Evolutionists have long sought to prove evolution. But one of the biggest hurdles to evolution is the Law of Biogenesis, whereby life only comes from life. Evolutionists, however, dance around this issue by denying that evolution has anything to do with the origin of life. But while that’s debatable, the next problem arises once we have the first living organism. Can that organism could account for all the novel living things we see today, such as fungi, trees, insects, birds, fish, mammals, and man?

Consider, how could a DNA code be self-assembled by nature, then replicated, improved upon, optimized, and produce novel, structural changes, like limbs, lungs, eyes, bones, blood, etc.? Keep in mind that DNA is the most sophisticated computer program ever written, and this digital code is embedded in every living organism with specific instructions for building the organism and its parts.

Stephen Meyer, a former geophysicist and college professor, recently spoke at the 2024 Dallas Conference for Science and Faith, and he demonstrated how none of this can happen by evolutionary mechanisms, such as mutations and natural selection.

If we think back to our high school science class, Dr. Meyer reintroduces us to the basic building blocks of life, such as amino acids and proteins. Proteins are constructed from the instructions coded in DNA. It was Watson and Crick who discovered the DNA molecule, which consists of nucleotide bases that act like letters on a page (or zeroes and ones in software). DNA forwards the information to an area of the cell which acts like a manufacturing center, assembling the proteins, step-by-step, one amino acid at a time.

Once constructed, proteins perform all the important jobs in a cell: they catalyze important reactions at incredibly high rates, process information, and build physical structures for molecular machines. Proteins are made up of amino acids, which are complex, organic molecules. When linked together in specific patterns, amino acids exert forces on one another in such a way that it causes the whole chain to fold into a very specific, distinctive 3-dimensional shape. And its these shapes that refute evolution.

Meyer explains there are many ways amino acids could fold (or not fold), but if they’re folded into the right shape, then they become useful in doing specified jobs, just like a carpenter uses certain tools (screwdrivers, pliers, wrench, saw, etc.) to construct a house.

Understanding this complex process helps explain why evolution isn’t feasible. Evolutionists contend that DNA can gradually be changed if function is maintained along the way. They believe nature selects for functional advantage, which could be preserved and passed on to offspring. But if the function is lost, then the changes won’t be preserved or passed along, and eventually extinction occurs.

While we can observe this happening within the genus or family level, we don’t see this happening at higher levels. For instance, Meyer points to the Cambrian explosion as an example. According to the fossil record, he says, “When we see the abrupt appearance of new form, whether it’s the first life or new forms of life in the history of life as preserved in the fossil record (Cambrian Explosion)… the pattern in the fossil record does not match the tree-like pattern Darwin expected to find. We do not find a gradual transition as expected if all life evolved from a common ancestor. But that’s not the biggest problem. Not only do we have missing fossils, but we have the mystery of how to build an animal.”

Building an animal is a big problem for evolution, particularly when it comes to a great amount of morphological innovation. And that’s because new biological forms demand a lot of new information. Like a computer, if you want new function, then new code is required. In the same way, the earliest fish found in the fossil record appears abruptly, without any ancestor. Therefore, in order for evolution to be true, new cell types that never existed would be required. All the new cell types that suddenly burst on the scene would require new proteins built by the DNA code in order to build a new body plan. If the genetic information was non-existent, where did it come from, and how did it originate?

Once we understand the problem, then we can begin to see exactly how evolution has been refuted. It’s the unique, 3-D shape of the protein that matters, and if it isn’t shaped correctly, then function is lost. These shapes are called “folds,” and they create structure and function. Therefore, evolution requires new, non-existent, innovative protein folds in order to produce new structures and body plans. But if nature provides no mechanism for all this to occur, then evolution has big problems.

So, if evolution can’t explain where these folds came from, what can?

The solution, according to Meyer, rests in common sense. If we consider computer programming and ask where does the coding come from, we would accurately attribute the information to a mind, or a programmer. It would never occur to anyone that the laws of nature could produce a usable computer program. So why would anyone suggest that nature is capable of creating a computer code far more complex than anything humans have developed?

Interestingly, according to Henry Quastler, an information theorist, “The creation of new information is habitually associated with conscious activity.” Again, this is common sense. We know from our own experience that nature is incapable of producing information. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that a conscious mind is responsible for producing the information found at the molecular level.

Meyer makes it clear: “Whenever we see information and trace it back to its source (computer program, paragraph in a book, hieroglyphics, radio signal, etc.), we always come to a mind, not an undirected, material process… The information found in life… suggests the activity of a designing intelligence in the origin and history of life on earth.”

Not only can we deduce intelligence from design, but there’s experimental evidence as well. As it turns out, the possible number of functional sequences among all possible combinations of amino acids is staggering… 10 to the 77^th. With so many ways of sequencing amino acids, and any useful sequence being rare, evolution lacks any plausible mechanism. Nor does it have enough time to make it happen. Meyer reminds us that natural selection is not creative… it can only select information that’s available.

Lastly, the protein folds are highly isolated, meaning there’s no pathway for one sequence to result in another usable sequence. All the experiments done in this arena confirm this.

Evolution simply fails to fulfil any of the promises proposed by evolutionists when it comes to the origin of life, or the origin of new information. Intelligent Design, however, does offer predictable results and meaningful explanations. Life was designed by God, and this is apparent from what we observe.