The origin of life is a
key point of distinction between and between the
Creationist and
Darwinist schools of thought. Creationists
believe that
God created all forms of life on earth
(including humans), endowing non-living matter with
life through a deliberate,
supernatural act. In constast, naturalists
typically believe that
life descended from a single self-replicating
protocell which in turn came into existence through
spontaneous chemical
reactions. This atheistic theory for the origin
of life is commonly known as abiogenesis (Greek
a "without", bios "life", and
genesis "beginning, origin").
Both views require an
extraordinary or miraculous event. To date,
scientists have not observed abiogenesis happening
in nature, nor have they been able to create a
lifeform through controlled experiments. In fact,
reaction conditions resembling the Earth's early
conditions have even failed to produce the most
basic polymers that all lifeforms possess (protein,
DNA, RNA, etc.). It is now understood that the
probability of even a single
protein forming through purely natural processes
exceeds what is acceptable based on the
law of probability. It is also important to
understand that and the origin of life in reliant
upon chance alone, since natural selection could
play no part until a self-replicating cell had been
formed.
Jonathan Sarfati states:
|
“ |
Also, when it comes to
the origin of first life, natural selection
cannot be invoked, because natural selection
is differential reproduction. That is, if it
worked at all, it could only work on a
living organism that could produce
offspring. By its very definition, it could
not work on non-living chemicals. Therefore,
chance alone must produce the precise
sequences needed, so these simulations do
not apply. .[1] |
” |
The probabilities of life
forming through purely random processes is so remote
that
Darwinists are at a complete loss for an
explanation. To avoid the issue they often insist
that the origin of life and
biological evolution are separate issues.
However,
theory of evolution must (and does) include a
theory of the origin of life, much as
stellar evolution also postulates a mechanism
for the
birth of stars. It therefore appears that
intelligent design is more reasonable
explanation for the existence of life than the
evolutionary model. At present, each model still
requires
faith and currently falls outside of the realms
of science since neither has been observed nor have
they been proven by experimentation.
Critiques
Critiques of naturalistic
abiogenesis fall into several categories:
- Arguments from
impossibility: purporting to show that the
nature of life itself precludes naturalistic
abiogenesis
- Arguments from
improbability: purporting to show that the
coincidences necessary to provide for
spontaneous abiogenesis are so improbable as to
be unreasonable and unscientific;
- Arguments from
inexplicability: purporting to show that there
is currently no explanation or demonstration of
naturalistic abiogenesis, and that belief in it
is a matter of faith and speculation, rather
than science.
Despite repeated attempts
under every reproducible circumstance,
atheistic scientists have been unable to
reproduce a reasonable method for the origin of life
without a creator, nor do they have a clear
understanding of the
chemistry involved. Many evolutionists have now
chosen to remain agnostic on the actual origin of
life, and will frequently try to dodge the issue by
claiming that abiogenesis is not part of the
theory of evolution.
Lee Strobel in his book,
A Case for Faith
quotes
William Bradley:
|
“ |
The optimism of the
1950's is gone. The mood at the 1999
International Conference on Origin of Life
was described as grim-full of frustration,
pessimism and desperation. |
” |
In contrast, creationists have
issued several probabilistic studies indicating the
difficulty of any such phenomenon. Although some
contend that these studies do not accurately portray
the modelling involved, it is clear that no credible
explanation for abiogenesis has been demonstrated by
evolutionary biologists.
The Nobel laureate Dr.
Francis H. Crick, in his 1981 book,
Life
Itself insists that the probability of life's
chance at origin simply defies calculation. Crick,
an
atheist, had this to say:
|
“ |
What is so frustrating
for our present purpose is that it seems
almost impossible to give any numerical
value to the probability of what seems a
rather unlikely sequence of events... An
honest man, armed with all the knowledge
available to us now, could only state that
in some sense, the origin of life appears at
the moment to be almost a miracle. |
” |
On this point creationists
would find themselves in complete agreement.
Chemical evolution
Theories concerning molecular
evolution generally assume molecules naturally
coalesce in to macromolecules during times when both
their concentration, and their atmospheric
conditions favor such contact. In 1924, Alexander I.
Oparin determined which chemicals must be in the
earth's atmosphere for
amino acids to form (e.g. methane, hydrogen,
ammonia) and which chemicals would prohibit the
formation of amino acids (e.g. Oxygen).
In the 1950s,
Stanley L. Miller performed the first experiment
attempting to reproduce these conditions. Methane,
ammonia, hydrogen and water were placed in a flask
that was subject to an electrical discharge. After
several days, the experiment yielded several organic
compounds including
amino acids. Other researchers repeated these
experiments using different energy sources such as
UV, and other presumed primitive atmospheres. When
hydrogen cyanide was used, even nitrogenous bases
were obtained, which are a component of the building
blocks for DNA.
Diagram that depicts
the experimental set-up of Urey-Miller.
By passing electrical sparks through
mixtures of
hydrogen,
methane,
ammonia, and
water vapor, scientists produced
several amino acids, the building blocks
of organic life.
Replication of the
Urey-Miller experiment.
However, in all of these
experiments that attempted to produce life's
building blocks, molecular oxygen was absent. The
earth possesses an oxygen rich atmosphere, and even
the oldest rocks contain oxides, which is evidence
that they were formed in the presence of oxygen. In
fact, oxides have been found in rocks supposedly 300
million years older than the first living
cells. Oxygen is produced by all photosynthetic
organisms, and is required for metabolism by all
life forms except a few microorganisms. A
hydrogen-rich reducing atmosphere was used in these
experiments only because amino acids and nitrogenous
bases simply will not form spontaneously in an
oxidizing environment.
Interestingly, in his
experiment of passing an electric spark through his
simulated atmosphere, Miller saved the
amino acids he produced only because he removed
them from the area of the spark. Had he left them
there, the spark would have decomposed them.
Moreover, assuming the amino acids survived the
destructive ultraviolet atmosphere of primitive
earth and reached the ocean to form a theoretical
"organic soup," further chemical reactions would not
have been possible as bodies of water are not
conducive to the necessary chemistry.
Another problem arises in
relation to the amino acids that were theorized to
have generated by chance. Even the correct sequence
of the right amino acids is still not enough for the
formation of a functional protein molecule. Each of
the 20 different types of amino acids present in the
composition of proteins must be "left-handed." Yet,
while some amino acids are "left-handed," others are
"right-handed." Should they be formed at random in a
"organic soup," it is most likely that they would
occur in roughly equal proportions. The question of
how a specifically required combination of
"left-handed" amino acids could unite by chance,
while excluding "right-handed" amino acids,
constitutes an impasse for abiogenesis.
Nevertheless, many
evolutionists still believe that experiments like
Miller's have shown that life could have begun by
fortunate interactions in the early
Earth.
History
Spontaneous generation
Spontaneous generation was the original theory
that proposed life could originate from nonliving
matter. It is now well known that the
spontaneous generation of life in our present
ecosystem is impossible.
Louis Pasteur abolished the theory of
spontaneous generation in 1859 because he believed
that life was far too complex to have originated
instantaneously from nonliving matter. He
simultaneously established the theory of biogenesis
(the origin of life from preexisting life). Within
ten years of Pasteur's experiments
Thomas Huxley had coined the term abiogenesis.
|
“ |
I shall call the...
doctrine that living matter may be produced
by not living matter, the hypothesis of
abiogenesis. (Huxley, 1870) |
” |
Observations and experiments
have proven conclusively that all recognized life
forms are produced by preexisting organisms or life
forms, called the
law of biogenesis. Despite the absence of
substantiation for the theory, abiogenesis has
become accepted by nearly all practicing scientists.
The hypothesis of abiogenesis remains virtually
unchanged since its inception in the 1920s, and
assumes that life originated at some point in
earth's past under conditions no longer present.
This particular tenet of
evolution can be summed-up by the phrase "abiogenesis
at first, biogenesis ever since". It is taught
today as a certainty, although the exact mechanisms
remain theoretical. Discussions in evolutionary
biology textbooks go to great lengths to
demonstrate how abiogenesis could have occurred
under multiple primordial scenarios.
Law
of Biogenesis
The
Law of biogenesis states that life can only come
from life. This principle was demonstrated by
Louis Pasteur. Note that this is in direct
conflict with the hypothesis of abiogenesis, not
only that life can be formed from non-living
material, but that this can happen by random chance.
The arguments usually given by some evolutionists
fall under two types: 1.) The
Law of biogenesis does not apply to early earth,
2.) The
Law of biogenesis does not apply to less complex
lifeforms, such has those supposedly formed in the
primordial soup.
1) The Law does not apply
to early Earth
The
Law of biogenesisis a scientific law because it
meets the criteria of being simple, true, universal
and absolute. In order to meet these criteria, there
has not been any known exception to the
Law of biogenesis. A scientific law is defined
as a principle taken to be universally applicable.[2]
The only known exception to a law in terms of time
is at the starting or ending of the universe,
clearly evolutionists are not arguing that life
formed at the same time the universe formed. There
is no reason to think that time would affect the law
of biogenesis, just as there is no reason to believe
that the Law of Motion did not apply on early Earth.
2) The Law does not apply
to less complex lifeforms
While it is true that some
laws have had to be modified in order to account for
known exceptions (this is true of Einstein’s
correction to Newton’s Law of Motion at speeds
approaching the speed of light), these exceptions
must be demonstrated. Currently, the
Law of biogenesis states that life can only come
from life, it makes no distinction between
single-celled and multi-cellular organisms. While
the evolutionists state that the law was only tested
on maggots and rats, this is entirely untrue. There
have been many experiments in which scientists have
tried to create life from non-living material. All
of these experiments have been unsuccessful in
creating life. Scientifically, it would then be
assumed that the Law of Biogenesis is as applicable
to single-celled organisms as to multi-celled
organisms. This law should only be refuted if a
scientist were able to create a life from non-living
material.
An argument made by
Talk.Origins states that Louis and Redi solely
disproved one form of creationism.[3]
This is entirely incorrect (see:
CreationWiki response). First, it is
impossible to disprove the supernatural with
science, the study of nature. Second, Louis and Redi
demonstrated that there is no type of naturalistic
explanation that will lead to life that does not
contradict with the
Law of Biogenesis. Only a supernatural (an
intelligent designer greater than the laws of the
universe) explanation would be able to account for
life forming from nonliving material.
The
Law of biogenesis (life can only come from life)
differs from the Biogenetic Law (embryology
recapitulates ontology). The biogenetic law which
states that during the stages of birth, the embryo
goes through all of the stages of evolution. This
“Law” was supported by many evolutionists. It was
found to be untrue and that
Haeckel (the champion of this Law) had doctored
and forged work to support this Law. This is the
only scientific law which has been proven entirely
false. It is interesting that the only law to be
proven false was used to support evolution. It also
seems ironic that evolutionists would so readily
ignore a true scientific law when it does not suit
their purpose, yet propose a false scientific law
that does.
Problems
Ozone
- Main article:
Abiogenesis and ozone
Ozone poses a major problem
for naturalistic models of abiogenesis.
Ozone (O3) forms when molecular
oxygen (O2) is struck by cosmic
radiation. Thus, without oxygen in the atmosphere,
there can be no ozone. Without ozone, ultraviolet
radiation would destroy any life exposed to the
sun. All known life that produces oxygen
requires exposure to the sun. Without life able to
survive in the sun, no oxygen can be produced.
Without oxygen produced, there can be no ozone, and
therefore no life.
In order to solve this
problem, naturalistic evolutionists must provide one
of the following:
- A way that ozone can form
without atmospheric oxygen;
- A way that oxygen can be
produced without life that requires sunlight;
- A way that
oxygen-producing lifeforms can survive without
ozone.
Thus far, the first two have
been utter failures. There is no known way for ozone
to form without atmospheric oxygen, or for oxygen to
form without life that requires sunlight. Several
attempts have been made to show that
oxygen-producing life can survive without the
protection of the ozone layer, but none have
succeeded.
Summary
The following summary of
problems is from
Refuting Evolution 2 by
Jonathan Sarfati:
- The amounts of these
chemicals are tiny—far too low to contribute to
biological processes.
- The wide variety of
compounds in itself counts as evidence against
chemical evolution. Even with pure compounds
used in experiments, the results are meager, so
how much worse would they be with the
contaminated gunk produced in the real world?
- Sugars are very unstable,
and easily decompose or react with other
chemicals. This counts against any proposed
mechanism to concentrate them to useable
proportions.
- Living things require
homochiral sugars, i.e., with the same
handedness, but the ones from space would not
have been.
- Even under highly
artificial conditions, there is no plausible
method of making the sugar ribose join to some
of the essential building blocks needed to make
DNA or RNA. Instead, the tendency is for long
molecules to break down.
- Even DNA or RNA by
themselves would not constitute life, since it’s
not enough just to join the bases (‘letters’)
together, but the sequence must be
meaningful—and this sequence is not a function
of the chemistry of the letters.
- Even the correct letter
sequence would be meaningless without elaborate
decoding machinery to translate it. Unless the
decoding machinery already existed, those
instructions could never be read. Similarly,
this book would be useless to a
non-English-speaker, who may know the Roman
alphabet but lacks knowledge of the code of the
English language to convert letters into
meaningful concepts.[1]
Panspermia
- Main Article:
Panspermia
If indeed a self-replicating
lifeform is, at some future date, created in the
lab, its plausibility and actual manifestation of a
mechanism for the origin of life was made possible
through deliberate design of intelligent minds.
There will still be no known process acting in
nature to produce life from non-life, therefore,
abiogenesis seems out of the realm of
empirical science. Furthermore, the extreme
complexity of all lifeforms seems to point in the
direction of an established Intelligence outside of
nature. The Intelligence designed life to be
governed by what are observed natural mechanisms or
processes that enable diversity. This is perhaps why
Francis Crick (one of the Discoverers of DNA)
and
Leslie Orgel (a microbiologist) proposed the
theory of directed panspermia: the belief
that life came to earth from outer space.
The origin of life conundrum
has scientists theorizing that life might have begun
on some other planet (See:
Panspermia). The
theory is currently experiencing a revival and
much of the research currently underway by NASA is
an attempt to discover signs of life on other
planets, such as Mars. If found, however, this would
not explain the origin of life, but merely push the
question to a more distant location.
References
