DNA and life

Not open for further replies.

Thread Starter


Joined Sep 14, 2008
Around 1953, Miller and Urey mixed methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor and applied electric discharge to simulate lightning. The products were found to contain a few amino acids, which are individual links of long chain polymers called proteins, which are important in our bodies. Amino acids are normal every day chemicals. Even unto this day, there is no known process that has ever converted amino acids into a life form.
An assumption would be that even if we have enough amino acids “building blocks” life would still not result. Amino acids maybe the building blocks of proteins, and proteins are necessary for life, but that does not mean that amino acids are the building blocks of life as much as all the parts in the store will produce a functioning machine, there must be present all the correct parts as well as a skilful assembler.

But one often wonders, why there has been more than 50 years of debates on this issue than discussion of the facts. The realization is that discussion of the facts would inevitably led to a discussion of the subject of chirality, which is one fact some people do not even want to discuss.

Chirality is a chemical word that means handedness. Something that is a mirror image of another, your hands demonstrate chirality, your right and left hands are a mirror image of each other, hence the term handedness. Two chemical molecules may appear identical but in reality they are only mirror images of each other. Therefore chirality can exist as a right-handed or left-handed molecule and each is called an optical isomer.

It is chirality that provides the unique 3D shape for proteins and DNA, and without chirality, the biochemical processes in our bodies would not do their job.
When a random chemical reaction is used to prepare molecules having chirality, there is an equal opportunity to prepare the left-handed isomer as well as the right-handed isomer. 50/50 chance.
Up to date, all the amino acids that formed in the lab lacked chirality, including the amino acids of Miller and Urey. That points to a catastrophic failure that "life" cannot come from chemicals by natural processes contrary to a newspaper headline around 1953 “Life in a test tube”.
Proteins are polymers of amino acids and each one of the component amino acids exists as the "L" or left-handed optical isomer. Even though the "R" or right-handed optical isomers can be synthesized in the lab, this isomer does not exist in natural proteins.

The DNA molecule is made up of billions of complicated chemical molecules called nucleotides, and these nucleotide molecules exist as the "R" or right-handed optical isomer. The "L" isomer of nucleotides can be prepared in the lab, but they do not exist in natural DNA. There is no way that a random chance process could have formed these proteins and DNA with their unique chirality.
If proteins and DNA were formed by chance, each and every one of the components would be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. This is not what we see in natural proteins or in natural DNA.

As nucleotide molecules come together to form the structure of DNA, they develop a twist that forms the double helix structure of DNA. DNA develops a twist in the chain because each component contains chirality or handedness. It is this handedness that gives DNA the spiral shaped helical structure. If one molecule in the DNA structure had the wrong chirality, DNA would not exist in the double helix form, and DNA would not function properly.
The entire replication process would be derailed like a train on bad railroad tracks. In order for DNA evolution to work, billions of molecules within our body would have to be generated with the "R" configuration all at the same time, without error. If it is impossible for one nucleotide to be formed in the lab with chirality, how much less likely would it be for billions of nucleotides to come together exactly at the same time, and all of them be formed with the same chirality? If evolution cannot provide a mechanism that forms one product with chirality, how can it explain the formation of two products of opposite chirality?
Last edited:


Joined Jul 3, 2008

... even if we have enough amino acids “building blocks” life would still not result ...

... "life" cannot come from chemicals by natural processes ...

... There is no way that a random chance process could have formed these proteins and DNA with their unique chirality ...

... it is impossible for one nucleotide to be formed in the lab with chirality ...

... evolution cannot provide a mechanism that forms one product with chirality ...

Unproven statements offered as absolute truths without evidence do not make for good scientific arguments. They don't even make for good religious arguments because religion requires no factual proof, but needs only faith.

Trying to shroud religious beliefs within a veneer of scientific jargon is always very transparent.
Last edited:


Joined Mar 24, 2008
Yeah, I've closed one thread from this OP because it was trying to argue creationism. I'll let this one go (like the last) to see where it goes.

The problem with faith is facts don't matter, if they do it probably isn't faith any more.

The two topics we keep a firm grip on here at AAC is politics and religion, neither is really welcome here.


Joined Jul 9, 2011
I personally think it is an interesting subject. Here is just not the right place to discuss it.

Have a look here:

This will be an eternal discussion, since no side can actually PROVE anything. Trying to explain logically either theories is impossible.

At some point in life everybody may have had these questions, but they don't lead anywhere. Believe in what makes sense to you.


Joined Dec 26, 2010
In my opinion it would be better to have this out in a venue where there are no restrictions in the way of discussing it fully, stating openly the reasons behind taking a particular point of view. It seems less than honest to present an argument of this kind dressed up as science, even more so when some of the assumptions stated cannot be relied upon.

What we have here is a put-up job, where the OP has decided on a sequence of events that "has to have happened" for life to have developed, and then has constructed an argument to convince us that this could not have happened. This in turn relies on carefully chosen assumptions given as facts, but which are in reality no more than statements of the OP's opinion.

It is interesting to note that for instance we cannot assume the impossibility of any outcome of random processes having taken place in history, merely because we think that it has a very low probability. Should not such an argument seem even less convincing to anyone who believes in the idea of a controlling agency in the universe, who might possibly have intervened in the way that the dice have fallen?

Actually, I think that bad scientific arguments advanced in the name of religion may harm the cause of evangelism. Anyone wanting to share their beliefs with others would do well to choose their material more carefully.

I regret that it is not possible to state my own beliefs here, beyond pointing out that I would not welcome an avalanche of correspondence designed to save me from atheism. I may be rather slow to reply to any such messages, particularly if they arrive before mid-day on a Sunday.


Joined Nov 25, 2009
The conversation is hosted in the Offtopic section, anyway. At no time during its course AAC considered it to have scientific ground.

If however it evolves into a debate about religious beliefs it will be closed.

I too, often, feel an itch to express my religious and political beliefs in AAC, but I have seen too many forums degrade into a mud pit because of such talks, to allow it to happen here.
Unfortunately, we know each other too well to fight over religion one day and agree on electronic safety on the next one.

Thread Starter


Joined Sep 14, 2008
If you continue like this there will be consequences... You've got it wrong my friend. ....
It is clear that some people get offended because a certain theory is being scrutinized.

DNA is a sophisticated language system. Its letters/words with meaning unrelated to it chemical properties like the information on this web page is not a product of the screen pixels. A coding system with huge amount of information.

Basic laws of information technology indicates that information must be traced to "originated in" a mind. Questions:
Does evolution have a mind?
It so, how does "he/she" explain how such information coding system came about let along the information itself?
if no, then why is it taught in science classes?

Is this too much to ask off a theory being taught in our class rooms to our children?

No religion. No soapbox trying to evangelize. Simple questions with out logical answers?
If my questions "previous posts" are being misunderstood/closed as such explained by the supper moderator. This will be my LAST post about these "hot button" topics.


Joined Jul 3, 2008
Basic laws of information technology indicates that information must be traced to "originated in" a mind.
Another false statement.

Personally I'm not offended by what you say, but i object to fallacy offered as truth on the general grounds that it does nothing useful, other than reveal your unsophisticated way of thinking.


Joined Mar 24, 2008
Personally I am not offended by your fallacious arguments, but you are trying to argue creationism. This is a religious point of view, not a scientific one. No amount of trying to decorate it with science will make it so.

When it comes to religion people kill each other over what is to others are minor differences in point of view. All religions have done this, though the people doing this are fanatics and do not represent their neighbors point of view.

For this reason AAC will not allow these kind of discussions.

Since this was your last word, and since you have linked your arguments to another closed thread, I think this thread is also done.

Merry Christmas.
Not open for further replies.