So far, we have described protein molecules' special structures and how they are manufactured in the cell. When we examine proteins' functions, we again encounter any number of miracles of Creation.

CO2 levels are high in active tissues. When hemoglobin reaches these tissues it deposits O2 in them. In this way, hemoglobin immediately provides oxygen for those tissues requiring it, and takes up the carbon dioxide in them.

One feature of blood that makes it indispensable for life is the proteins it contains. The bloodstream is the ideal place where special proteins can discharge their duties because blood transmits them wherever they are required, thanks to the circulatory network of reaching all points of the body. Every day, for example, the hemoglobin protein in the red blood cells (or erythrocytes) carries oxygen to the 100 trillion or so cells in the body.

Hemoglobin, a rather large protein, covers a volume of up to 90% of the red blood cell. Under normal conditions, such a sizable protein molecule would be unable to fit into the cell. However, just as if the erythrocyte knew it must make room for the hemoglobin molecule it will have to carry, before entering the bloodstream, the red blood cell ejects its nucleus, mitochondria, ribosomes and other organelles. These ejected components are immediately destroyed by the body's cleansers—the white blood corpuscles, or leucocytes. In this way, no waste or unnecessary products remain in the body. Red blood cells do not create any new protein when they expel their organelles. In any case there is no need to do so 34 because the red blood cells' essential task is to transport hemoglobin and carry oxygen to wherever it is needed.

Hemoglobin's most important feature is its ability to carefully select and capture oxygen molecules from among the billions of other molecules in the blood leaving the lungs. Because any molecule that attaches randomly to an oxygen molecule will oxidize and become non-functional, trapping oxygen molecules calls for a particular talent. Therefore, hemoglobin captures its prey as if holding it with tongs, without actually touching it. Hemoglobin's unique Creation endows it with this property.

Hemoglobin emerges from a combination of four different proteins, containing special sections known as heme groups that carry iron atoms. These iron atoms are the "tongs" in by which the hemoglobin holds oxygen molecules. Each heme group can hold one oxygen molecule. 35 Special folds and angles inside the molecule allow the heme groups to capture oxygen without coming into contact with it, to hold it to and later deposit it in the tissues. These angles change at specific rates during the binding process. 36 After oxygen is trapped, changes occur in the structure of the hemoglobin. The first heme group folds over, facilitating the capture of oxygen by the other heme groups. 37During this process, if the hemoglobin combines directly with the oxygen— in other words, if it becomes oxidized—the result is methemoglobinemia, 38 a disease that causes the skin to lose its color and turn blue. The victim suffers shortness of breath and a weakening of the mucous membranes.
Every detail of this flawless structure is proof of a previously determined plan. The way the red blood cells eject the organelles inside them to make room for hemoglobin, how these expelled substances are immediately cleaned up by functionaries standing by, and the features that keep hemoglobin from being harmed by the oxygen and allow it to deposit the oxygen into the tissues are all features of a flawless planning. It is clearly impossible for unconscious, inanimate atoms to organize such a perfect system as a result of chance. Furthermore, hemoglobin takes precautionary measures and transports oxygen as if it were fully able to calculate how oxygen could damage it and later, transports the oxygen to exactly where it needs to go. The way that hemoglobin recognizes and selects oxygen molecules is a miraculous system, impossible to have come into being by chance. In addition, this established system has been made in an ideal form to be totally compatible with the entire human body.

In his book Nature's Destiny, the famous microbiologist Michael Denton refers to the flawless structure of hemoglobin:
As the efficient transport of oxygen is essential to the viability of any large active organism with a high metabolic rate, a molecule with the properties of hemoglobin would seem to be essential. Might there be any alternatives to hemoglobin? None of the many other oxygen-carrying molecules which occur in the blood of invertebrates, such as the copper-containing proteins of the mollusks, come close to the efficiency of hemoglobin in transporting oxygen in blood. As Ernest Baldwin commented, "Mammalian hemoglobin is far and away the most successful of the respiratory pigments from this point of view" . . . The evidence is consistent with the possibility that hemoglobin is the ideal and unique respiratory pigment for metabolically active air-breathing organisms such as ourselves. . . 39

When hemoglobin combines with oxygen a number of structural changes take place. On the left can be seen hemoglobin in its normal state and on the right its state after binding to oxygen.

As Denton says, hemoglobin is the ideal form for this type of transportation. The way that a collection of molecules can make this distinction in a pitch-black environment unbelievably larger than itself, distinguishing between oxygen and other molecules, and able to bind to oxygen in the most appropriate way reveals the existence of a Superior Intellect and Art.
Proteins That Allow Cells to Travel Within The Body
The movement of some cells in the body is of great importance to the continuity of metabolism. As with all vital bodily functions, it is again proteins which allow this process. These particular proteins, known as tubulin, form minute hairs that permit the cell to float in bodily fluids. These hairs come in two varieties. As cell moves itself either by using these tiny hairs, resembling eyelashes, in much the same way as oars propel a rowboat; or else it moves forward by thrashing the hairs like whips. Spermatozoa, for example, perform their difficult journey in the mammalian fallopian tubes thanks to these hairs.
These minute hairs are also used by cells that remain fixed rather than mobile, whose objective is to move other cells in the fluid.

Some cells possess microhairs that allow them—or bodies around them—to move.

For example, every one of the stationary cells along the respiratory passage possesses several hundred minute hairs, most of which are in motion at the same time. Their appearance closely resembles the oars moving in unison that propel racing sculls. By this motion, the hairs propel water over the mucus and up through the throat. In this way, they prevent fluids from falling into the windpipe with each breath. As you have seen, this motion is most rational and conscious and has been planned beforehand.

In addition, these proteins seem to take joint decisions, acting as one to propel a free-floating cell in a particular direction. Anyone who reflects without prejudice will clearly see that such an organized harmony and ordered activity could not have arisen by chance.

When the structure of these micro hairs is examined, their exceedingly complex structure shows them to be the product of a superior Creation. Such a perfectly interconnected mechanisms have been squeezed into these tiny hairs—which can be seen only under an electron microscope—that it is impossible to claim that they came into being as the result of chance phenomena. Let us examine these tiny hairs' structure in broad terms.
A micro hair consists of a membrane-covered fiber. The hair's membrane is an extension of the cell membrane, for which reason the interior end of the hair is in contact with the interior of the cell. If you cut a hair in cross section and examine it under an electron microscope, then you will see nine rod-like structures. One point worth emphasizing is that these tiny hairs are incomparably smaller than the hairs on your head. It might appear impossible for a visible human hair to contain nine tiny separate rods, there are indeed nine rods in each of the hundreds of minute hairs at the end of a cell, itself too small to be seen with the naked eye.

The cell's microhairs possess a flawless organization. A cross-section reveals nine rod-like microtubes, each of these which consists of two interconnected links, and each link consists of 13 separate strand

These rods are known as microtubes, each of which consists of two interconnected rings. And detailed research has shown that each of these microtubes is made up of 13 separate strands!

But that is by no means the end of the details. The second link, attached to the first, consists of 10 separate strands. The nine microtubes comprising the tiny hairs are made up of the proteins known as tubulin, molecules set out like bricks laid atop one another to form a cylindrical shape.

In books and journals about biology, biochemistry, and genetics, and similar subjects, you will frequently come across sentences like "Protein molecules coming together in a specific ways to give rise to particular shapes." But such statements avoid stating that protein molecules are merely assemblages of unconscious atoms. In some way, these entities—devoid of consciousness, information or free will, with no brain or ability to plan or reason—manage to locate one another and then to act in such a regulated manner as to form a cylindrical shape. Who commands them to join together with other tubulin molecules and then set themselves out in cylindrical form? It is the Almighty Allah Who creates them out of nothing and Who commands them to do so.

In addition, the tubulin molecules are laid out not in a random sequence, but in an order ideally compatible with their design and purpose.

If normal conditions (that is, normal calcium levels and temperature at a specific level) have been established within the cell, the tubulin proteins that serve as bricks come together automatically to form microtubes. The surfaces of tubulin molecules are such that one side fits the back of a second tubulin molecule. A third tubulin molecule attaches itself to the back of the second, a fourth molecule then attaches to the back of the third, and so forth. To make a comparison, this resembles a stack of tin cans of the same brand, one on top of the other, each one arranged to fit perfectly into the top of the can below it. However, since the tops and bottoms of cans of different brands will not fit perfectly together, if piled atop one another, they will collapse at the slightest movement. And cans of the same brand will still topple over if you align them wrongly. The top of the first can will not fit the top of the next one, and they will again topple over.
The order within the assembly of the tubulin proteins is much more exact, in that the front of one fits exactly into the one in back. 40
So Who designed this arrangement? Could the cells that produce the tubulin proteins have first determined how to assemble them in the most efficient manner? Assuming that the proteins were produced with these features in some way, Who told them to arrange themselves back to front, and not back to back? Moreover, how did the proteins understand this command and then arrange themselves without a single mistake? If you remember your school days, it takes a great deal of patience to line up 20 students up in one particular direction without chaos ensuing. If this requires some effort, even from human beings possessed of consciousness and intelligence, as well as the ability to act towards a specific goal end, how do protein molecules consisting of fats, carbohydrates and phosphorus manage to do this regularly, without making a single error? This excellence and perfection in the cell belongs to the Almighty Allah Who has Superior Power over all things and Who is the Lord of the Heavens and the Earth. It is our Mighty and Gracious Lord Who has created each one of these cells and bestowed on them many superior features.

Don't forget that tubulin molecules select other molecules of their own kind from among all the millions of molecules around them, move alongside them and immediately assume their places. Tubulins can easily enter into contact with microtubes, but microtubes need the help of other molecules to combine with one another. In other words, the nine rods that make up the microhair must combine together and need other proteins to do so. Since microtubes are composed of proteins with very different functions within the body, they need to be separate and independent for these functions. For that reason, they rove independently until binding to another protein. But in order for tubulins to form, these helper proteins come and select free and independently traveling microtubes and bind them to one another.

In this process, there is a most conscious and purposeful organization. Certain proteins decide that the cell's minute hairs should be constructed, know what is needed for their formation of these and gather up and combine these haphazardly roaming materials.

Photographs of these tiny hairs taken under an electron microscope showed that different kinds of connectors bind the microtubes to one another. There is one protein at two centers in the middle of the microtubes that binds them together in the form of a bridge. There's also an extension from the microtubes to the center of the tiny hairs. A protein known as nexin binds each microtube to the one beside it, ensuring that they do not break away and disperse. There are also two different protrusions on every microtube, known as the inner arm and the outer arm. Biochemical analyses have revealed that each contains a protein called dynein. Among its functions are to operate like an engine and set up a mechanical force within the cell.

Once again, reflect on this structure of a great many parts, every one of which complements the others in an exceedingly rational way. With enormous expertise, millions of atoms combine to form very different structures inside a volume itself too small to be seen with the naked eye. They then assemble these structures with the assistance of other molecules. The result is an exceedingly complex machine, whose workings we shall briefly summarize.

The microtubes act like oars to move the microhair. The protein dynein serves like an engine. This flawless interconnected system is a much smaller component of an entire structure too small to be seen with the naked eye.

Imagine all the machines you know that consist of a number of parts. Open a computer, for example, and you'll see a number of circuits, cables and pieces of metal all combined together in complex ways. To anyone who does not know much about computers these may not mean much, but a computer engineer will know just what purpose each complicated connections serves. He will know, for instance, that if the smallest wire is attached to the wrong place, the computer will be unable to function. Every component inside is therefore of the greatest importance for the computer to run. In a similar way, every component making up the cell's minute hairs is of vital importance if they are to function properly. The absence of any one structure will mean that either the hair cannot move the cell or permit the cell to move moisture around it; or else the hair will fail to develop in the first place.

Biochemists have performed experiments to determine what happens to these hairs in the absence of any of their components. For example, if the dynein protein arms separate, the hairs will not move. In the absence of the protein nexin, which serves as a bridge between the microtubes, the microtubes will separate and begin to move away from each another. In that event, their structure also becomes impaired. As you see, not one part of this complex system can be dispensed with.

In an area so small it passes comprehension, every part of this system has been arranged for the continuation of life and for cells' functions.

Realizing this, you can better understand the importance of perfect structure in every component.
The Microhairs' Movement System
You may compare the movement of these tiny hairs to a boat floating on the water. The microtubes making contact with the water function like oars. The nine interconnected rods can slide like a single oar, thanks to the bonds between them. Like engines, the arms of the protein dynein lend strength to the propulsion system. The nexin arms are the connecting tubes, passing the power of the engine from one microtube to another. Whether boat or a cell is being propelled, for this motion to be provided, a great many components must be bound to one another and operate together in great harmony. If not all placed in the right positions, the components serve no purpose.

A fine example of this is the large amount of scrap in a junkyard—all waste products. However, when a mechanical engineer visits this collection of discards, selects those parts that will be of use and assembles them in line with the machine he has designed in his mind, then the product of his intelligence emerges as a complex and functional machine.

Just like oars, the microhairs all move in the same direction, thus enabling the cell to move quickly. At the same time they can also propel certain substances in a particular direction. Below can be seen microhairs that cause a woman's ovum to move through the fallopian tube toward the womb.

As you have seen, that intelligence and consciousness are necessary for every component to come into being. In the same way, intelligence, consciousness, planning and purpose are needed to produce useful proteins structure. Even if we assume that proteins did happen to form in some way, when we inject them all into a cell, we still cannot expect them to have given rise to such flawlessly functioning structures as microhairs. Allah is the OneWho has organized and combined them in an appropriate manner.

The theory of evolution is absolutely unable to account for the formation of proteins and how they combine to form structures in which every single component is indispensable. Coincidences cannot possibly give rise to such complex and impeccable systems. Moreover, to form even the smallest systems, such as the microhairs in the cell, hundreds of proteins, enzymes and molecules must combine at the same time. Indeed, biochemists have determined that cell motion is supported by up to another 200 proteins not mentioned here. The absence of just one out of hundreds of proteins will cause the others to become useless.

The theory of evolution, which maintains that life emerged gradually and through minute changes, is thus unable to account for the formation of the microhairs. The microbiologist Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, contains powerful criticisms of the theory of evolution, devotes considerable space to proteins and the hairs in cells, and describes the theory of evolution's inadequacy in trying to explain them:
As biochemists have begun to examine apparently simple structures like cilia and flagella, they have discovered staggering complexity, with dozens or even hundreds of precisely tailored parts. It is very likely that many of the parts we have not considered here are required for any cilium to function in a cell. As the number of required parts increases, the difficulty of gradually putting the system together skyrockets, and the likelihood of indirect scenarios plummets. Darwin looks more and more forlorn. New research on the roles of the auxiliary proteins cannot simplify the irreducibly complex system. The intransigence of the problem cannot be alleviated; it will only get worse. Darwinian theory has given no explanation for the cilium or flagellum. The overwhelming complexity of the swimming systems push us to think it may never give an explanation . . . Cilia and flagella are far from the only problems for Darwinism. 41
As Behe states, the minute hairs that propel the cells are just one of the realities that refute Darwinism. Life has been equipped with countless such miracles of Creation, each of which introduces us to the infinite Might, Intelligence, Knowledge, and incomparable creative Artistry of our Lord. On seeing these proofs, anyone of intelligence and a good conscience will comprehend that Allah is the Lord of all:

Enzymes: Special Accelerators for Life

Three-dimensional image of the protein anhydrase

In a single second, more processes than can possibly be counted take place in the bodies of living things. These processes are so detailed that super regulators must intervene to keep confusion at bay, establish order and accelerate events. These super regulators are enzymes.

Inside every living cell there are thousands of enzymes, which assist in the copying of DNA, breaking down nutrients, producing energy from foodstuffs, and permitting large molecules to form from simple ones—to give only a few examples.

Enzymes consist largely of proteins, the remainder being vitamins and vitamin-like substances. Were it not for the inspiration of Allah on these enzymes, produced by mitochondria inside the cell, then no functions of yours, from the simplest to the most complex, would be possible, or else they would slow to practically a halt. In either case, the result would be the same. You would be unable to breathe, eat anything, digest, see or speak; in short, you would die.

One of enzymes' most important functions is to initiate, halt and accelerate a series of chemical reactions in the body. As your cells fulfill their functions, the chemicals within them must enter into reactions. A certain level of heat is needed for chemical reactions to begin. However, higher temperatures also poses a threat to cells, which can lead to injury or death. Enzymes resolve this difficulty. They initiate or accelerate chemical reactions without the need for high temperatures, but do not enter into such reactions themselves.

Enzymes do not themselves enter into reactions, but they accelerate reactions in the body by lowering the energy level required for reactions to take place. The diagram shows how much a reaction rate will slow in the absence of enzymes.

To cite one instance from daily life as an example of how enzymes accelerate events in our cells: As you breathe, carbon dioxide is cleansed from your blood thanks to an enzyme known as anhydrase speeds the process by up to 10 million times. 42 With similar speeds, enzymes possess the capacity to effect changes in 36 million molecules in a minute. Enzymes enable vital reactions to take place at the greatest speed possible and to also use the body's energy in the most economical way. If you compare the human body to a factory, and enzymes to that factory's means of production, then no source of energy can be sufficient to power it. The energy requirements of trillions of "machines," or cells of 2,000 different varieties, working flawlessly at maximum speed will be enormous. Therefore, in order to carry out a simple reaction within the cell, high levels of heat and energy are needed—under laboratory conditions. 43

In fact, however, silently working enzymes perform all their functions to the letter, using the heat and nutrients they take from the body. These properties alone are enough to show that enzymes are talented elements especially made to make every reaction taking place in the body error-free and effective. As you read these words, a great many enzymes are controlling reactions throughout your body, and raising them to a speed that ensures the health of your cells. Although you are largely unaware of what is going on in your body, enzymes are aware of these processes and make important and accurate interventions. In addition, every enzyme accelerates specific reactions in the body. No enzyme can perform the task of any other, because each one has been created to perform its own particular duty.

While a large number of enzymes can be effective in neutral-state liquid environments, the enzymes charged with digesting foodstuffs in the stomach can operate only under acidic conditions. The enzyme amylase in saliva breaks starch down into maltose and accompanies food down the oesophagus, and when it arrives the stomach, the acid environment there neutralizes it. But once it reaches the stomach, the enzyme's work is done.

Enzymes' shapes are fully compatible with the substances they will combine with and operate on, working like a lock and key in a complicated three-dimensional geometry. The way that enzymes locate compatible substances in the body and then attach to them shows particularly conscious behavior. Furthermore, like hunters who wait for prey to pass by, enzymes are all found just in the right places, in accordance with their structures and properties. They avoid environments where they might come to harm or else lose their effectiveness. They assume responsibility for initiating and accelerating all reactions, but requiring the absence of any agent to stop them, enzymes would keep initiating and halting reactions throughout the body, causing overproduction of specific proteins or the impairment of particular biochemical balances.

Enzymes' structures in complete harmony with the structures of the substance they will affect. They combine easily, like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle and locate the substances suited to them in a most conscious manner. Above is a diagrammatic representation of how an enzyme and substance join together.

The individual cells regulate enzyme activity. When a cell decides that the time has come to stop the enzyme, it distracts the enzyme with extraordinary consciousness and planning, dispatching a substance similar to the one with which the enzyme normally combines. The enzyme attaches to it, and this imitation substance prevents unnecessary activity by keeping the enzyme busy for a while. In order to immobilize enzymes, however, this imitation has to compete with the true substances, and so obstruction of enzymes in this manner is known as competitive inhibition. This distraction method halts enzyme activities until the product emerging as a result of that enzyme's reaction falls below a specific level.

What is told above is not some information to pass by. Recall that we  are not talking about educated, responsible human beings who are able to take decisions, make conscious calculations and put these plan into action but proteins, fats, carbohydrates and vitamins composed of unconscious atoms. The cell determines the quantities of the substance produced, like an inventory controller. And when it decides that enough has been manufactured, it implements a clever plan to suspend production for a while.

The way the cell produces a "decoy" substance to inhibit the enzyme and dispatches it at exactly the right time displays conscious decision. If these imitation materials were always present, they would obstruct production at times of need by distracting the enzymes. However, the cells' timing is always accurate. The way that such intelligent and organized displays of behavior take place, one after the other, and are achieved by molecules too small to be seen with the naked eye, are indications of the superior nature of Allah's Creation. It is evident that all these microscopic entities act under the command of Allah.

When enzymes do not need to accelerate a reaction, the cell sends out an imitation substance to distract the enzyme. This imitation has all the features to make it compatible with the enzyme. This extraordinarily deliberate behavior is a proof of the superior nature of Allah's Creation.

Nowadays, as ever more details emerge regarding enzymes, proteins and similar structures, the more the theory of evolution seems invalid. Whether scientists like it or not, the structures in this microworld force them to admit the flawless Creation in life. One such scientist is the microbiologist Malcolm Dixon:
Enzyme systems are doing every minute what battalions of full-time chemists cannot . . . Can anyone seriously imagine that naturally occurring enzymes realized themselves, along with hundreds of specific friends, by chance? Enzymes and enzyme systems, like the genetic mechanisms whence they originate, are masterpieces of sophistication. Further research reveals ever finer details of design . . . . 44 By using probability calculations, the well-known biochemist Michael Pitman describes why enzymes' structures are far too complex to have come into being by chance:
There are perhaps 10⁸⁰ atoms in the universe, and 10¹⁷ seconds have elapsed since the alleged "Big Bang." More than 2,000 independent enzymes are necessary for life. The overall probability of building any one of these polypeptides can hardly be greater than one in 10²⁰. The chance of getting them all by a random trial is one in 10⁴⁰⁰⁰⁰⁰, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. 45
As is clear from the words of the scientists quoted above, it is absolutely impossible for a single enzyme to appear spontaneously as the result of chance. Yet 50 enzymes work together in order to form one single enzyme! An enzyme needs nine other enzymes to synthesize a single amino acid. A cell with no enzymes cannot survive because it cannot perform any actions. However, the other enzymes in the cell are essential for enzymes to appear. That being so, how did the first enzyme emerge when there were no other enzymes around? Darwinists can never answer that question.

Yet this is by no means the end of Darwinists' difficulties. If the proper conditions are not preserved when enzymes emerge, they may soon disappear or be lose their ability to function. 46 Consequently, for a single enzyme to be in a functional state, all the other enzymes, and the systems and structures of the cell itself must also be ready and present. So how did the first enzyme come into being? The plain answer is that every living thing was created, together with all its molecules, cells, enzymes and proteins, by Allah.
As you know, living things are very delicate. The slightest change in the systems that maintain life, or the entry of a foreign substance no larger than a millionth of a meter, may inflict severe damage or even destroy the entire system. So how can such a delicate system be protected? In the body of every living thing, a defense team stands ready to protect it from harmful substances. Indeed, this immune system represents the largest army in the world today. Of the 100 trillion or so cells in the human body, a large part represent defense system cells. These cells are present in the blood throughout the body and monitor every cubic millimeter of it. These "troops" also use weapons equipped with the most developed technology—a kind of protein known as antibodies.

Antibodies, produced by B cells manufactured in bone marrow, constitute 20% of the proteins in plasma. The most important feature of antibodies is their ability to recognize foreign bodies entering the body and swiftly neutralize them.

These antibodies proteins have a spherical structure and play a crucial role in the body's defenses. Known as immune globulin, these proteins found on the surface of the cell are generally referred to by the letters Ig for short.

Antibodies, manufactured by B cells produced in the bone marrow, are wide-ranging weapons specially prepared for use against foreign substances. Antibodies constitute 20% of the proteins in plasma. These proteins' most important feature is their ability to distinguish cells belonging to the body from foreign substances, and to swiftly eliminate the latter. How do these proteins manage to accomplish such a difficult task? Proteins, composed of specific combinations of inanimate atoms, can identify foreign and harmful substances, even though they have no sensory systems to perceive nor brains with which to interpret their perceptions.
In addition to targeting foreign substances entering the body, antibodies can also combine with them and create antigens—perfect three-dimensional compounds with specific molecules or molecular components identified as foreign to the body. These antigens are stimulating molecules that attach to foreign bodies and initiate the manufacture of antibodies. When the defense cells patrolling in the bloodstream identify an antigen, the defense system goes on alert and begin manufacturing the appropriate antibodies to the foreign body that has entered. When the antigen and its appropriate antibody join together, five separate chemical reactions take place, which may be summed up as follows:
Agglutination: The antigens and antibodies bind together, thus preventing the antigens' activities.

Precipitation (Sedimentation): Antibodies and antigens form a complexity, and this forms a sediment by separating from the solution.

Neutralization: The antibody blocks the harmful portion of the foreign substance and prevents it doing any damage.

Dissolution: After binding to the antigen, the antibody causes the foreign cell membrane to dissolve. As the cell structure is impaired, the antigen is neutralized.

Antibodies recognize foreign antigens that enter the body, in other words, and neutralize these substances by completely surrounding them.	Antibody (right) attaching to an antigen (left).

Unification system: This system is contained in the plasma, but not normally in an active state. The combining of the antigen and antibody makes this system active. As a result the stimulated system enters a series of reactions. The enzymes of the system destroy the disease structures.

Antibodies discharge their functions in a number of ways. As the diagram shows, they cling to the surfaces of viruses, bacteria and fungi and then invade and neutralize these antigens. Sometimes they collect the bacteria together first, before preparing to destroy them. They can also block the points where a virus will attach to a cell, thus prevent the virus from binding to the cell and injecting itself.

This information about the body's defense system contains very important messages for those who reflect on it without ignoring the truth. You never realize it, but all the molecules in your body are in constant activity. Usually it's impossible to become aware of a foreign substance entering your body, but the molecules which comprise your antibodies have assumed this duty and are equipped with miraculous abilities for your protection. In this defense system, atoms identify and recognize other atoms from the very outset. Unconscious proteins and molecules, made entirely of atoms, can recognize harmful substances, instantly produce the most effective weapons against the enemy, and immediately disable it. To Whom belongs the power and intelligence that helps them display such conscious behavior? All of these belong to Allah, the sole Lord of living things' flawless Creation.

Like all other miracles of Creation, the defense system represents a major dilemma for Darwinists. This system can manufacture 100 million different types of antibodies, can recognize an intruder at once and produce the appropriate antibody. 47 Exactly how this takes place is still a mystery to scientists, but clearly that this system could not have come into being by chance.
Despite his being an evolutionist, California University Professor of Biology Christopher Wills states in The Wisdom of the Genes that the body's defense system raises one of the most complex and controversial questions in the whole field of biology. The human race has been the target of diseases for millions of years, but we also know how to defend ourselves against diseases we may encounter in the future. The immune system uses immunoglobulins and proteins able to bind to molecules they have never seen before. Wills states that this state of affairs seems to drag scientists into an area field that they prefer to avoid when discussing evolution. He goes on to ask how the immune system can foresee the future and produce immunoglobulins capable of defending against future attacks. 48 Darwinists are unable to answer his question. To such questions as "How did antibodies come about?" or "How did the immune system come into being?" the only reply they can give is "By chance." Yet when they examine the defense system and similar structures, Darwinists either avoid touching on the subject or else admit their bafflement. It would be blatantly illogical to say "by chance" in answer to the question of how these systems came to be.

Since it is so evident that life was created by Allah down to its very smallest component, it is truly surprising that Darwinist scientists still blindly deny this fact. Allah refers to such people in the Qur'an:

ANTIBODIES' RANGE OF WEAPONS Different kinds of antibodies warn other defense cells of the presence of antigens or attach to antigens themselves to initiate full-scale war. How can these minute molecules successfully discharge this responsibility? Where do their orders come from? To understand the importance of each antibody in the defense system, and these tiny molecules' awareness of their responsibilities, let's examine their duties in general terms. IgE Antibodies : (Immune Globulin E) are antibodies that travel through the bloodstream. These warrior antibodies are also responsible for calling other blood cells to the fray, and are involved in allergic reactions. IgE levels are therefore high in allergic individuals. IgA Antibodies ): (Immune Globulin A) are found in moist environments ideal for bacteria and viruses, such as tears, mother's milk, blood, air sacs, mucosa, stomach and intestines—particularly sensitive regions where the body must combat antigens. IgAs resemble each other closely in structure. As reliable sentries, they settle in strategically important locations where it is easy for germs to enter the body. The antibodies protect babies in their mothers' wombs from disease, and continue to protect and defend them after birth. Babies do need assistance from their mothers because IgA antibodies are not found in the body of every newborn. The IgAs in mother's milk protect a baby's digestive system from the effects of many germs. Just like IgG antibodies, these antibodies disappear when the baby is a few weeks old, once they have served their purpose. These are all the results of a most rational, pre-planned Creation containing essential information. As you have seen, protecting the baby at every stage of development has been taken into account. These antibodies, standing by to protect the baby when necessary, do not take up valuable space when no longer required. No coincidence can engineer such a flawless and perfect plan, nor impose its will on collections of atoms. All this planning and system evidently belongs to Allah, the Compassionate and the Merciful. IgM Antibodies: (Immune Globulin M) are found in the blood, lymph glands and B cells. Whenever the body encounters any antigen, it produces IgM antibodies —compounds of five IgG molecules—to fight the enemy. IgD Antibodies : (Immune Globulin D) are found in the blood and on the surface of defense system B cells. Unable to act alone, they enable certain defense cells (T cells) to trap antigens by installing themselves on their surfaces. IgG Antibodies : (Immune Globulin G) is the most fundamental and most numerous, comprising 33% of all antibodies. While a few days are sufficient for their synthesis, their life spans range from a few weeks to at most a few years. These antibodies, present in the blood, lymph glands and intestines, travel through the bloodstream and adhere to foreign substances entering the body. Their powerful antibacterial and antigen-destroying properties protect against bacteria and viruses and neutralize the acidic effects of toxins. In addition, they squeeze between the cells to neutralize micro-invaders that have entered the skin. Thanks to these abilities and their small size, they are the only antibodies able to enter a pregnant woman's placenta, to protect a baby whose defense system has not yet developed. Had these antibodies not been created with the ability to enter the placenta, then babies in the womb would be defenseless against germs, at risk of death before they were even born. As you have just seen, antibodies come in several varieties, with an impeccable division of labor among them. Since every antibody discharges its responsibilities to the full, then what force, will and intellect has equipped the same protein with different characteristics? Who has instructed them what to do in the body, train them with that end in mind, and provide them with information? Could proteins have spontaneously decided to protect the body by establishing a flawless division of labor and organization? Anyone who reflects on these questions will clearly see the work of Allah, the Superior Creator.

One of the theory of evolution's greatest errors is maintaining that the complex structure of life, with such superior characteristics and processes, came into existence spontaneously, by chance. Back in the 19th century when Charles Darwin first proposed his theory, very little was known about the basic structure of life. Under the microscopes of the day, the cell resembled nothing more than a blot, which some described it as "a jelly-like substance." For that reason, when Darwin claimed that life arose through the spontaneous and chance development of a cell, he received little opposition. However, later science and technology (during the second half of the 20th century in particular) revealed just what a complex and superior structure the cell actually possessed, together with a great many features that could not have come into being by chance, as Darwinists maintained. Instead, the cell rather resembled a biochemical factory, but one superior to any on Earth.
As has been discussed throughout this website, proteins and other cellular subcomponents all possess exceedingly complex structures, and among them is an extraordinary organization and impeccable planning. Every protein fulfils vitally important functions in the human body; with a plan so detailed as to amaze. It is utterly illogical to maintain that such structures emerged after inanimate and unconscious atoms came together by chance to form such complex structures, with flawless organization and a division of labor. Yet Darwinists still blindly defend the theory of evolution, despite its having been discredited scientifically, solely in order to keep alive their materialist ideologies and deny the existence of a Creator. They shamelessly set out their most irrational claims, even using false proofs to influence uninformed people who do seldom reflect on these issues.

An amino acid chain

For example, in order to make the theory sound convincing, a Turkish evolutionist wishing to propound the theory of evolution describes the chance appearance of proteins as something very easy. Yet someone with only the most basic knowledge of proteins can recognize the bias and distortions in his account:
Evolution is the passage, in both animate and inanimate nature, from the simple to the complex, over the course of time (over billions of years; through millions or even billions of reactions). To formularize, the process began with two elements for example; let us say that the odds of A combining with B are fifty percent. Once AB has formed, the odds of C joining are also fifty percent. The odds of D then combining with ABC are fifty percent, or similar probabilities. The idea that this happened in a moment, and the impossibility of this, cannot be laid at Darwinists' door. 49 These words describe a scenario astonishing to anyone with the slightest knowledge of biochemistry. This evolutionist is unaware or else ignoring the facts that proteins consist of strings of amino acids arranged as if on a bead necklace; that there are 20 different types of amino acids; and that even more importantly, for a chain of amino acids to be regarded as a protein, they must be arranged in a specific order.

This is like imagining that a poem is a random combination of letters and then saying, "It's easy for a poem to emerge by chance. Put two letters together, then a third and then a fourth, and you can easily wind up with a poem thousands of letters long." In fact, however, in order for a poem to emerge, letters need to be set out in a particular sequence to acquire meaning. And amino acids are arranged to constitute proteins in a far more difficult and complex process.

Since amino acid strings must be arranged in a particular order to produce a protein, the odds of such a sequence coming about by chance are zero. (For instance, the odds of 400 amino acids adopting a specific sequence are 1 in 10⁵²⁰ —in other words, the chances are 1 followed by 520 zeros.)
Even the most dyed-in-the-wool Darwinists accept the fact that proteins cannot emerge by chance. As one example, the Russian scientist Alexander Oparin, regarded as the father of the theory of molecular evolution, said: "The spontaneous formation of such an atomic arrangement in the protein molecule would seem as improbable as the accidental origin of Virgil's Aeneid from scattered letters." 50 The same calculations have been performed, and the same probability figures obtained, by such well-known Darwinists as David Shapiro, Harold Morovitz, Francis Crick, Carl Sagan, Lecompte du Nuoy and Frank Salisbury.

Due to its structure, the protein histone assumes a three-dimensional form that lets DNA revolve around itself and store information.

For years, it has been known that every protein's properties and functions depend on its amino acid sequence and bonds. For example, the protein histone turns into a three-dimensional shape with a positive charge distributed on its surface. Thanks to this shape and charge distribution, it enables DNA to adopt an appropriate form and to store data. The density of data storage in DNA is thus several billion times that of the most advanced computers. 51
And thanks to this protein, the DNA molecules possess the capacity to store and encode all the information in the body.

With the discovery that proteins and DNA molecules have such a complex structure, it was understood that even were the whole universe filled with amino acids, still life could never emerge from them spontaneously. The evolutionist geologist William Stokes admits this fact:
[Protein] would not occur during billions of years on billions of planets, each covered by a blanket of a concentrated watery solution of the necessary amino acids. 52 In addition, as stated before, a number of preconditions must be met before even a single protein molecule can form, making this definitely impossible. To briefly summarize some of them:

- For even the smallest protein to form, hundreds of amino acids have to be arranged in specific numbers, varieties and sequences.

- A single amino acid too many—or too few, or in the wrong place—will render the protein useless.

- All the amino acids in a protein need to be left-handed. The appearance of a single right-handed amino acid will impair the protein's structure.

- The protein's three-dimensional structure endows it with functionality. Protein synthesis is carried out in the ribosome inside the cell with the help of special enzymes, and in a wide variety of proteins, this three-dimensional form cannot form spontaneously. Therefore, when the first functional protein came into being, other enzymes must have existed beforehand— which demonstrates the invalidity of the theory of evolution.

In the light of probability calculations, it is impossible for even one of these preconditions to have come into existence by chance. For example, scientists have calculated the odds of a protein of 500 amino acids emerging spontaneously:
1. The probability of the amino acids being in an appropriate sequence: one chance in 10⁶⁵⁰.
2. The probability of the amino acids being left handed: one chance in 10¹⁵⁰.
3. The probability of the amino acids being connected by peptide bonds: one chance in 10¹⁵⁰.
Total probability: one chance in 10⁹⁵⁰.

This number represents 1 followed by 950 zeros. To better appreciate the scale of these numbers, bear in mind that 1 billion is written out with a numeral 1 followed by nine zeros. Another comparison to help you comprehend the enormity of this figure is that the total number of electrons revolving around all the atoms in the universe has been calculated at only 10⁷⁵.

10⁹⁵⁰ = 10⁷⁵x 10⁷⁵x10⁷⁵x10⁷⁵x10⁷⁵x10⁷⁵x10⁷⁵x10⁷⁵x10⁷⁵x10⁷⁵x10⁷⁵x10⁷⁵x10⁵⁰

As you see, there is a huge gulf here. Even if all the atoms on Earth were to come together, they could still never randomly produce a single protein molecule.

Another point that Darwinists hope to ignore is that in order for life to emerge, all the necessary components must be present together at the same time. All these components need to be fully formed if they are to serve any purpose. A flawed structure cannot function and—according to the theory of evolution's own claims— will be eliminated under natural conditions. This irreducible complexity represents one of those factors that demolish the theory of evolution.

The prominent Turkish evolutionist Professor Ali Demirsoy describes how all their components must be present together in order for living structures to become functional:
The most crucial point of the problem is how mitochondria acquired this property. For a single individual to acquire this feature as the result of chance, we have to combine an inconceivable number of such infinitesimal possibilities. . . . Enzymes, which permit respiration and serve as catalysts in different forms at every level, represent the essence of the mechanism. A cell either possesses this full string of enzymes, or else it is meaningless. If some enzymes are missing, no result can emerge. In order not to conflict with scientific thinking and not to engage in a more dogmatic explanation and speculation we must accept, albeit unwillingly, that all the respiratory enzymes are present in the cell at one time and with none missing, before making contact with oxygen. 53 In a despairing tone, this evolutionist states that all the respiratory enzymes must be present at the same time in the cell. This means that all the organs, cells, enzymes and mechanisms of the respiratory system must have been created at one and the same time. Yet for some reason, this scientist views this self-evident truth as dogmatic and speculative, contrary to scientific thinking, and avoids admitting the facts. Yet in reality, denying the proofs of Creation that are plain to see represents a dogmatic violation of scientific thinking.

Professor Russell Doolittle, another world-famous evolutionist, admits that the very existence of proteins and their ability to function depend on other proteins—and that this represents an impasse for Darwinists:
How in the world did this complex and delicately balanced process evolve?…The paradox was, if each protein depended on activation by another, how could the system ever have arisen? Of what use would any part of the scheme be without the whole ensemble? 54
In the present day, a great many Darwinists honestly confess the impossibility of proteins and life emerging by chance. However, they still continue to defend the theory for the sake of their ideologies. Below you'll find a number of statements by world-famous Darwinists admitting the impossibility of proteins coming into existence as a result of coincidence:
Harold Blum:
"The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability." 55
Hoimar Von Ditfurth:
"These two polymers [egg white and nucleic acids] have been constructed in such a complex manner and, as if that were not enough, their structures exhibit such a high level of individuality that to imagine these came to that level by acquiring wealth solely as the result of chance goes far beyond being even an astronomically and inconceivably small possibility." 56
"The statistical impossibility of the living structures in question emerging as the result of chance alone is a rather current example of the present-day level of development of science. Indeed, looking at those extraordinary individual features in the formations of a single protein carrying out biological functions, it appears impossible to explain a large number of atoms combining together, all in the correct and requisite sequence, at the right time and moment and with the right electrical and mechanical features, all in terms of chance. " 57
"No matter how large the universe may be, chance giving rise to the birth of protein and nucleic acid is [an] impossibility. . . . " 58
David A. Kaufman (Florida University):
"Evolution lacks a scientifically acceptable explanation of the source of the precisely planned codes within cells, without which there can be no specific proteins and hence, no life. " 59
The information provided throughout this website regarding the structures, functions and production of proteins invisible to the naked eye shows that it is impossible for them to have formed by chance. Remembered that this information about proteins is just a short summary of the total. In addition, there still remain many secrets about proteins that science has yet to fathom.

It's very important that people learn about proteins and other miracles of Creation in order to grasp the logical mindset and thinking of those who maintain that proteins came into being by chance. Lacking a good knowledge of the structures of proteins, the cell and enzymes, someone may well attach little importance to a theory that claims they came to be by chance. However, after comprehending the details, that person will understand the serious threat posed by any theory that ascribes divine status to coincidences, and that it needs to be forestalled right away.

Believing in chance despite so much evidence to the contrary signifies a collapse of logic, understanding and comprehension. These people may be professors or researchers who have written dozens of scientific books and may even have won a Nobel Prize, but that does not change the facts.

The collapse of reason by people refusing to understand what they see and hear is one of the greatest dangers facing humanity. For that reason, those of reason and conscience must prevent that collapse by taking the requisite precautions, and ensure that others receive accurate information and explanatory proofs.

The second reason for learning about proofs of Creation such as proteins is the revelation of Allah's infinite might, intellect, knowledge and incomparable Creation, and to introduce them to its extraordinary splendor. Those who believe in the existence of Allah reflect on the proofs of His Creation on Earth and in the heavens. This enhances their love of Allah, and also their fear of Him. As He has revealed in one verse:
In the 20th century, Darwinists began seeking an answer to the question of how the first cell came into being. The first work on this subject was done by Alexander L. Oparin, a Russian biologist who proposed the "chemical evolution" model. But Oparin was unable to obtain any results from his research, and finally admitted:
Unfortunately, however, the problem of the origin of the cell is perhaps the most obscure point in the whole study of the evolution of organisms. 60 After Oparin, a great many Darwinists performed countless experiments attempting to prove that cells came into being as the result of coincidences, but every one ended in failure. The most highly highly regarded of these doomed experiments was carried out in 1953 by the American researcher Stanley Miller.

Miller prepared a mechanism conforming to Oparin's chemical evolution model. A mixture of the gasses assumed to represent the primordial atmosphere, methane (CH₄), ammoniac (NH₃), steam (H₂O) and hydrogen (H₂) was placed in a tank containing an electrical apparatus. Miller then sent a high-voltage electrical charge through the tank to simulate the effect of ultraviolet light on the pre-life atmospheric gasses. He then heated this gas mixture to 100 degrees for a week, while continuing to supply an electrical current, and eventually observed that three of the 20 amino acids essential to life had been synthesized. He immediately separated these molecules from the tank using a mechanism known as the cold trap. Other experiments also obtained various other amino acids under similar conditions.
This experiment carried out by Miller under allegedly primordial conditions was a source of great rejoicing among Darwinists, who portrayed the experiment as an enormous success. From their point of view, the experiment showed that biological building blocks could have been produced from simple atmospheric gasses in the primitive world—an important step in Oparin's scenario, which would thus provide experimental support for Oparin's theory of chemical evolution. Some circles, aware of the experiment's importance, sought to provide their own support for it. The famous astronomer Carl Sagan, for instance, described the Miller-Urey experiment "as the single most significant step in convincing many scientists that life is likely to be abundant in the cosmos." 61Considerable space began to be devoted to the Miller experiment in textbooks and public media such as Time magazine. Inspired by the Miller experiment, fictitious evolutionary scenarios based on chemical evolution—and describing it as the origin of life—lost no time in appearing in school books. Indeed, thanks to this experiment, the belief known as "neovitalism"—the idea that matter possesses the inherent ability to reproduce itself—was resurrected. 62
However, the Miller experiment was based on preconceptions of Oparin's and actually contained a great many elements far removed from scientific fact. The experiment was prepared to confirm the theory of chemical evolution that Oparin had dreamed up, and was intended to prove the validity of the theory of evolution. The setup used to produce amino acids bore no relation to the actual atmospheric conditions on the primordial Earth. Furthermore, it included several multilateral mechanisms for the production of amino acids that were not to be found in any natural environment. In the light of scientific standards, this experiment clearly contained prejudiced mechanisms.
Shortly after Miller carried out his experiment designed to prove that amino acids could form spontaneously under primordial world conditions, it was realized that this experiment was incompatible with the scientific facts in a number of ways. Considering the points that demonstrate the scientific invalidity of the experiment, it is clear that scientific objectivity was not its aim.
1. The "primordial atmosphere" in Miller's setup did not reflect the facts. Actual conditions of the primordial atmosphere do not permit the formation of amino acids and other building blocks essential for life.
When Oparin proposed his theory of chemical evolution, he suggested that the atmosphere on the primordial Earth was very different from what it is today. 63 Stanley Miller sought to recreate these primordial atmospheric assumptions set out in Oparin's book in 1936. Therefore, in seeking to reproduce the formation of amino acids, Miller assumed that the primordial atmosphere consisted of methane (CH₄), ammonia (NH₃) and hydrogen (H₂), as hypothesized by Oparin. In addition, he suggested that the Earth's atmosphere did not contain free oxygen. But in the years that followed his experiment, new geochemical evidence and experiments performed in the light of them clearly revealed that Oparin and Miller's estimates were inaccurate. On the contrary, the evidence demonstrated that the dominant gasses in the primordial atmosphere were carbon dioxide, nitrogen and water vapor; there was no methane, ammonia or hydrogen. This information showed that Miller's and similar experiments had been built on a false assumptions.

In any case, however, Miller had used these gasses deliberately. His objective was to prove experimentally the chemical evolution scenario proposed by Oparin 1924. For that reason, in determining the parameters of his experiment, Miller set out to duplicate the conditions Oparin had assumed. In fact, his aim was not to create the authentic primordial atmosphere before the emergence of life, but to produce the requisite atmosphere for amino acids to emerge.
Richard Kerr of Science magazine states that none of the geological and geochemical evidence collected over the last 30 years supports Miller's primordial atmosphere conditions. 64 The only reason for continuing to regard the primordial atmosphere conditions as accurate was that the theory of chemical evolution needed this assumption. The primordial atmospheric conditions that Oparin and Miller assumed were the most appropriate ones to allow amino acids to emerge. Under normal conditions in a natural atmosphere, no chemical reactions will take place among atmospheric gasses. Even if they do take place they are not at the level that can give rise to biological building blocks.

Darwinists seek to prove that under the conditions on the primordial Earth, inanimate substances gave rise to proteins by chance. But today, we know that proteins cannot form by chance.

Trying to form biological building blocks in a neutral atmosphere is like expecting two inanimate chemicals to react.

In fact, the primordial conditions "recreated" in Miller's experiment and others like it constitute no scientific evidence regarding the origin of life, since they did not take place in the actual primordial environment. After independent geochemical studies demonstrated that in the early atmosphere, chemical conditions prevailed that would never permit amino acids to form, it was realized that Miller's experiment was actually meaningless. Not only do experiments of this kind show that chemical evolution is impossible, but they also prove the presence of a rational Creator in the planning of living systems.
2. At the time when amino acids were suggested to have formed, so much oxygen was concentrated in the atmosphere that all amino acids would have been broken down.
A series of geological studies showed that even prior to the emergence of plant life, significant levels of free oxygen and volcanic gasses were present due to photo dissociation in water evaporation. In rocks estimated to be around 3.5 billion years old, the presence of oxidized iron and uranium showed that there had been oxygen in the atmosphere. 65 These findings indicated that the level of oxygen at that time had not been low, as Darwinists maintained, but was actually much higher than they had suggested. Research also showed that during that period, 10,000 times more ultraviolet light reached the Earth than Darwinists had estimated. Inevitably, such intense ultraviolet light would break down the water molecules in the atmosphere, producing free oxygen.

This fact, which Miller neglected to take it into account, made his experiment totally invalid. If he had used oxygen in the experiment, the methane would have broken down into carbon dioxide and water, and ammonia into nitrogen and water. On the other hand, in an oxygen-free atmosphere before the ozone layer had come into existence, any amino acids directly exposed to ultraviolet rays would have broken down. Whether it contained oxygen or not, an atmosphere on the primordial earth would destroy amino acids.
3. In his experiment, Miller immediately isolated the amino acids that formed, using a mechanism known as the cold trap.
Assuming that Stanley Miller did use gasses that actually resembled those in the primordial atmosphere, shouldn't the results of the experiment support chemical evolution? No! In addition to such building blocks as amino acids and nucleic acid bases, his experiments also produced non-biological substances. Barring human intervention, these substances would enter into reactions with other useful substances, to form chemical compounds with no biological significance. As soon as the amino acids appeared, Miller was obliged to protect them from other substances and from the harmful effects of other conditions in that environment, so his experiment used a mechanism known as the cold trap". Otherwise, the same conditions that gave rise to the amino acids would have destroyed these molecules as soon as they formed.
On the primordial Earth of course, there was no such thing as a cold trap. Yet without one, even if a variety of amino acid were produced, those molecules would immediately be broken down in the prevailing environment. As the chemist Richard Bliss stated, "Actually, without this trap, the chemical products would have been destroyed by the energy source." 66
Indeed, before Miller installed a cold trap, he had been unable to obtain a single amino acid in experiments he had performed.

In fact, Miller's experiment totally discredited the claim that life emerged as the result of unconscious coincidences. He demonstrated that amino acids can be obtained only when there is conscious intervention, in a laboratory environment where all the necessary conditions are provided.

Even though the Miller experiment is still depicted as an important scientific discovery in some quarters, it has effectively been abandoned by evolutionary authorities. In recent years, Western scientific journals have stated that in terms of accounting for the origins of life, the experiment is meaningless. For instance, the following comment, appeared in the February 1998 issue of the well-known evolutionist journal Earth, under the title "Life's Crucible": 67
As you have seen, Miller himself realized that his experiment added nothing to explain the origin of life. In the March 1998 edition of National Geographic magazine, an article titled "The Rise of Life on Earth," contained the following:
Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different from what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia. That's bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry amount of organic molecules—the equivalent of dissolving a drop of food coloring in a swimming pool of water. Scientists find it hard to imagine life emerging from such a diluted soup. 68 In short, neither the Miller experiment nor any other evolutionist endeavor can answer the question of how life on Earth appeared. All their researches show the impossibility of life coming into being by chance and therefore, that it was created. Darwinists refuse to accept this because they hold to a series of preconceptions that fly in the face of science. In fact, Harold Urey—Stanley Miller's student and who helped set up his experiment—made the following admission:
All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did. 69 Despite its invalidity, some Darwinists still seek to use the Miller experiment as proof that amino acids might have formed from inanimate substances. But even if that were the case, it would still not resolve Darwinists' difficulties! Even more impossible hurdles stand in their way: Amino acids would have to combine to form proteins— which are vastly more complex structures. And it is even more unrealistic to maintain that proteins formed by chance under natural conditions. You have already seen the mathematical calculations demonstrating the impossibility of amino acids combining in the sequences needed to give rise to proteins. And it's also chemically impossible for proteins to have emerged in the primordial Earth's atmosphere.
As already made clear, when amino acids combine to form proteins, they establish special peptide bonds among themselves. When this bond is established, a water molecule is released.

This invalidates the Darwinist account of primordial life emerging in the seas because according to the law of chemistry known as the Le Chatelier principle, any reaction that releases water (a so-called condensation reaction) cannot take place in an environment that contains water. Specifically, such a reaction taking place in a watery environment is described as having the "lowest probability of taking place."
Therefore, the ocean—which Darwinists describe as the place where amino acids formed and life began—is an absolutely unsuitable environment for amino acids to combine and give rise to proteins. 70 But in the face of this fact, proponents of Darwinism cannot alter their claims and maintain that primordial life first appeared on land. The oceans and seas are the only environment that could have protected amino acids from the harmful effects of sunlight coming through the primordial atmosphere. On land, amino acids are quickly broken down by ultraviolet rays. Yet the Le Chatelier principle makes it impossible for them to emerge in the sea. As far as the theory of evolution is concerned, this represents two dead ends.
Faced with the dilemma described above, Darwinist researchers set about producing various scenarios to overcome the "water problem" that demolished all their theories. To resolve the difficulty, the well-known Sydney Fox advanced one interesting theory: that after the first amino acids had formed in the primordial ocean, they must have immediately been cast up onto cliffs near a volcano. The high temperatures on those rocks must have evaporated the water containing amino acids. In this way, the "dried" amino acids could have combined to form proteins.

However, this sophistry convinced no one, because amino acids could not have exhibited heat resistance to the extent proposed by Fox. Research has revealed that at high temperatures, amino acids are immediately destroyed.
However, Fox did not give in. Under "very special conditions in the laboratory," he combined purified amino acids by heating them in a dry environment. The amino acids did combine, but Fox still failed to obtain proteins, only randomly connected, simple and irregular amino acid links—a far cry from the proteins in any living thing. In any case, had Fox maintained the amino acids at that same temperature, then the useless links that did emerge would have broken down. 71 Another point depriving the experiment of any significance is that rather than the amino acids obtained in the Miller experiment, Fox used the pure amino acids found in living organisms. Since he claimed his experiment to be a continuation of Miller's, he should have started off from where Miller left off. Yet neither Fox nor any other researcher used the useless amino acids that Miller produced. 72
Fox's experiment received no welcome from Darwinists because it was plain that the meaningless chains of amino acids (or proteinoids) that Fox obtained could never have emerged under natural conditions. In addition, he had still not obtained the proteins that constitute the building blocks of living things, so the problem of the origin of proteins had still not been resolved. An article published at the time in Chemical Engineering magazine commented on Fox's experiment:
Sydney Fox and the other researchers managed to unite the amino acids in the shape of "proteinoids" by using very special heating techniques under conditions which in fact did not exist at all in the primordial stages of Earth. Also, they are not at all similar to the very regular proteins present in living things. They are nothing but useless, irregular chemical stains. It was explained that even if such molecules had formed in the early ages, they would definitely be destroyed. 73 Indeed, the proteinoids that Fox obtained were far from having the function and structure of real proteins. The difference was as great as between a pile of scrap metal and a complex technological device.

Furthermore, this meaningless collection of amino acids had no way of survival in the primordial atmosphere. Under the destructive conditions of the time, intense ultraviolet rays and uncontrolled natural phenomena would cause these proteinoids to break down with no opportunity to continue combining. The Le Chatelier principle removes any question of amino acids being underwater where ultraviolet rays could not reach them. In light of these facts, scientists rapidly began to doubt the hypothesis that proteinoid molecules could represent the beginning of life.