Author Archive
Paperback / $5.00 / 24 Pages / Full colour
Written for kids 3-10, this booklet offers photographs of Earth and space taken by Col. Jeffrey Williams
during his time in the ISS. The accompanying text provides simple sentences and Bible verses that
highlight the gospel message and God’s awesome creation.
Hardcover / $35.00 / 176 Pages / Full colour
The author describes his six-month tour of duty in the International Space Station in 2006. We learn the
story of Expedition 13 from his perspective as flight engineer. The pictures which he took from the ISS
give us a front row seat on the view below. Enjoy his interesting text and numerous pictures of specific locations on Earth. In this context, Col Williams declares that space itself demonstrates the greatness
and power of God.
The recent death of Dr. John Morris of ICR brings to mind the occasion when he collaborated with Rev. Edward Crawford of Edmonton to travel to Mount Ararat.
On a stormy night at the end of February, 1976 Edward Crawford and more than three thousand other Edmontonians crowded into Jubilee Auditorium to hear John Morris, Field Director of the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego. Morris’ update on the status of expeditions to Mount Ararat included a number of slides. Mr. Crawford however saw something that others missed. He saw an inscription on a boulder on Mount Ararat. He recognized some of the characters as ancient proto-Sumerian. What was the story behind these writings? He wondered how messages came to be in such an inhospitable part of the world.
Read the rest of this entry »
It seems a long time ago, yet not a long time ago at all. In the early 1970s Alberta was poised to see a mass immigration of Canadians from other parts of the country, and later people from other parts of the world. The promise of a new prosperity lured many to the province. But ideas were changing too and the schools in the province were about to see a new emphasis on increasingly blatant humanistic and pro-evolution content, especially in science and social studies.
Read the rest of this entry »
Sometimes it takes a youngster to come up with an interesting question. The occasion was a lecture on dinosaurs, presented in Edmonton’s Provincial Museum on December 11, 1990. Following the main address by Dr. Philip Currie of the Royal Tyrrell Museum, an excited group of boy scouts was asking most of the questions. “Is it fun to look for fossils?” “How many dinosaurs has Dr. Currie found?” “What is the biggest fossil found in Alberta?” … Dr. Currie patiently fielded all the queries. Then one young boy asked “Did dinosaurs swim?” As Dr. Currie answered the question, it became evident that this really was an interesting topic.
Read the rest of this entry »
Insects! Some people give them a wide berth on principle. Nasty, creepy, crawly flying things! Even the magnificent giant moths elicit only screams from some people. But the insects under discussion are guaranteed to cause no such sensation. Initial disbelief, amazement, titillation and delight are the sensations to be expected from an encounter with these exotic “bugs”.
Among the insects, at least 800,000 species have been described. One would expect plenty of variety in life-style and shape within a class this big. Indeed, this is the case. Articles on insects are always well illustrated with exotic beetles, flies and butterflies. Among these, cicadas represent an insect family which is seldom discussed on the prairies for the simple reason they do not live there. But in eastern and central Canada and in the United States (except the northwest quarter of the country) summers in woodlands reverberate with the loud clatter, clatter of male cicadas’ courtship calls.
Read the rest of this entry »
A Reflection
It has been suggested by some people that Christians reacted poorly to the threat posed by Darwin’s book The Origin of Species. Such criticisms miss the point. Influential English society had already abandoned an orthodox Christian faith and they were more than ready for Darwin’s ideas. The situation was similar in the United States. There were no arguments which could have changed these hearers’ minds. They heard what they wanted to hear and ignored what they did not like.
Naturally the first to speak out were prominent clerics. One of the most famous defenders of the faith was Samuel Wilberforce (1805-1873) Bishop of Oxford and son of the famous William Wilberforce who campaigned so long for the emancipation of the slaves in the British Empire. The Wilberforce family was known for their devout faith. Thus in a review of Darwin’s book, Bishop Wilberforce wrote:
Read the rest of this entry »
Paperback / $6.00 / 64 Pages / Full colour
This booklet, in the Heroes of Creation Series, has lots of information about important space discoveries
made in the 16 th and 17 th centuries. The authors describe Kepler’s faith that God created the objects
which he saw in space. Especially appealing for ages 9-12.
Creation Weekend 2022 represented yet another experiment in our efforts to bring the presentations of featured speakers before a far-flung audience. Obviously live events are the ideal, when people can meet, share concerns, examine resources at first-hand, and engage the speaker in face-to-face conversation. But even online, the audience enjoys the speaker’s message and still has the opportunity to ask questions. In these uncertain times therefore, Creation Science Association of Alberta elected to provide a hybrid event.
Read the rest of this entry »
When we reflect on wonderful works of creation, our thoughts often turn to beautiful creatures like hummingbirds and butterflies. Most people do not think firstly about such issues as the electromagnetic spectrum of energy including x-rays, visible light and radiowaves. One great scientist who saw the beauty of creation in such phenomena was James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879). He was a physicist, the first professor of experimental physics at the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge University. Over the main entrance to the building, this physicist directed that Psalm 111:2 be carved in Latin: Magna opera Domini, exquisita in omnes voluntates ejus.” The English translation is “Great are the works of the Lord, studied by all who delight in them.” (ESV) When he studied these physical phenomena, Maxwell saw that they had been wonderfully designed and created by God. According to the Cambridge Dictionary of Scientists (2002) Maxwell’s summary of electromagnetism in the form of field equations is “an achievement equalled only by that of Newton and Einstein in mechanicsl” (p. 246)
Read the rest of this entry »
Book Review by Alisha Bain
Did you know that Johannes Kepler’s incredible achievements in science were influenced by his Christian faith? I learned this fact from a new book called Johannes Kepler: Exploring the Mysteries of God’s Universe by Michael Stamp and Christy Hardy. This book is in the Heroes of Creation Series and it is produced by ICR (Institute for Creation Research). This title has lots of information about space discoveries made from 1560-1630, and shares about faith and God’s creation.
This book is interesting for many different ages. I would suggest this book is especially good for anyone 9-12 years old. It has some more challenging words, but it also breaks things down and explains words or what something means with definitions throughout the book. Younger kids can read and enjoy this book too, but might need help from a parent or older sibling to understand the big or more difficult words and concepts. As well, older children can enjoy this book because it has lots of facts and cool topics such as optics findings that Kepler made that are important for us today, what Kepler discovered about ice crystals, Kepler’s 3 laws of planetary motion and more!
Read the rest of this entry »
Sea dragons (or seadragons) have long had the honor of being on the list of ugliest animals on Earth. The foot-long (from 30-to-45 centimeters) sea dragons, although classified as a fish, look like no fish an ichthyologist has ever seen. They look more like large worms with leaf appendices, a design that has baffled taxonomists and evolutionists alike ever since they were discovered over 200 years ago. This has been a major problem in not only classification, but in producing a plausible evolutionary tree. They do not fit into the category of insects and other water life, so, by default, they are classified as fish. The reason for this classification is they spend their life in water, have fin-like structures like fish to help them move, their young hatch from eggs, and they breathe by gills.[1] Aside from these traits they are very unlike fish.
Read the rest of this entry »
Since the 1960s, biologists have understood that the shape of a protein is essential to its function. The molecular machines which are so important to the functioning of the living cell, are made up of precisely shaped proteins. And the shape is genetically controlled by the sequence of nucleotides in the DNA of the cell. What has concerned some scientists recently however is that there are proteins with similar shapes but the controlling nucleotide sequences are very different. Could a DNA sequence change but the protein shape remain the same? This is the evolutionary explanation that some scientists are promoting.
Read the rest of this entry »FEATURED BOOKS AND DVDS
Paperback / $5.00 / 24 Pages / Full colour
Where did the right amino acids come from?
All those spectacular molecular machines, which confer precision and efficiency on the living cell, are made up of proteins. The precise shapes of proteins come from their component amino acids. These latter small molecules vary greatly in their chemical characteristics. Moreover, the order in which the amino acids are attached together determines how the proteins fold into the correct shapes.
It turns out that the amino acids themselves are hard to synthesize and that only a very particular twenty, of hundreds of possible candidates, are suitable as a component of proteins. Could the correct amino acids have appeared in the environment before the living cell existed? Origin of life specialists like to think so. A recent paper out of Europe discussed this very issue. [Andreas Kirschning. 2022. On the evolutionary history of the twenty encoded amino acids. Chemistry Europe Journal. E202201419 ]
Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins and without proteins there are no living cells and no life. Naturally for scientists seeking to explain the origin of life, it is very important to know where the amino acids came from. We know that some amino acids can be synthesized through purely chemical processes. Analysis of meteorites has revealed more than 80 amino acids, but only 12 of these are actually found in proteins from living cells. [Kirschning p. 2] Also various versions of the Miller-Urey experiment have yielded 10 proteinaceous amino acids. Two questions arise from these results.
Can non-living chemical processes produce all 20 amino acids needed for proteins and life, and what processes selected the 20 favoured ones from all the possible choices. Why only 20 and why these particular ones? One expert, Prof. Dr. Kirschning. discusses this topic and declares that what we see today is the best possible choice of amino acid. And the reason this is so, is the unexpected chemical versatility of the amino acids involved. [“With respect to proteins, there is a growing body of evidence that the modern genetically encoded amino acid alphabet is evolutionarily highly optimized. These include the structural chemical diversity of the side chains and the number twenty.” p. 1 emphasis mine ]
The foundation upon which the experts build their origin of life studies, is the assumption that chemical reactions, in advance, were able to produce the molecules, like amino acids, which were needed for life. [“In principle, it is accepted that a prebiotic chemistry for the formation of peptides {proteins} must have existed on planet Earth.” p. 4] One problem with this assumption however is that nobody has figured out how synthetic chemistry could manage to produce certain amino acids. [“For some amino acids, no convincing synthetic routes under prebiotic conditions have been found so far.” p. 4 ]
The problems scientists have encountered in a search for chemistry-only synthesis of amino acids is that all these processes require coenzymes and cofactors. These latter are small organic non-protein compounds that specifically bind to enzymes and actively participate in the reactions. [p. 5] Also the string of reactions required to generate a desired product may be long (up to 13 reactions, one after the other) and may require up to 5 different coenzymes/cofactors. Also, if suitable intervention by a chemist is not involved, the amount of product may become catastrophically so low that the reaction stops altogether. {“The idea of primordial metabolic cycles has generated controversial debates. Orgel pointed out that abiotic reactions proceed at low yields, i.e., the more reaction steps that occur in linear succession, the more catastrophically the overall yield decreases. This is a particularly fatal problem in metabolic cycles…” p. 13 emphasis mine]
The whole idea that there ever were prebiotic chemical cycles not connected to living cells, turns out to be a chicken and the egg problem. The successful production of coenzymes and cofactors requires protein enzymes made of the very amino acids we are trying to synthesize in the first place. [“Three ‘chicken and egg’ problems need to be resolved. Considerations on the biosynthesis of amino acids, their possible timing in evolution, and the special role of coenzymes have obscured some fundamental dilemmas. The generation of the 20 encoded amino acids are catalyzed by enzymes, supported by the presence of coenzymes. Enzymes themselves consist of alpha-amino acids whose formation they catalyze, so we are facing a case of causal circularity or, in more general parlance, a ‘chicken and egg’ problem.” p. 10 capitals the author’s]
The author plaintively then asks some hard questions. [“Why and in which way could finally a metabolism evolve?” p. 10 and “Why then did life stop exploring chemical space further with the 20 encoded amino acids?” p. 13]
In answer to all these issues, the author confesses that any answers appear shrouded in fog. [“The two transitional phases from the prebiotic world to the first premetabolic systems and proto cells as well as the transition to LUCA [last universal common ancestor] appear shrouded in fog.” P. 17]
The take-home message the author provides is that we need to bear in mind that nucleotides (components of DNA and RNA) coenzymes, and cofactors were all required to be present in the prebiotic world when amino acids were first being synthesized and recruited to form proteins. [p. 18]
What the take-home message actually boils down to is that a prebiotic precursor of the cell is assumed to have existed but nobody has any idea how it could possibly work.
The amazing complexity of even the most basic building blocks of the living cell, clearly demonstrates the choices and wisdom of God who does know how to create life and the living cell. He did not need precursors and a long evolutionary process. “How manifold are your works. In wisdom you have made them all!” [Psalm 104:24]
Related Resources:
Order OnlineHardcover / $35.00 / 176 Pages / Full colour
Where did the right amino acids come from?
All those spectacular molecular machines, which confer precision and efficiency on the living cell, are made up of proteins. The precise shapes of proteins come from their component amino acids. These latter small molecules vary greatly in their chemical characteristics. Moreover, the order in which the amino acids are attached together determines how the proteins fold into the correct shapes.
It turns out that the amino acids themselves are hard to synthesize and that only a very particular twenty, of hundreds of possible candidates, are suitable as a component of proteins. Could the correct amino acids have appeared in the environment before the living cell existed? Origin of life specialists like to think so. A recent paper out of Europe discussed this very issue. [Andreas Kirschning. 2022. On the evolutionary history of the twenty encoded amino acids. Chemistry Europe Journal. E202201419 ]
Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins and without proteins there are no living cells and no life. Naturally for scientists seeking to explain the origin of life, it is very important to know where the amino acids came from. We know that some amino acids can be synthesized through purely chemical processes. Analysis of meteorites has revealed more than 80 amino acids, but only 12 of these are actually found in proteins from living cells. [Kirschning p. 2] Also various versions of the Miller-Urey experiment have yielded 10 proteinaceous amino acids. Two questions arise from these results.
Can non-living chemical processes produce all 20 amino acids needed for proteins and life, and what processes selected the 20 favoured ones from all the possible choices. Why only 20 and why these particular ones? One expert, Prof. Dr. Kirschning. discusses this topic and declares that what we see today is the best possible choice of amino acid. And the reason this is so, is the unexpected chemical versatility of the amino acids involved. [“With respect to proteins, there is a growing body of evidence that the modern genetically encoded amino acid alphabet is evolutionarily highly optimized. These include the structural chemical diversity of the side chains and the number twenty.” p. 1 emphasis mine ]
The foundation upon which the experts build their origin of life studies, is the assumption that chemical reactions, in advance, were able to produce the molecules, like amino acids, which were needed for life. [“In principle, it is accepted that a prebiotic chemistry for the formation of peptides {proteins} must have existed on planet Earth.” p. 4] One problem with this assumption however is that nobody has figured out how synthetic chemistry could manage to produce certain amino acids. [“For some amino acids, no convincing synthetic routes under prebiotic conditions have been found so far.” p. 4 ]
The problems scientists have encountered in a search for chemistry-only synthesis of amino acids is that all these processes require coenzymes and cofactors. These latter are small organic non-protein compounds that specifically bind to enzymes and actively participate in the reactions. [p. 5] Also the string of reactions required to generate a desired product may be long (up to 13 reactions, one after the other) and may require up to 5 different coenzymes/cofactors. Also, if suitable intervention by a chemist is not involved, the amount of product may become catastrophically so low that the reaction stops altogether. {“The idea of primordial metabolic cycles has generated controversial debates. Orgel pointed out that abiotic reactions proceed at low yields, i.e., the more reaction steps that occur in linear succession, the more catastrophically the overall yield decreases. This is a particularly fatal problem in metabolic cycles…” p. 13 emphasis mine]
The whole idea that there ever were prebiotic chemical cycles not connected to living cells, turns out to be a chicken and the egg problem. The successful production of coenzymes and cofactors requires protein enzymes made of the very amino acids we are trying to synthesize in the first place. [“Three ‘chicken and egg’ problems need to be resolved. Considerations on the biosynthesis of amino acids, their possible timing in evolution, and the special role of coenzymes have obscured some fundamental dilemmas. The generation of the 20 encoded amino acids are catalyzed by enzymes, supported by the presence of coenzymes. Enzymes themselves consist of alpha-amino acids whose formation they catalyze, so we are facing a case of causal circularity or, in more general parlance, a ‘chicken and egg’ problem.” p. 10 capitals the author’s]
The author plaintively then asks some hard questions. [“Why and in which way could finally a metabolism evolve?” p. 10 and “Why then did life stop exploring chemical space further with the 20 encoded amino acids?” p. 13]
In answer to all these issues, the author confesses that any answers appear shrouded in fog. [“The two transitional phases from the prebiotic world to the first premetabolic systems and proto cells as well as the transition to LUCA [last universal common ancestor] appear shrouded in fog.” P. 17]
The take-home message the author provides is that we need to bear in mind that nucleotides (components of DNA and RNA) coenzymes, and cofactors were all required to be present in the prebiotic world when amino acids were first being synthesized and recruited to form proteins. [p. 18]
What the take-home message actually boils down to is that a prebiotic precursor of the cell is assumed to have existed but nobody has any idea how it could possibly work.
The amazing complexity of even the most basic building blocks of the living cell, clearly demonstrates the choices and wisdom of God who does know how to create life and the living cell. He did not need precursors and a long evolutionary process. “How manifold are your works. In wisdom you have made them all!” [Psalm 104:24]
Related Resources:
Order Online
Paperback / $12.00 / 295 Pages
Where did the right amino acids come from?
All those spectacular molecular machines, which confer precision and efficiency on the living cell, are made up of proteins. The precise shapes of proteins come from their component amino acids. These latter small molecules vary greatly in their chemical characteristics. Moreover, the order in which the amino acids are attached together determines how the proteins fold into the correct shapes.
It turns out that the amino acids themselves are hard to synthesize and that only a very particular twenty, of hundreds of possible candidates, are suitable as a component of proteins. Could the correct amino acids have appeared in the environment before the living cell existed? Origin of life specialists like to think so. A recent paper out of Europe discussed this very issue. [Andreas Kirschning. 2022. On the evolutionary history of the twenty encoded amino acids. Chemistry Europe Journal. E202201419 ]
Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins and without proteins there are no living cells and no life. Naturally for scientists seeking to explain the origin of life, it is very important to know where the amino acids came from. We know that some amino acids can be synthesized through purely chemical processes. Analysis of meteorites has revealed more than 80 amino acids, but only 12 of these are actually found in proteins from living cells. [Kirschning p. 2] Also various versions of the Miller-Urey experiment have yielded 10 proteinaceous amino acids. Two questions arise from these results.
Can non-living chemical processes produce all 20 amino acids needed for proteins and life, and what processes selected the 20 favoured ones from all the possible choices. Why only 20 and why these particular ones? One expert, Prof. Dr. Kirschning. discusses this topic and declares that what we see today is the best possible choice of amino acid. And the reason this is so, is the unexpected chemical versatility of the amino acids involved. [“With respect to proteins, there is a growing body of evidence that the modern genetically encoded amino acid alphabet is evolutionarily highly optimized. These include the structural chemical diversity of the side chains and the number twenty.” p. 1 emphasis mine ]
The foundation upon which the experts build their origin of life studies, is the assumption that chemical reactions, in advance, were able to produce the molecules, like amino acids, which were needed for life. [“In principle, it is accepted that a prebiotic chemistry for the formation of peptides {proteins} must have existed on planet Earth.” p. 4] One problem with this assumption however is that nobody has figured out how synthetic chemistry could manage to produce certain amino acids. [“For some amino acids, no convincing synthetic routes under prebiotic conditions have been found so far.” p. 4 ]
The problems scientists have encountered in a search for chemistry-only synthesis of amino acids is that all these processes require coenzymes and cofactors. These latter are small organic non-protein compounds that specifically bind to enzymes and actively participate in the reactions. [p. 5] Also the string of reactions required to generate a desired product may be long (up to 13 reactions, one after the other) and may require up to 5 different coenzymes/cofactors. Also, if suitable intervention by a chemist is not involved, the amount of product may become catastrophically so low that the reaction stops altogether. {“The idea of primordial metabolic cycles has generated controversial debates. Orgel pointed out that abiotic reactions proceed at low yields, i.e., the more reaction steps that occur in linear succession, the more catastrophically the overall yield decreases. This is a particularly fatal problem in metabolic cycles…” p. 13 emphasis mine]
The whole idea that there ever were prebiotic chemical cycles not connected to living cells, turns out to be a chicken and the egg problem. The successful production of coenzymes and cofactors requires protein enzymes made of the very amino acids we are trying to synthesize in the first place. [“Three ‘chicken and egg’ problems need to be resolved. Considerations on the biosynthesis of amino acids, their possible timing in evolution, and the special role of coenzymes have obscured some fundamental dilemmas. The generation of the 20 encoded amino acids are catalyzed by enzymes, supported by the presence of coenzymes. Enzymes themselves consist of alpha-amino acids whose formation they catalyze, so we are facing a case of causal circularity or, in more general parlance, a ‘chicken and egg’ problem.” p. 10 capitals the author’s]
The author plaintively then asks some hard questions. [“Why and in which way could finally a metabolism evolve?” p. 10 and “Why then did life stop exploring chemical space further with the 20 encoded amino acids?” p. 13]
In answer to all these issues, the author confesses that any answers appear shrouded in fog. [“The two transitional phases from the prebiotic world to the first premetabolic systems and proto cells as well as the transition to LUCA [last universal common ancestor] appear shrouded in fog.” P. 17]
The take-home message the author provides is that we need to bear in mind that nucleotides (components of DNA and RNA) coenzymes, and cofactors were all required to be present in the prebiotic world when amino acids were first being synthesized and recruited to form proteins. [p. 18]
What the take-home message actually boils down to is that a prebiotic precursor of the cell is assumed to have existed but nobody has any idea how it could possibly work.
The amazing complexity of even the most basic building blocks of the living cell, clearly demonstrates the choices and wisdom of God who does know how to create life and the living cell. He did not need precursors and a long evolutionary process. “How manifold are your works. In wisdom you have made them all!” [Psalm 104:24]
Related Resources:
Order OnlinePaperback / $6.00 / 64 Pages / Full colour
Where did the right amino acids come from?
All those spectacular molecular machines, which confer precision and efficiency on the living cell, are made up of proteins. The precise shapes of proteins come from their component amino acids. These latter small molecules vary greatly in their chemical characteristics. Moreover, the order in which the amino acids are attached together determines how the proteins fold into the correct shapes.
It turns out that the amino acids themselves are hard to synthesize and that only a very particular twenty, of hundreds of possible candidates, are suitable as a component of proteins. Could the correct amino acids have appeared in the environment before the living cell existed? Origin of life specialists like to think so. A recent paper out of Europe discussed this very issue. [Andreas Kirschning. 2022. On the evolutionary history of the twenty encoded amino acids. Chemistry Europe Journal. E202201419 ]
Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins and without proteins there are no living cells and no life. Naturally for scientists seeking to explain the origin of life, it is very important to know where the amino acids came from. We know that some amino acids can be synthesized through purely chemical processes. Analysis of meteorites has revealed more than 80 amino acids, but only 12 of these are actually found in proteins from living cells. [Kirschning p. 2] Also various versions of the Miller-Urey experiment have yielded 10 proteinaceous amino acids. Two questions arise from these results.
Can non-living chemical processes produce all 20 amino acids needed for proteins and life, and what processes selected the 20 favoured ones from all the possible choices. Why only 20 and why these particular ones? One expert, Prof. Dr. Kirschning. discusses this topic and declares that what we see today is the best possible choice of amino acid. And the reason this is so, is the unexpected chemical versatility of the amino acids involved. [“With respect to proteins, there is a growing body of evidence that the modern genetically encoded amino acid alphabet is evolutionarily highly optimized. These include the structural chemical diversity of the side chains and the number twenty.” p. 1 emphasis mine ]
The foundation upon which the experts build their origin of life studies, is the assumption that chemical reactions, in advance, were able to produce the molecules, like amino acids, which were needed for life. [“In principle, it is accepted that a prebiotic chemistry for the formation of peptides {proteins} must have existed on planet Earth.” p. 4] One problem with this assumption however is that nobody has figured out how synthetic chemistry could manage to produce certain amino acids. [“For some amino acids, no convincing synthetic routes under prebiotic conditions have been found so far.” p. 4 ]
The problems scientists have encountered in a search for chemistry-only synthesis of amino acids is that all these processes require coenzymes and cofactors. These latter are small organic non-protein compounds that specifically bind to enzymes and actively participate in the reactions. [p. 5] Also the string of reactions required to generate a desired product may be long (up to 13 reactions, one after the other) and may require up to 5 different coenzymes/cofactors. Also, if suitable intervention by a chemist is not involved, the amount of product may become catastrophically so low that the reaction stops altogether. {“The idea of primordial metabolic cycles has generated controversial debates. Orgel pointed out that abiotic reactions proceed at low yields, i.e., the more reaction steps that occur in linear succession, the more catastrophically the overall yield decreases. This is a particularly fatal problem in metabolic cycles…” p. 13 emphasis mine]
The whole idea that there ever were prebiotic chemical cycles not connected to living cells, turns out to be a chicken and the egg problem. The successful production of coenzymes and cofactors requires protein enzymes made of the very amino acids we are trying to synthesize in the first place. [“Three ‘chicken and egg’ problems need to be resolved. Considerations on the biosynthesis of amino acids, their possible timing in evolution, and the special role of coenzymes have obscured some fundamental dilemmas. The generation of the 20 encoded amino acids are catalyzed by enzymes, supported by the presence of coenzymes. Enzymes themselves consist of alpha-amino acids whose formation they catalyze, so we are facing a case of causal circularity or, in more general parlance, a ‘chicken and egg’ problem.” p. 10 capitals the author’s]
The author plaintively then asks some hard questions. [“Why and in which way could finally a metabolism evolve?” p. 10 and “Why then did life stop exploring chemical space further with the 20 encoded amino acids?” p. 13]
In answer to all these issues, the author confesses that any answers appear shrouded in fog. [“The two transitional phases from the prebiotic world to the first premetabolic systems and proto cells as well as the transition to LUCA [last universal common ancestor] appear shrouded in fog.” P. 17]
The take-home message the author provides is that we need to bear in mind that nucleotides (components of DNA and RNA) coenzymes, and cofactors were all required to be present in the prebiotic world when amino acids were first being synthesized and recruited to form proteins. [p. 18]
What the take-home message actually boils down to is that a prebiotic precursor of the cell is assumed to have existed but nobody has any idea how it could possibly work.
The amazing complexity of even the most basic building blocks of the living cell, clearly demonstrates the choices and wisdom of God who does know how to create life and the living cell. He did not need precursors and a long evolutionary process. “How manifold are your works. In wisdom you have made them all!” [Psalm 104:24]
Related Resources:
Order Online
Paperback / $22.00 / 312 Pages / black and white illustrations
Where did the right amino acids come from?
All those spectacular molecular machines, which confer precision and efficiency on the living cell, are made up of proteins. The precise shapes of proteins come from their component amino acids. These latter small molecules vary greatly in their chemical characteristics. Moreover, the order in which the amino acids are attached together determines how the proteins fold into the correct shapes.
It turns out that the amino acids themselves are hard to synthesize and that only a very particular twenty, of hundreds of possible candidates, are suitable as a component of proteins. Could the correct amino acids have appeared in the environment before the living cell existed? Origin of life specialists like to think so. A recent paper out of Europe discussed this very issue. [Andreas Kirschning. 2022. On the evolutionary history of the twenty encoded amino acids. Chemistry Europe Journal. E202201419 ]
Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins and without proteins there are no living cells and no life. Naturally for scientists seeking to explain the origin of life, it is very important to know where the amino acids came from. We know that some amino acids can be synthesized through purely chemical processes. Analysis of meteorites has revealed more than 80 amino acids, but only 12 of these are actually found in proteins from living cells. [Kirschning p. 2] Also various versions of the Miller-Urey experiment have yielded 10 proteinaceous amino acids. Two questions arise from these results.
Can non-living chemical processes produce all 20 amino acids needed for proteins and life, and what processes selected the 20 favoured ones from all the possible choices. Why only 20 and why these particular ones? One expert, Prof. Dr. Kirschning. discusses this topic and declares that what we see today is the best possible choice of amino acid. And the reason this is so, is the unexpected chemical versatility of the amino acids involved. [“With respect to proteins, there is a growing body of evidence that the modern genetically encoded amino acid alphabet is evolutionarily highly optimized. These include the structural chemical diversity of the side chains and the number twenty.” p. 1 emphasis mine ]
The foundation upon which the experts build their origin of life studies, is the assumption that chemical reactions, in advance, were able to produce the molecules, like amino acids, which were needed for life. [“In principle, it is accepted that a prebiotic chemistry for the formation of peptides {proteins} must have existed on planet Earth.” p. 4] One problem with this assumption however is that nobody has figured out how synthetic chemistry could manage to produce certain amino acids. [“For some amino acids, no convincing synthetic routes under prebiotic conditions have been found so far.” p. 4 ]
The problems scientists have encountered in a search for chemistry-only synthesis of amino acids is that all these processes require coenzymes and cofactors. These latter are small organic non-protein compounds that specifically bind to enzymes and actively participate in the reactions. [p. 5] Also the string of reactions required to generate a desired product may be long (up to 13 reactions, one after the other) and may require up to 5 different coenzymes/cofactors. Also, if suitable intervention by a chemist is not involved, the amount of product may become catastrophically so low that the reaction stops altogether. {“The idea of primordial metabolic cycles has generated controversial debates. Orgel pointed out that abiotic reactions proceed at low yields, i.e., the more reaction steps that occur in linear succession, the more catastrophically the overall yield decreases. This is a particularly fatal problem in metabolic cycles…” p. 13 emphasis mine]
The whole idea that there ever were prebiotic chemical cycles not connected to living cells, turns out to be a chicken and the egg problem. The successful production of coenzymes and cofactors requires protein enzymes made of the very amino acids we are trying to synthesize in the first place. [“Three ‘chicken and egg’ problems need to be resolved. Considerations on the biosynthesis of amino acids, their possible timing in evolution, and the special role of coenzymes have obscured some fundamental dilemmas. The generation of the 20 encoded amino acids are catalyzed by enzymes, supported by the presence of coenzymes. Enzymes themselves consist of alpha-amino acids whose formation they catalyze, so we are facing a case of causal circularity or, in more general parlance, a ‘chicken and egg’ problem.” p. 10 capitals the author’s]
The author plaintively then asks some hard questions. [“Why and in which way could finally a metabolism evolve?” p. 10 and “Why then did life stop exploring chemical space further with the 20 encoded amino acids?” p. 13]
In answer to all these issues, the author confesses that any answers appear shrouded in fog. [“The two transitional phases from the prebiotic world to the first premetabolic systems and proto cells as well as the transition to LUCA [last universal common ancestor] appear shrouded in fog.” P. 17]
The take-home message the author provides is that we need to bear in mind that nucleotides (components of DNA and RNA) coenzymes, and cofactors were all required to be present in the prebiotic world when amino acids were first being synthesized and recruited to form proteins. [p. 18]
What the take-home message actually boils down to is that a prebiotic precursor of the cell is assumed to have existed but nobody has any idea how it could possibly work.
The amazing complexity of even the most basic building blocks of the living cell, clearly demonstrates the choices and wisdom of God who does know how to create life and the living cell. He did not need precursors and a long evolutionary process. “How manifold are your works. In wisdom you have made them all!” [Psalm 104:24]