Four Questions follow, with the four answers below:

1)The amino acids are L and D, and in proteins are only L. So in any
hypothetical primordial soup, surely there would have been an equal
proportion of both. The problem for the materialist is to answer how did
the first proteins be of just L a.a (since racemic proteins can’t exist).
If there weren’t anybody to do that, how was it done spontaneously?…
But, I read somewhere that there were some clay or crystal surfaces which
might select one isomer over another, and therefore purify the mixture of
50% L and 50% D, soup. How about that, because it didn’t go on to explain
anymore than this. Can you explain me shortly what’s this theory about
and if it has any credibility?

2)In a Christian apologetic paper on the origin of life there is this
quote from A.E. Wilder-Smith, in his book “Man’s Origin Man’s Destiny”,
(1993): “What Dr. Blum is saying is: how was the motor to extract the
energy from the environment built before life processes had arisen to
build it? Once a motor (enzyme metabolic system) is present, it can
easily supply the free energy necessary to build more and more motors,
that is, to reproduce. But the basic problem is: How do we account for the
building of the first complex enzymatic protein metabolic motor to supply
energy for reproduction and other cell needs….The Creationist believes
that God synthesized non-living matter into living organisms and thus
provided the motors which were then capable of immediately extracting
energy from their environment to build more motors for reproduction. This
view is thus perfectly sound scientifically and avoids the hopeless
impasse of the materialistic. Darwinists in trying to account for the
design and building of the first necessarily highly complex metabolic
motors by random processes. Once the motor has been designed, fabricated,
and is running, the life processes work perfectly well on the principles
of the known laws of thermodynamics….”

This is the quote. My question is that: “If I didn’t misunderstand the
above quote, is he saying that if we allow the production of a single
protein than the origin of life is much more “easier”, and so the problem
of the origin of life is just reduced to the problem of the first
metabolic motor (an enzyme)? I have studied biochemistry for just 3
months (we study biochemistry with the latest edition of “Principles of
Biochemistry of Lehninger”, by Nelson and Cox) but, even though I
personally don’t believe that even if we had one completely functional
enzyme, we still make it easier for life to be formed, since this enzyme
can do a very limited nr. of reactions. But there is the possibility that
since I’ve studied biochemistry for just 3 months, maybe it is true and i
don’t know it.

3)I know that the formation of the peptide bond is endoergonic (is the
word correct in English? I mean for ^G>0, the energy of Gibbs to be
positive). But I also know from thermodynamics that these reactions
aren’t spontaneous. But why then some scientists, even Christian
apologetics, like Hugh Ross and others, speak of “CONSTRUCTIVE and
destructive” reactions that happen spontaneously. they speak of these
and say that the problem is that the destructive rxn. are more frequent
then constructive. But what are these “constructive” rxn-s? Do they mean
that the peptide bond (and so the proteins) can happens spontaneously…
and that the only problem is only that they are destroyed more rapidly
than constructed. it’s a bit confusing to me this thing.

4) This is an historical question. I bought the book of Didache, and in
it’s preface i read that the Didache was considered “Sacred Scripture” by
some early “Fathers” of the church including Clement and Origen. How come
that they considered it like this? I mean doesn’t it shade doubts about
the authenticity of the N.T, since we know that which books are in the
Bible, from the early Christian writers? Since these writer didn’t know
themselves which books were really inspired by God, then how can we know
that the books we have in the Bible are really inspired and that were
written by the original apostles? This is a difficulty to which I don’t
know how to answer.


1. The whole clay-catalyst thing is just a lot of smoke and mirrors which
is brought out by the atheists who are trying to find a “natural”
explanation for the existence of life. I can see right away that you can
see through this nonsense. No matter what anyone says, the fact is that
pure chiral molecules are not created by nature unless the source of the
chemicals is chiral itself. Which came first, the chicken or the chicken?
This is a basic law of chemistry, and is totally in line with the second
law of thermodynamics. This supposed “theory” is just another way to try
to distract us away from the obvious fact that nature does not now and
never has spontaneously created the sort of non-random information
required for life to come about by a random process.

2. I absolutely agree with the quote, but do not agree with your
interpretation of the quote. Let us concede for the moment that by some
sort of luck or accident an enzyme protein could be created by accident
out of organic matter. Let us suppose that this enzyme would have the
power to synthesize some sort of interesting molecule out of other simpler
molecules. This would not be a significant step toward the creation of an
actual living system at all. It would be a step, but not a significant
step. To create an analogy, let us say one wanted to jump the Grand
Canyon. One might imaging working out every day, practicing diligently to
the point that one could jump ten meters before hitting the ground. Would
this be a significant step toward being able to jump the canyon? In plain
language no! The creation of a single catalytic protein is so far from
the creation of life that it is ridiculous to even mention it as a
significant step toward creation of life. For example, a system would
have to be created by which this protein could be replicated. A system
would also have to be created by which the molecules which were to
replicate the protein would themselves be replicated as well. Besides,
hundreds of other proteins, as well as many lipids, carbohydrates and so
forth would all have to be made simultaneously, in the same place, and
would have to be assembled into an organized unit which can do all the
functions of acquiring food, metabolizing it and so forth. No, I do not
see this as a significant step toward creation of life.

3. In a complicated chemical system, equilibrium and kinetics will allow
for a reversible reaction to produce a certain number of thermodynamically
unfavored molecules in equilibrium with a far greater number of
thermodynamically favored molecules. To use an example you probably
already know, for a weak acid, thermodynamics does not favor dissociation
of HA into Hplus and A minus, yet a certain number of the less favored
molecules will exist in equilibrium. Let us apply that to, for example,
the formation of proteins and even dipeptides in a chemical system. In a
complex chemical system with the correct precursors and sufficient energy,
a very low concentration of certain amino acids and perhaps ever some
dipeptides might exist, but the concentration of these molecules would not
tend to build up over time. The concept of chemical evolution is a bogus
concept, yet it is possible for a very small concentration of fairly
complex molecules to build up in a particular location for a certain
period of time. The idea that useable protein molecules could be created
in a sign
ificant concentration in such a situation is a far different
matter. That would not happen. Period.

4. It is true that the Didache was considered by some to be appropriate
to read in the churches. Other books such as the letter of Clement of
Rome were also accepted by some for reading in the church. I would say
that this does not at all take away from the inspiration of the New
Testament. On the contrary, it actually increases my confidence. The
fact is that in the first two centuries, the “canon” of the New Testament
was forming. We can see from the writings of the first two centuries that
there was a more or less open debate. The books which made it into the
New Testament, ultimately, were those which the consensus of all the
churches could agree were clearly inspired by God. If you read the
Didache, you will see immediately that it is anticipating certain later
false teachings which would be in contradiction to the New Testament
writings. Clement and Origin may well have agreed to some extent with the
leanings of the Didache toward false teaching, particularly on delay of
baptism and bishops having precedence over elders (I am doing this from
memory, so if I am getting a reference in the Didache wrong, I
apologize). Despite their leanings, the body of the church did not accept
the Didache, and, having read the book I heartily agree with their
decision. I have read most of the very early church father’s writings,
and I personally agree 100% with their choice of inspired writings. Every
one of the NT books have clear marks of inspiration, in my opinion, while
most or all of the non-canonical writings have elements which make them
unacceptable as inspired books. I encourage you to do your own research
into these topics.

John Oakes

Comments are closed.