Chapter 3: Doubts about Darwinism

After being introduced, Wells goes into an overview of his own book "Icons of Evolution." His first icon is the Miller-Urey experiment. Wells claims that this is commonly found in textbooks but does not reference any. I went through my college textbooks that included evolutionary biology, biochemistry, microbiology and organic/inorganic chemistry and did not find a single reference to this particular experiment.

The original experiment was conducted in 1953 and a simulated atmosphere [methane, ammonia, water, hydrogen] was exposed to an electrical spark to determine what molecules could be formed. They found that a variety of organic molecules, including alanine and glycine. Jonathan Wells criticized this experiment repeatedly but also demonstrated that it was not actually the experiment that he disagrees with. Also, some of his claims concerning the specific research [Science 15 May 1953: 528-529.] such as an environment that wasn't an accurate representation are valid, however he avoids many examples of research since and also a second experiment performed by Miller in 1972 [Science 17 Oct 2008] that dealt with the problems in Stanley-Miller's original experiment. In his second experiment Miller simulated a steam rich volcanic environment. It has been demonstrated that this environment is capable of producing copious lightening [Science 28 May 1965] and capable of producing the environment in Miller's second experiment. Twenty-two amino acids and five amines were found in the residue of this experiment after the residue was retested using a mass spectrometer.

It is also important to look at other extra-terrestrial environments to see if they have evidence of organic compounds. Organic compounds, including amino acids, have been found on asteroids and the moons of Saturn and Jupiter also have organic compounds that have been identified on their surfaces and in their atmospheres. Wells does touch on this but does not refute it and this is one of those times that he demonstrates it is not the Stanley-Miller experiment that he truly disagrees with.

After making his complaints about the original Stanley-Miller experiment, Wells goes into his real problem - a natural origin of life. Wells uses a reductio  ad absurdum when asked whether the production of amino acids in the early environment was a far cry from a living creature.

"Put a sterile, balanced salt solution in a test tube. Then put in a single living cell and poke a hole in it so that its contents leak into the solution. Now the test tube has all the molecules you would need to create a living cell, right?"

Can you see the absurdity? Obviously no sane person would believe that this would lead to a reproducing organism. Wells is essentially attempting to mislead by his logical fallacy while simultaneously appealing to the ignorance of the reader. Science has been plodding on and is discovering much more that Wells was apparently aware of. We now know [see my earlier references] that amino acids could have easily been produced in an atmosphere consistent with early earth. It was noted in a recent article of science that it was not only amino acids that could have developed on the early earth but that RNA could have also developed in the 'primordial soup.'

"Over the past few years, they have documented almost an entire route from prebiotic molecules to RNA and are preparing to publish even more details of their success. Discovering these new reactions makes Sutherland suspect it wouldn't have been that hard for RNA to emerge directly from an organic soup. 'We've got the molecules in our sights,' he says."
Science 9 January 2009:
Vol. 323. no. 5911, pp. 198 - 199

In addition, scientists have recently found that small segments of RNA that can form relatively easily can merge together to form longer chains of RNA [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081218213634.htm]. This answers the question of how segments long enough to catalyze their own reproduction could have occurred. There is one more major step, can a relatively short strand of RNA self-catalyze and reproduce allowing it to be subject to selective pressures? This question was very recently answered by a couple of researchers from the Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology and the Skripps Research Institute. The researchers used in vitro evolution and derived a short RNA enzyme that could self-replicate indefinitely without the aid of any other enzymes or other biological elements [ Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme . Tracey A. Lincoln and Gerald F. Joyce. 8 January 2009]. The major irony here is that Wells used one of the two researchers of this study in his book, saying "A researcher from the Skripps Research Institute ruled out the RNA-first theory...." This greatly differs from what Gerald Joyce said in his research in January 2009 where he said "One way to realize this goal, inspired by the notion of primitive RNAbased life, would be for an RNA enzyme to catalyze the replication of RNA molecules, including the RNA enzyme itself. This has now been achieved in a cross-catalytic system involving two RNA enzymes that catalyze each other’s synthesis..."

When Wells states "It's becoming clearer and clearer to me that this is materialistic philosophy masquerading as empirical science," he appears to be ignoring the empirical evidence in order to further his agenda of discrediting science.

In conclusion, science has provided evidence that amino acids and nucleic acids could have developed very early in the earth's life, these nucleic acids could form moderate length chains, and that these nucleic acid chains could become self-replicating enzymatic machines that would be subject to natural selection and other evolutionary mechanisms. What mechanisms has Wells offered for a creator to create life or interact with our universe? NONE!