Article 3 – Can DNA Write Itself? Scientific Attempts and Their Limits
This is the third article in our series “Beyond Evolution: Rethinking the Story of Human Existence,” where we explore why evolution struggles to explain life, complexity, and human uniqueness. Each article focuses on one key example where existence and evolution by chance seems scientifically weak or logically impossible. In the last article, we saw how DNA functions like a written code. Here, we look at the attempts made to explain how such a code could appear by itself.
A Simple Analogy
Imagine a library filled with millions of books, each one carefully written with meaning. Now imagine being told that these books wrote themselves — letters fell into place by chance, over time, until whole novels appeared. No author, no intention, just accidents.
That is the kind of explanation many scientific theories offer for DNA.
Attempt 1: Random Mutations
The first explanation is that DNA came into being through random copying errors, known as mutations. The idea is that if enough errors pile up, eventually useful patterns will emerge.
But mutations usually destroy order instead of creating it. It is like making spelling mistakes in a sentence. After a few errors, the sentence no longer makes sense. Expecting mutations to produce a perfect language is like expecting typos to eventually write a dictionary.
Attempt 2: Natural Selection
The second explanation is that natural selection — the survival of the fittest — guided these random changes, keeping the useful ones. Over time, the DNA code supposedly grew more sophisticated.
But this explanation has a catch: natural selection only works after life already exists. You need a living organism to reproduce, and only then can selection choose between “better” or “worse” versions. If there was no life yet, selection could not have helped. It cannot explain the very first code.
Attempt 3: The RNA World
A more modern theory suggests that RNA came before DNA. RNA is a simpler molecule that can sometimes copy itself. The thought is that early RNA molecules built a bridge toward the complexity of DNA.
But RNA is fragile. It falls apart quickly in natural conditions, like paper dissolving in water. Relying on RNA to survive long enough to build DNA is like expecting soap bubbles to last through a thunderstorm.
Attempt 4: Self-Organization
Some researchers believe that chemistry itself has a hidden ability to organize into complex patterns. Just as snowflakes form beautiful shapes, maybe molecules “self-assembled” into DNA.
The flaw is that DNA is not just a pretty pattern — it is a language with instructions. A snowflake is visually beautiful but doesn’t carry information in its form; DNA carries information. Order is not the same as meaning.
Attempt 5: Computer Simulations
Modern scientists sometimes point to computer models that show how complexity can grow from simple rules. If a computer can simulate the gradual growth of information, maybe nature can too.
But here lies the irony: every computer program has a programmer. The simulation works only because someone designed the rules and fed in the data. Claiming this proves DNA could write itself is like saying a novel typed out in Microsoft Word proves novels can appear without an author. The tool is not the author — intelligence is still required.
Why This Matters
Every attempt runs into the same wall. Random mutations destroy order, natural selection cannot start without life, RNA is too fragile, self-organization produces patterns but not meaning, and computer models only work because intelligence is behind them.
DNA remains what it appears to be: a carefully written code. And where there is a code, there is always a coder.
Looking Ahead
In our next article, we will go inside the cell itself and explore the incredible machines that read and execute the DNA code. These factories are so precise that even our best human technology cannot compare. Could such systems really assemble themselves without design?
