‘Origins of Life’ (OOL) research is
a precursor to the theme of evolution. Any discussion on evolution is moot when
OOL scientists are clueless as to the origin of the very first life.
A USD 10 million prize is up for
grabs! Anyone who can answer the question ‘Where did life come from?’ and ‘Where
did the genetic code come from?’ can receive the prize money from Evolution
2.0.1
What do our naturalist friends offer (from the atheistic or the scientific
materialistic bandwagon) as answers to the question, how did the very first [self-replicating] life originate?
Acclaimed atheist and evolutionary
biologist, Richard Dawkins is clueless.
In response to a question, ‘What areas
excite you in terms of future breakthroughs in evolutionary theory?’
Dawkins replied, “The origin of life. The origin of the first self-replicating
information is key to the whole process. It's a somewhat baffling question and
is a problem of chemistry rather than the biology I am used to. I would like to
see that solved – perhaps it won't be with total certainty, but I would hope to
see a theory so beautifully plausible that it kind of has to be true. One would
hope for a chemical model that makes us say "yes!". That would be
wonderful.”2
American
astrophysicist and science communicator, Neil
deGrasse Tyson is also clueless, “However, Tyson is quick to point out that
we don’t understand the most vital component of evolution — the beginning. “We
still don’t know how we go from organic molecules to self-replicating life,”
Tyson said, and he noted how unfortunate this is because “that is basically the
origin of life as we know it.” The process is called abiogenesis. In
non-scientific jargon, it deals with how life arises from nonliving matter.
Although we have a number of hypotheses related to this process, we don’t have
a comprehensive understanding or any evidence to support one.”3
A cursory glance at the Abiogenesis page4 of Wikipedia will send any layman into a
tailspin. From outer space to earth, OOL scientists postulate an extremely wide
variety of theories/models!
Christian apologist J. Warner
Wallace has abbreviated these models for the consumption of a lay man:5
In my…book,
God’s Crime Scene: A Homicide Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely
Created Universe, I make a comprehensive case for the existence of God from
eight pieces of evidence in the universe. In Chapter Three (The Origin of Life:
Does the Text Require an Author?), I describe the futility scientists have
experienced when trying to identify the location in the universe where life
might have originated without the intercession and involvement of an
Intelligent Designer. The origin of life requires the emergence of pre-biotic
molecules (amino acids and nucleotide bases). Where could this have happened?
Could life have originated from “inside the room” of the natural universe? If
so, where, and is there a better explanation for the origin of life “outside
the room” of the universe?
… Here is a
very brief summary of the failed attempts to locate a reasonable naturalistic
point of origin:
Could Life Have Started in the Atmosphere?
You may
remember the famous 1952 Miller-Urey experiment from your high school or
undergraduate biology class. Stanley Miller and Harold Urey mixed ammonia,
methane, water vapor, and hydrogen and passed an electric charge through the
circulating gases. Within a week, they found several types of amino acids had
been created. This experiment later became the “poster child” for a
naturalistic explanation of the basic building blocks of life. Many believed it
proved amino acids could be formed naturally in the atmosphere of the early
earth. But with the evidence we now have about the conditions of the early
atmosphere, we know the gases used by Miller and Urey were not present in the
quantity or proportion they used. While this experiment may have some historical
significance, it does not prove life could originate in the atmosphere. In
fact, scientists now believe the early atmosphere simply could not produce
amino acids at any significant or necessary level.
Could It Have Started in Water?
Like the
Miller-Urey experiment, the concept of an ancient “primordial soup” is an
iconic fixture in most entry-level biology textbooks. Soviet biologist
Alexander Oparin first proposed the idea in 1924, arguing “chemical evolution”
took place in the Earth’s early waters, resulting in the formation of amino
acids, then primitive proteins. But aside from the fact we have no physical
evidence to support the existence of a “primordial soup,” we now know the
“chicken and egg” relationship between proteins and polymer chains (DNA) makes
their simultaneous appearance in water extremely unlikely (to put it mildly).
In addition, the absence of significant sources of phosphate for the early
formation of DNA, RNA or ATP is prohibitive in this environment. Worse yet,
there would be no way to limit the proportion of left and right “handed” amino
acids, nucleotides and sugars in the “primordial soup”, making the formation of
DNA and RNA molecules exceedingly difficult.
Could It Have Started On Land?
Some
researchers have proposed a scenario in which local terrestrial conditions,
such as those occurring in clay, might capture water on occasion, allowing the
necessary molecules to form and interact. But when trying to recreate these
conditions in the laboratory, scientists have come to realize the impossibility
of stabilizing the environment to allow for the formation of the necessary
cellular components.
Could It Have Started In the Earth?
Some
scientists have proposed an underground location for the origin of life where
molecular formation would be protected from water and atmospheric interference.
But the underground locations available in the early earth would have been
incredibly hostile to the formation of bio-chemical precursors, proteins and
RNA. Just as problematic would be imagining a scenario in which these primitive
forms of life could then transition from their underground origin to their
eventual homes above ground.
Could It Have Started In Space?
Some
scientists, frustrated with the lack of progress locating a reasonable earthly
source for pre-biotic molecules, have turned their attention to outer space.
But even if the basic building blocks for life, amino acids, were delivered to
earth in a meteorite, this would still fail to explain how the simple molecules
formed into the more complex proteins and nucleic acids necessary for life,
given the “chicken and egg” problem (refer to Chapter Three of God’s Crime
Scene). And if these more complex organic elements came to us from space, how
did they originate there and how could they survive the entry into earth’s
atmosphere?
…There’s a
reason why scientists are so divided over the location of life’s origin: None
of the proposed environments offer a viable, reasonable explanation. Arizona
State Cosmologist Paul Davies agrees: “Origin-of-life researchers cannot
identify any location on primordial Earth suitable for production of pre-biotic
molecules.” Every effort to stay “inside the room” of the natural universe to
explain the origin of life simply fails…
So on one hand, the spokespersons
for naturalism are clueless about the origins of life. But on the other hand, there
are many models for origins of life and moreover, the media continues to announce
that there has been a breakthrough discovery here and there that could possibly
explain the origins of life.
Are the OOL scientists close to understanding
the Origins of Life conundrum?
More to follow…
Endnotes:
1https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJSCBeLD05M
2https://www.rsb.org.uk/biologist-interviews/162-biologist/biologist-interviews/515-richard-dawkins
3https://futurism.com/neil-degrasse-tyson-universe
4https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Panspermia
5https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/can-naturalists-explain-where-life-originated/
Websites last
accessed on 28th September 2019.
No comments:
Post a Comment