The 2013 paper “The origin of life: what we know, what we can know and what we will never know” by Addy Pross and Robert Pascal attempts to solve the seemingly intractable problem of abiogenesis by proposing a new, unifying physical principle. They argue that “Dynamic Kinetic Stability” (DKS) is the underlying driving force that governs the transition from inanimate chemistry to the simplest life, and that this same principle continues to operate as the engine of biological evolution. This grand claim of a single, continuous process linking non-life to all life is presented as a major breakthrough.
However, a critical analysis reveals that DKS is not a new causal mechanism but a new name for the problem itself. The framework fails to address the central, fatal flaw in all materialist origin-of-life scenarios: the origin of specified, functional information. By presupposing the existence of the very systems it needs to explain, and by ignoring the evidence of universal biological decay, the paper offers a semantic reshuffling that ultimately reinforces the necessity of an intelligent cause.
A Summary of the DKS Hypothesis
Pross and Pascal begin by distinguishing between the historic and ahistoric aspects of the origin-of-life (OOL) problem. They rightly concede that the specific historical pathway—the exact chemical steps and environments on the early Earth—is likely lost to time and “will probably never be known.” Their focus, therefore, is on discovering the general, ahistoric physical principle that they believe made the emergence of life inevitable.
Their proposed principle is Dynamic Kinetic Stability (DKS). This concept applies exclusively to persistent replicating systems that are maintained in a far-from-equilibrium state by a continuous flow of energy and building materials. According to the authors, DKS is a measure of a replicator population’s persistence over time. A system with higher DKS is one that replicates more efficiently and out-competes other systems for resources. The core of their thesis is a proposed law of nature: “all stable (persistent) replicating systems will tend to evolve over time towards systems of greater stability,” that is, greater DKS. They further suggest that increasing complexity is a primary means by which systems achieve higher DKS.
In this view, Darwinian “fitness” is merely a biological manifestation of the more fundamental, physical principle of DKS. This allows the authors to declare that abiogenesis and biological evolution are not two separate problems but “one single continuous physico-chemical process” driven by the universal tendency of replicators to become better at replicating.
The Core Analysis: Re-labeling the Problem Does Not Solve It
While presented as a novel solution, the DKS framework is built on a series of critical fallacies that render it causally impotent. It does not solve the origin-of-life problem; it merely assumes the problem is already solved.
1. The “Assume a Replicator” Fallacy
The most glaring flaw in the DKS model is that its entire logic only begins after the most difficult part of the origin-of-life problem has been miraculously overcome. The theory applies exclusively to “persistent replicating systems.” But the central question of abiogenesis is not how a replicator evolves, but how the first self-replicating entity, complete with its specified functional information, could possibly arise from a collection of simple, non-replicating chemicals. Pross and Pascal offer no mechanism for this crucial step. Their theory starts on the finish line, explaining the behavior of a hypothetical entity whose existence is the very mystery to be solved. This is not an explanation for the origin of life; it is a description of life once it already exists.
2. The Investigator Interference Fallacy
The authors reference studies in “systems chemistry” as evidence for their model. However, every laboratory experiment demonstrating “autocatalysis” or “molecular replication” is a testament to intelligent design, not unguided nature. These experiments succeed only because intelligent chemists intervene at every step:
- Purified Reagents: They use highly purified, homochiral (all left-handed or all right-handed) building blocks, a condition that has no plausible parallel in any realistic prebiotic scenario.
- Unrealistic Concentrations: They use concentrations of reactants that are orders of magnitude higher than anything that could have existed in a hypothetical “prebiotic soup.”
- Sequenced Intervention: They add chemicals in a precise, pre-determined order and at specific times to guide the reaction toward the desired outcome.
- Environmental Control: They meticulously control temperature, pressure, and pH, and often use traps to protect the desired products from the destructive energy sources and interfering cross-reactions that would dominate any natural environment.
The “Dynamic Kinetic Stability” observed in these lab systems is not an inherent property of matter; it is a direct result of the configurational entropy work and foresight supplied by the experimenter. To use these experiments as proof of what unguided nature can do is to commit a fatal error of logic.
3. The Unresolved Information Crisis
DKS is a kinetic descriptor, but the origin of a replicator is an information problem. A replicator like RNA is defined not by its chemical backbone but by the specific, aperiodic sequence of its nucleotide bases—a sequence that carries the instructions for its own replication. The authors claim that “complexification” can lead to higher DKS, but they provide no mechanism for generating functional complexity.
The search for a functional sequence is a search through a hyper-astronomical combinatorial space. As demonstrated by Douglas Axe’s work, the ratio of functional protein sequences to non-functional ones is vanishingly small (e.g., 1 in 10^77). A blind, random search has no chance of stumbling upon one of these rare functional islands. A “drive towards greater DKS” is meaningless until a system already possesses the information to replicate. The principle cannot explain the origin of the information required to make the principle operative. This is a classic chicken-and-egg problem of insurmountable proportions.
4. The False Unification with a Failing Theory
The paper’s claim that DKS unifies abiogenesis with biological evolution into a single, continuous, upward-driving process is directly contradicted by real-world biological data. The central axiom of neo-Darwinism—that random mutation and natural selection build new functional information—is demonstrably false. The work of geneticist Dr. John Sanford has shown that genomes are relentlessly accumulating deleterious mutations at a high rate (~100 per person per generation). Because the vast majority of these mutations are “nearly neutral,” their fitness effects are too small to be seen and removed by natural selection.
This process of “genetic entropy” means that the net trajectory of all complex genomes is not towards greater fitness and complexity (“higher DKS”), but towards inevitable degeneration and eventual extinction. Rather than a continuous upward process, the history of life is one of a perfect creation, a subsequent Fall introducing decay, and a present reality of universal degradation. The DKS model is based on a view of evolution that is contrary to the empirical evidence.
The Alternative Explanation: The Signature of Foresight and Engineering
Pross and Pascal’s model fails because it attempts to explain an effect—functional, information-rich replicating systems—with a cause that is known to be inadequate. The proper scientific method, inference to the best explanation, requires us to seek a cause that is known from our uniform and repeated experience to have the power to produce the effect in question.
- The Cause of Information: Our universal experience confirms that specified, functional information—whether in a book, a software program, or a chemical replicator engineered in a lab—invariably arises from an intelligent mind.
- The Cause of Integrated Complexity: Irreducibly complex systems, where multiple parts are required for a single function (like the cell’s entire DNA-protein replication and translation machinery), are the hallmark of engineering. A “drive toward greater DKS” cannot account for the simultaneous origin of a multi-component, interdependent system. Foresight is required.
- The True Trajectory of Life: The biblical model of a “very good” creation followed by a Curse that introduced death and decay provides a far superior framework for understanding the biological evidence. It predicts the existence of highly complex, information-rich genomes from the beginning, as well as their subsequent, observable decay (genetic entropy). It also accounts for the rapid diversification of life into new species within their created “kinds” after the Flood, through the sorting of pre-existing, designed genetic diversity—a process that happens on a timescale of thousands of years, consistent with empirically-measured molecular clocks.
Conclusion
Pross and Pascal’s paper, “The origin of life: what we know, what we can know and what we will never know,” ultimately tells us more about the failures of materialistic thought than about the origin of life. Their concept of Dynamic Kinetic Stability is a philosophical abstraction, not a physical cause. It is a circular argument that assumes the existence of the very replicating systems it needs to explain, ignores the insurmountable problem of originating specified information, and falsely extrapolates from intelligently designed lab experiments to unguided nature.
By attempting to unify abiogenesis and evolution under a single principle, the authors inadvertently highlight the shared, fatal flaw of both concepts: a reliance on a creative power for mutation and selection that reality shows to be a destructive, degenerative force. The intricate, information-based reality of even the simplest life does not point to a blind kinetic drive. It points to the necessary and sufficient cause for all functional information and integrated machinery: the mind of an intelligent engineer.
Leave a Reply