humans are of the same race: the human race. It was just as the bible has said all along we are all “one blood” (Acts 17:26). In fact, 99.8% of every human’s DNA is identical to all other humans. It is estimated that of the 0.2% difference between humans, only about 0.12% (one twelfth of one percent) are attributed to what was once attributed to “race” such as eye color, skin tone, hair color, etc4.
  6. Oxygen is not a friend of chemical evolution or amino acid formation. Oxygen inhibits formation of chemical compounds including amino acids6 and many others. Therefore, oxygen is required to form water but its presence destroys amino acids. Evolutionists cannot have water without oxygen. Amino acids cannot form without water, yet amino acid structure formation is inhibited by oxygen6.
  7. The amino acid assembly problem is complicated also by the many types of chemical bonds required in the structure. To form polypeptide chains requires restricting the links to only peptide bonds, and only in the correct locations. All other bonds must be prevented from being formed, no easy task to say the least. In living cells, a complex control system involving enzymes exists to ensure that inappropriate bonds do not normally occur; without this system, these inappropriate bonds would destroy the structures produced6.
  8. The basic structure of Hemoglobin consists of 574 elements: Glycine, Alanine, Serine, (20 different amino acids), etc. The chance of these forming randomly has been estimated to be 1 in 10-650. To comprehend how small this number is, in a 15-billion-year old universe (as many scientists claim we have today) there have been only 1018 seconds in the entire history of the universe. This number is about the same as winning the power ball lottery every day for 90 consecutive days. Anything that reaches beyond 10-50 is considered a mathematical impossibility so at 10-650 this is much worse for evolutionists then being a simple mathematical impossibility.
  9. The term “junk DNA” was originally coined by Susumu Ohno in 1972. Viewing DNA with the concepts of the general theory of evolution, he thought DNA function would gather useless baggage or “garbage” through the eons of evolution11. Today it is recognized that his was a huge blunder by any scientist making such statements. Scientists today acknowledge that we have only a very limited understanding of DNA and its function. An Oxford study found “DNA function is at least 92% active in some way in the body”12. Most original research was surrounding protein synthesis which only represents about 2% of overall DNA function currently understood.11


There are two possible conclusions regarding the origin of DNA (and ultimately life itself): either “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen1:1). God’s creation was from nothing “bara” in the Greek. Or, from a purely naturalistic perspective of evolution, “in the beginning there was nothing and then it exploded”. Then, from this explosion of nothing, everything self-organized randomly and through billions of years’ life emerged. Evolutionists have the age old “what came first the chicken or the egg” dilemma on many fronts:

  1. For proteins to exist you need amino acids as building blocks, however, proteins are only formed within a living cell from amino acids.
  2. For amino acids to form outside a living cell it is believe water as a medium is required. Amino acids cannot form without water yet paradoxically they cannot retain their structure within water.
  3. Amino acid structures are either “left handed” or “right handed” in how their shaped atomically. Living organisms only use “left handed” amino acids and these are not observed outside the living cell6.
  4. Oxygen is not a friend of chemical evolution6 or amino acid formation. Oxygen inhibits formation of chemical compounds including amino acids6.

The idea that DNA formed through random chance is mathematically nonsensical and impossible. The concept of life forming from non-life violates all known scientific laws including the law of biogenesis which states life can only come from life. Evolution cannot answer of the origin of DNA structure let alone the immense information in which it contains to sustain life and reproduction of living organisms.

General Facts

DNA stands for “deoxyribonucleic acid”.

  • Friedrich Miescher discovered DNA in 1869, although scientists did not understand DNA was the genetic material in cells until 1943. Prior to that time, it was widely believed that proteins stored genetic information.
  • On February 28, 1953, Francis Crick and James Watson figured out the structure of DNA. That structure, as a ‘double helix’, which the cell can “unzip” (separate into two long strands) to make copies of itself.
  • In April 2003, the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) celebrated the completion of the human genome sequence on the 50th anniversary since the Francis Crick and James Watson’s discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953.
  • For humans, the entire DNA sequence is contained inside every cell with one exception: red blood cells. Red blood cells do not contain DNA—it is thought this is as a protection design so red blood do not get viruses.
  • If DNA was unraveled from all the cells of a single human being and laid end to end, the strands would stretch from the Earth to the Sun hundreds of times. The sun is approximately 98 million miles away from Earth.
  • Genes are made of DNA. Genes contain hereditary information which are passed from parent to offspring.
  • A human chromosome contains about 1,000 genes.
  • On average, each human chromosome has about 65 million DNA molecules.
  • Current estimates have the genes found in the human genome number between 20,000 and 25,000.


  1. The first assumed living organisms are called “stromatolites” found in Australia1 which are considered to be 3.4 billion years old which are still living today1.
  2. Richard Dawkins an enthusiastic atheist says in his book “The God Delusion” that considering the universe has perhaps a billion, billion planets the idea of the mathematical chances of life emerging on at least one of them is not really so remarkable1.
  3. Although widely heralded by the popular press for decades as ‘proof’ that life originated on the early earth entirely by natural conditions, the Miller–Urey experiments have actually provided compelling evidence for exactly the opposite conclusion. This set of experiments—more than almost any other carried out by modern science—has done much more to show that abiogenesis is not possible on Earth than to indicate how it could be possible.” 6 This is due to the many paradoxes vividly illustrated while attempting to get chemical structures into amino acids and ultimately proteins as to form the first living cell. The experiment, when viewed in total, reveals the challenges of getting life from non-life processes and does not answer any questions.
  4. A quote from an evolutionist: “When confronted with this evidence (problems with chemical evolution), supporters of abiogenesis argue that science must be naturalistic, and we have no choice but to tell the best story we have, even if it is not a complete or even accurate story.7


1) “Greatest Mysteries: How Did Life Arise on Earth?”, Ker Than, Aug 2007, livescience, http://www.livescience.com/1804-greatest-mysteries-life-arise-earth.html
2) “Inside Life Science”, Chelsea Toledo & Kirstie Saltsman, June 2012, National Institute of General Medical Sciences. http://publications.nigms.nih.gov/insidelifescience/genetics-numbers.html
3) “Sizes of Various Genomes”, John Walker, FourmiLab, ftp://www.fourmilab.ch/web/goldberg/sizes.html
4) “One Blood”, Ken Ham, Jan 2009, https://answersingenesis.org/racism/one-blood/
5) “Windows to the Universe: The Miller Urey Experiment”, National Earth Science Teachers Association, http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Life/miller_urey.html
6) “Why the Miller-Urey research argues against abiogenesis”, Jerry Bergman, Aug 2002, Creation Magazine, http://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis
7) “Reason in the Balance; The Case Against Naturalism in Science”, Johnson, P., 1995 Law and Education, InterVarsity Press.
8) “Study of Genesis”, Chuck Missler, Koinonia House, Idaho ISBN 1-57821-252-9.
9) “Evolution and the Origin of Races” Eugenie C Scott, December 2000, National Center for Science Education http://ncse.com/evolution/science/evolution-origin-races
10) “Race—The Power of an Illusion” Audrey Smedley, November 1997, PBS, http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-02-09.htm
11) “The Origin of the Term ‘Junk DNA’: A Historical Whodunnit”, Dan Starling, http://judgestarling.tumblr.com/post/64504735261/the-origin-of-the-term-junk-dna-a-historical
12) “Less than 10% of human DNA has functional role, claim scientists”, Ian Sample, July 2014, The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jul/24/10-percent-human-dna-functional-genome-biological-baggage

Leave Comment