Can Natural Processes Explain the Origin of Life? (Free Bible Software)

Can Natural Processes Explain the Origin of Life? MIKE RIDDLE Nature

Taken from online Bible free Bible software (Free Book War of World Views) for more information on where to get this go to here:

https://defendtheword.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/yet-another-free-bible-sofware-online-bible/

Have you seen the movie Mission to Mars? Astronauts discover that the “seeds of life” were planted on Earth billions of years ago by an alien race that once lived on Mars. After a meteor destroyed the atmosphere of Mars, these aliens left to colonize a distant planet, but not without first leaving DNA on Earth, which began the process of evolution. Realizing the remote possibility of life spontaneously beginning on Earth, some evolutionary scientists, including the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, Francis Crick, have proposed that life began on Earth from material that had come from outer space. However, moving the origin of life to another planet does not solve the problem. Could simple life have arisen on Earth or any other planet? What would be involved in such a process? In this chapter, we examine the origin of life and see that only the Bible explains it: “In the beginning God created…”. {#Ge 1:1}

WHEN CONSIDERING HOW LIFE BEGAN, there are only two options. Either life was created by an intelligent source (God) or it began by natural processes. The common perception presented in many textbooks and in the media is that life arose from nonlife in a pool of chemicals about 3.8 billion years ago. The claim by evolutionists is that this formation of life was the result of time, chance and natural processes. One widely used example of how life could have formed by natural processes is the Miller-Urey experiment, performed in the early 1950s.

Miller’s objective was not to create life but to simulate how life’s basic building structures (amino acids) {1} might have formed in the early earth. In the experiment, Miller attempted to simulate the early atmosphere of Earth by using certain gases, which he thought might produce organic compounds necessary for life. Since the gases he included (water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen) do not react with each other under natural conditions, he generated electrical currents to simulate some form of energy input (such as lightning) that was needed to drive the chemical reactions. The result was production of amino acids. Many textbooks promote this experiment as the first step in explaining how life could have originated. But there is more to this experiment than what is commonly represented in textbooks.

The Rest of the Story—Some Critical Thinking

When we examine the purpose, assumptions and results of the Miller experiment, there are three critical thinking questions that can be raised:

1) How much of the experiment was left to chance processes or how much involved intelligent design?

2) How did Miller know what Earth’s early atmosphere (billions of years ago) was like?

3) Did Miller produce the right type of amino acids used in life?

The Method Used

In the experiment, Miller was attempting to illustrate how life’s building blocks (amino acids) could have formed by natural processes. However, throughout the experiment Miller relied on years of intelligent research in chemistry. He purposely chose which gases to include and which to exclude. Next, he had to isolate the biochemicals (amino acids) from the environment he had created them in because it would have destroyed them. No such system would have existed on the so-called “primitive” earth. It appears Miller used intelligent design throughout the experiment rather than chance processes. {See Picture 170}

The Starting Ingredients

How did Miller know what the atmosphere was like billions of years ago? Miller assumed that the early earth’s atmosphere was very different from today. He based his starting chemical mixture on the assumption that the early earth had a reducing atmosphere (an atmosphere that contains no free oxygen). Why did Miller and many other evolutionists assume there was no free oxygen in Earth’s early atmosphere? As attested below, it is well known that biological molecules (specifically amino acid bonds) are destroyed in the presence of oxygen, making it impossible for life to evolve.

“Oxygen is a poisonous gas that oxidizes organic and inorganic materials on a planetary surface; it is quite lethal to organisms that have not evolved protection against it.” {2}

“… in the atmosphere and in the various water basins of the primitive earth, many destructive interactions would have so vastly diminished, if not altogether consumed, essential precursor chemicals, that chemical evolution rates would have been negligible.” {3}

Therefore, in order to avoid this problem, evolutionists propose that Earth’s first atmosphere did not contain any freestanding oxygen. We must ask ourselves, “Is there any evidence to support this claim, or is it based on the assumption that evolution must be true?” As it turns out, the existence of a reducing atmosphere is merely an assumption not supported by the physical evidence. The evidence points to the fact that the earth has always had oxygen in the atmosphere.

“There is no scientific proof that Earth ever had a non-oxygen atmosphere such as evolutionists require. Earth’s oldest rocks contain evidence of being formed in an oxygen atmosphere.” {4}

“The only trend in the recent literature is the suggestion of far more oxygen in the early atmosphere than anyone imagined.” {5}

If we were to grant the evolutionists’ assumption of no oxygen in the original atmosphere, another fatal problem arises. Since the ozone is made of oxygen, it would not exist; and the ultraviolet rays from the sun would destroy any biological molecules. This presents a no-win situation for the evolution model. If there was oxygen, life could not start. If there was no oxygen, life could not start. Michael Denton notes:

“What we have is sort of a “Catch 22” situation. If we have oxygen we have no organic compounds, but if we don’t have oxygen we have none either.” {6}

Because life could not have originated on land, some evolutionists propose that life started in the oceans. The problem with life starting in the oceans, however, is that as organic molecules formed, the water would have immediately destroyed them through a process called hydrolysis. Hydrolysis, which means “water splitting,” is the addition of a water molecule between two bonded molecules (two amino acids in this case), which causes them to split apart. Many scientists have noted this problem.

“Besides breaking up polypeptides, hydrolysis would have destroyed many amino acids.” {7}

“In general the half-lives of these polymers in contact with water are on the order of days and months—time spans which are surely geologically insignificant.” {8}

“Furthermore, water tends to break chains of amino acids apart. If any proteins had formed in the oceans 3.5 billion years ago, they would have quickly disintegrated.” {9}

Scientifically, there is no known solution for how life could have chemically evolved on the earth.

On the other hand…

Because the scientific evidence contradicts the origin of life by natural processes, Miller resorted to unrealistic initial conditions to develop amino acids in his experiment (no oxygen and excessive energy input). However, there is more to the story. Producing amino acids is not the hard part. The difficult part is getting the right type and organization of amino acids. There are over 2,000 types of amino acids, but only 20 are used in life. Furthermore, the atoms which make up each amino acid are assembled in two basic shapes. These are known as left-handed and right-handed. Compare them to human hands. Each hand has the same components (four fingers and a thumb), yet they are different. The thumb of one hand is on the left, and the thumb of the other is on the right. They are mirror images of each other. Like our hands, amino acids come in two shapes. They are composed of the same atoms (components) but are mirror images of each other, called left-handed amino acids and right-handed amino acids. Objects that have handedness are said to be chiral (pronounced “ky-rul”), which is from the Greek for “hand.” {See Picture 210}

Handedness is an important concept because all amino acids that make up proteins in living things are 100% left-handed. Right-handed amino acids are never found in proteins. If a protein were assembled with just one right-handed amino acid, the protein’s function would be totally lost. As one Ph.D. chemist has said,

“Many of life’s chemicals come in two forms, “left-handed” and “right-handed.” Life requires polymers with all building blocks having the same “handedness” (homochirality)—proteins have only “left-handed” amino acids…But ordinary undirected chemistry, as is the hypothetical primordial soup, would produce equal mixtures of left-and right-handed molecules, called racemates.” {10}

A basic chemistry textbook admits,

“This is a very puzzling fact…All the proteins that have been investigated, obtained from animals and from plants from higher organisms and from very simple organisms—bacteria, molds, even viruses—are found to have been made of L-amino [left-handed] acids.” {11}

The common perception left by many textbooks and journals is that Miller and other scientists were successful in producing the amino acids necessary for life. However, the textbooks and media fail to mention that what they had actually produced was a mixture of left-and right-handed amino acids, which is detrimental to life. The natural tendency is for left-and right-handed amino acids to bond together. Scientist still do not know why biological proteins use only left-handed amino acids.

“The reason for this choice [only left-handed amino acids] is again a mystery, and a subject of continuous dispute.” {12}

Jonathan Wells, a developmental biologist, writes,

“So we remain profoundly ignorant of how life originated. Yet the Miller-Urey experiment continues to be used as an icon of evolution, because nothing better has turned up. Instead of being told the truth, we are given the misleading impression that scientists have empirically demonstrated the first step in the origin of life.” {13}

Despite the fact that the Miller experiment did not succeed in creating the building blocks of life (only left-handed amino acids), textbooks continue to promote the idea that life could have originated by natural processes. For example, the following statement from a biology textbook misleads students into thinking Miller succeeded:

“By re-creating the early atmosphere (ammonia, water, hydrogen and methane) and passing an electric spark (lightning) through the mixture, Miller and Urey proved that organic matter such as amino acids could have formed spontaneously.” {14}

First, note the word “proved.” Miller and Urey proved nothing except that life’s building blocks could not form in such conditions. Second, the textbook completely ignores other evidence, which shows that the atmosphere always contained oxygen. Third, the textbook ignores the fact that Miller got the wrong type of amino acids—a mixture of left- and right-handed.

The Miller experiment (and all experiments since then) failed to produce even a single biological protein by purely naturalistic processes. Only God could have begun life.

Information

Another important component of life is information. The common factor in all living organisms is the information contained in their cells. Where and how did all this coded information arise? Proteins are amazingly versatile and carry out many biochemical functions, but they are incapable of assembling themselves without the assistance of DNA. The function of DNA is to store information and pass it on (transcribe) to RNA, while the function of RNA is to read, decode and use the information received from DNA to make proteins. Each of the thousands of genes on a DNA molecule contains instructions necessary to make specific proteins that, in turn, are needed for specific biological functions.

Any hypothesis or model meant to explain how all life evolved from lifeless chemicals into a complex cell consisting of vast amounts of information also has to explain the source of information and how this information was encoded into the genome. All evolutionary explanations are unable to answer this question. Dr. Werner Gitt, former physics professor and director of information processing at the Institute of Physics and Technology in Braunschweig, Germany, and Dr. Lee Spetner both agree that information cannot arise by naturalistic processes:

“There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.” {15}

“Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome. This surely shows that there are not the millions upon millions of potential mutations the theory [evolution] demands.” {16}

The DNA code within all plant and animal cells is vastly more compact than any computer chip ever made. DNA is so compact that a one-square-inch chip of DNA could encode the information in over 7 billion Bibles. Since the density and complexity of the genetic code is millions of times greater than man’s present technology, we can conclude that the originator of the information must be supremely intelligent.

Two biologist have noted,

“DNA is an information code…The overwhelming conclusion is that information does not and cannot arise spontaneously by mechanistic processes. Intelligence is a necessity in the origin of any informational code, including the genetic code, no matter how much time is given.” {17}

God, in His Word, tells us that His creation is a witness to Himself and that we do not have an excuse for not believing. {#Ro 1:19-20} The fact that the information encoded in DNA ultimately needs to have come from an infinite source of information testifies to a Creator. And, as we saw above, the only known way to link together left-handed amino acids is through purposeful design. Since no human was present to assemble the first living cell, it is further testimony to an all-wise Creator God.

Given Enough time…

Nobel prize-winning scientist George Wald once wrote,

“However improbable we regard this event [evolution], or any of the steps it involves, given enough time, it will almost certainly happen at least once…Time is the hero of the plot …. Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible becomes probable, the probable becomes virtually certain. One only has to wait; time itself performs miracles.” {18} {See Picture 260}

In the case of protein formation, the statement “given enough time” is not valid. When we look at the mathematical probabilities of even a small protein (100 amino acids) assembling by random chance, it is beyond anything that has ever been observed.

What is the probability of ever getting one small protein of 100 left-handed amino acids? (An average protein has at least 300 amino acids in it—all left-handed.) To assemble just 100 left-handed amino acids (far shorter than the average protein) would be the same probability as getting 100 heads in a row when flipping a coin. In order to get 100 heads in a row, we would have to flip a coin 10 to the 30 times (this is 10×10, 30 times). This is such an astounding improbability that there would not be enough time in the whole history of the universe (even according to evolutionary timeframes) for this to happen.

The ability of complex structures to form by naturalistic processes is essential for the evolution model to work. However, the complexity of life appears to preclude this from happening. According to the laws of probability, if the chance of an event occurring is smaller than 1 in 10 to the -50 then the event will never occur (this is equal to 1 divided by 10 to the -50 and is a very small number). {19}

What have scientists calculated the probability to be of an average-size protein occurring naturally? Walter Bradley, Ph.D. materials science, and Charles Thaxton, Ph.D. chemistry, {20} calculated that the probability of amino acids forming into a protein is

4.9 x 10 to the -191

This is well beyond the laws of probability (1×10 to the -50), and a protein is not even close to becoming a complete living cell. Sir Fred Hoyle, Ph.D. astronomy, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Professor of Applied Math and Astronomy, calculated that the probability of getting a cell by naturalistic processes is

1 x 10 to the -40,000

“No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning.There are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10 to the 20) to the 2000 = 10 to the 40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” {21}

Conclusion

As we have seen, the scientific evidence confirms that “in the beginning, God created…” Life cannot come from nonlife; only God can create life. True science and the Bible will always agree. Whether in biology, astronomy, geology or any other field of study, we can trust God’s Word to be accurate when it speaks about these topics. Let us stand up for the truth of Genesis and take back our culture.

{1} The basic building blocks of all living systems are proteins, which consist of only twenty different types of amino acids. The average number of amino acids in a biological protein is over 300. These amino acids must be arranged in a very specific sequence for each protein.
{2} Ward, P., and Brownlee, D., Rare Earth, p. 245, 2000.
{3} Thaxton, C., Bradley, W., and Olsen, R., The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, p. 66, 1984.
{4} Clemmey, H., and Badham, N., Oxygen in the atmosphere: an evaluation of the geological evidence, Geology 10:141, 1982.
{5} Thaxton, C., Bradley, W., and Olsen, R., The Mystery of Life’s Origin, p. 80, 1992.
{6} Denton, M., Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, p. 261, 1985.
{7} Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, Vol. 1, pp. 411-412, 1982.
{8} Dose, K., The Origin of Life and Evolutionary Biochemistry, p. 69, 1974.
{9} Morris, R., The Big Questions, p. 167, 2002.
{10} Sarfati, J., In Six Days, p. 82, 2000.
{11} Pauling, L., General Chemistry, Third Edition, p. 774, 1970.
{12} Shapiro, R., Origins, p. 86, 1986.
{13} Wells, J., Icons of Evolution, p. 24, 2000.
{14} Miller, K., and Levine, J., Biology, 2000.
{15} Gitt, W., In the Beginning Was Information, p. 107, 1997.
{16} Spetner, L., Not by Chance, p. 160, 1997.
{17} Lester, L., and Bohlin, R., The Natural Limits to Biological Change, p. 157, 1989.
{18} Wald, G., The origin of life, Scientific American 191:45, August 1954.
{19} Probability expert Emile Borel wrote, “Events whose probabilities are extremely small never occur…We may be led to set at 1 to the 50th power the value of negligible probabilities on the cosmic scale.” (Borel, E., Probabilities and Life, p. 28, 1962).
{20} Ref. 5.
{21} Hoyle, F., and Wickramasinghe, C., Evolution from Space,

Advertisements

About defendtheword

To contact us please send e-mail to defend.theword@ntlworld.com
This entry was posted in Apologetics, Atheism, Bible, Christianity, Church History, Discernment, Evangelism, Evolution, Hedonism, News, Photography, Prophecy, Religion. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Can Natural Processes Explain the Origin of Life? (Free Bible Software)

  1. misunderstoodranter says:

    First evolution is not random, it never said it was – evolution describes the survival of the fittest.

    Second, if the building blocks of life are beyond our technology, how do you explain DNA sequencing?

    Thirdly, I am not sure your interpretation of probability is quite right…

    In the beginning, the religious people claimed we all descended from Adam and Eve. Now that science has stepped up to this claim and proved that we didn’t – we descended as a process of evolution, the religious people start saying that DNA and the like is intelligent design. This seems like a massive U-turn to me, with additional spin, to bend the facts to suit a faith rather than an evidence based approach.

    Here is an interesting video, which will also provide you with a valuable lesson relating to mathematical probability.

  2. “First evolution is not random, it never said it was – evolution describes the survival of the fittest.”

    Hang on so you are saying now that despite all the possibilities somebody guided these infinite options into a precise code to the point when they will start making basic elements and making them into components that make up life. This sounds like religion to me.

    “Second, if the building blocks of life are beyond our technology, how do you explain DNA sequencing?”

    Not sure I understand this question? I never said that we haven’t mapped sequence of DNA, all I said is that DNA is complex, this is again another of your red herrings. This complexity points to the designer, which we call God. After some arguing even Dr Richard Dawkins agreed that life could have been started on earth by higher intelligence aliens. Now what does that tell you? Faulty logic, as he is the one that keeps on saying who created the God. So same question would be valid who created the aliens that started life on earth. This is only removing question about creation from earth and placing it elsewhere.

    “Thirdly, I am not sure your interpretation of probability is quite right… “

    So your interpretation is right and I’m suppose to just accept your word for it, despite all the objections from number of mathematicians who have published their objections, however these are always dismissed, attempts are usually made to discredit them as incompetent. However somehow they just managed to get their PhD’s in a secular universities, not to mention agnostic people who come to exactly the same conclusions.

    “In the beginning, the religious people claimed we all descended from Adam and E
    Eve.”

    If you knew about the DNA sequencing and recent research you would no doubt have heard that, the humans came out of Africa (According to modern science) and that we all share common ancestry. This is not contrary to the Bible but actually supports it.

    “Now that science has stepped up to this claim and proved that we didn’t – we descended as a process of evolution, the religious people start saying that DNA and the like is intelligent design. This seems like a massive U-turn to me, with additional spin, to bend the facts to suit a faith rather than an evidence based approach.”

    Just shows how easy is to spread misinformation, all the information is made public, available for others to examine in the same way they are presented here on this blog. There is no hidden agenda here, just open testable information.

    “Here is an interesting video, which will also provide you with a valuable lesson relating to mathematical probability.”

    Thanks for that I’m guessing you did not watch any of the replay that accompanied them? By the way I use to work as statistical analyst, so I do know little bit about the pitfalls of statistics too.

    Thanks for coming back thought.

    Kind regards

    Defend the word

  3. misunderstoodranter says:

    Wow – hang on a minute here…

    The Bible is clear: “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

    Yet you are using DNA evidence that states that we descended from genes in Africa… the same evidence that said we descended from a common ancestor… but that ancestor, did look anything like man.

    So are you saying god looked like a primitive life form?

    You can’t agree with modern science and disagree with it at the same time… either Evolution is a theory, that has some basis in fact – or it is false, and God created us in his own image as the bible says.

    Which is it?

  4. “Wow – hang on a minute here…”
    “The Bible is clear: “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
    “Yet you are using DNA evidence that states that we descended from genes in Africa… the same evidence that said we descended from a common ancestor… but that ancestor did look anything like man.”

    I didn’t say that, that is misinterpretation of what I said.

    “So are you saying god looked like a primitive life form?”

    No you are again making assumptions, jumping a gun unnecessarily, DNA does point to common ancestry, but I did not say that this is related to monkey business.

    “You can’t agree with modern science and disagree with it at the same time… either Evolution is a theory, that has some basis in fact – or it is false, and God created us in his own image as the bible says.”

    It just goes to shows that one can look at the one and the same set of data and come to differing conclusions. You attribute that evidence to evolution, whilst I attribute that same evidence to God’s creation and will gladly use it to say that Adam and Eve are our common ancestors. This option is ignored as its supposedly not scientific, but the fact is that, the approach used to discriminate against this theory without any proof is really not scientific.

    Regards

    Defend the word

  5. misunderstoodranter says:

    As for random and evolution – evolution uses random mutations, but only the successful ones are propergated to the next descendent – as a statistician, you must understand the scientific principles of object inheritance, and polymorphism?

    This is the same idea – only with some basic survival built in, if it works, it gets to reproduce – if doesn’t work, it doesn’t reproduce so it doesn’t get passed on. If it does work it gets reproduced again, with the possibility of mutation.

    I know that my body has faults – inherited faults from my parents (like everyone else) – why would a god design something with faults in it on purpose…. it doesn’t make sense – unless of cause it is to test my faith… (roll eyes).

    Thankfully, my genetic faults do not affect my ability to reproduce yet… however, this does mean that my kids are likely to have the same faults, but one day those faults may mutate into something more sinister and stop my genetic code from being passed on.

    Evolution is in progress, biologists have seen it happen – this is the reason antibiotics are not working like they used to – because the bacteria they are designed to kill have evolved to overcome them, by adapting and evolving their DNA… unless of cause you are saying that god wants bacteria to infect us and has changed the design of those bacteria to give people MSRA and such like?

    It has been good to talk to you.. and thank you for your time in your replies – you put up a strong case, but nothing you have said convinces me that ID is not hypocritical. However, at least you kept the conversation mature – which is most unusual, and very refreshing.

    Wishing you well.

    J.

  6. “As for random and evolution – evolution uses random mutations, but only the successful ones are propergated to the next descendent – as a statistician, you must understand the scientific principles of object inheritance, and polymorphism?
    This is the same idea – only with some basic survival built in, if it works, it gets to reproduce – if doesn’t work, it doesn’t reproduce so it doesn’t get passed on. If it does work it gets reproduced again, with the possibility of mutation.
    I know that my body has faults – inherited faults from my parents (like everyone else) – why would a god design something with faults in it on purpose…. it doesn’t make sense – unless of cause it is to test my faith… (roll eyes).”

    You bring very good point here and this is very rear to hear significant philosophical implications followed by the issue of Creation. This is a complex issue, to put it simply Most Christians believe that sense the fall of man things got screwed up, this is why we have to work hard and the earth is going to be much more difficult to control sense the time of plenty in Garden of Eden. I know that this sounds like fairytales, and I do accept that people are going to be sceptical about it. But if the story of the Bible is true then this is a reasonable explanation.

    “Thankfully, my genetic faults do not affect my ability to reproduce yet… however, this does mean that my kids are likely to have the same faults, but one day those faults may mutate into something more sinister and stop my genetic code from being passed on.”

    You bring very valid point here, I don’t disagree that there is a process of evolution, in particular Micro rather than Macro evolution. But this has negative affect on us rather than positive. Mutation as most Biologist would say is more often than not bad thing for us.

    “Evolution is in progress, biologists have seen it happen – this is the reason antibiotics are not working like they used to – because the bacteria they are designed to kill have evolved to overcome them, by adapting and evolving their DNA… unless of cause you are saying that god wants bacteria to infect us and has changed the design of those bacteria to give people MSRA and such like?”

    I agree, but this is not good for us humans, this genetic mistakes will eventually lead humanity to our extinction unless we find a way to fix this problem. Or if you Happen to be a Christian like me you may believe that Christ may come before that time.

    “It has been good to talk to you.. and thank you for your time in your replies – you put up a strong case, but nothing you have said convinces me that ID is not hypocritical. However, at least you kept the conversation mature – which is most unusual, and very refreshing.”
    “Wishing you well.”

    Thank you very much for coming back with more comments, you will be always more than welcomed here. I have enjoyed our mature disagreements and civilised behaviour. And can I use this opportunity to apologise for those who may call themselves Christians yet not follow basic of Christian principles to love, even their enemies (Not that I call you an enemy on the contrary it has been very present experience for me too). Likewise I’m finding it very refreshing that there are others who can disagree with me yet stay very gentlemanly.

    Please feel free to come back and comment on anything.

    Kind regards

    Defend the word

  7. A.F Martin says:

    awesome “defendtheworld”…
    keep up the good work..
    teach those evoulisionist a lesson!!

  8. al adrian says:

    Yes, eventually. It is simple. Concerning UreyMilller experiments. No genius needed here just a dose of common sense. No one would use oxygen as oxygen is very reactive gas and so did not exist as a free gas but combined with a variety of other elements…mostly as water vapor. Also, oxygen in our atmosphere is produced by plants so it is pretty obvious that you do not use oxygen as there could be none in the primordial atmosphere before the evolution of photosynthesis. But you are right in that a more oxidizing atmosphere is generally thought consistent with new data. Experiments like UM have been done 100s of times. Even in a more oxidizing atmosphere aa and na are produced but at slower rates.
    Your general understanding of probability is in error. A priori calculations of the probability of any discreet event that has already happened would always give very low numbers. You do not understand that a multitude, perhaps even an infinity of probabilities is possible at every moment of existence. Therefore the probability that life after it has come into existence by a long process consisting of largely heretofore unknown string of low probability events will always seem remote especially if one assumes some parameters and then starts calculating the odds. OH presto, see its impossible! The first primordial cell arose thru a process of small incremental low probability steps over several hundred million years in the presence of a largely reducing environment with a variety of energetic inputs assisted with perhaps colloidal clay templates. Check out RNA World. Competition and selection of RNA w/ ribozxymal activity was probably underway shortly after the Hadean period and sterilizing impacts ended. The microfossil evidence from a variety of ancient chert and shale deposits are now quite impressive. The Pilbara (WarawoonaGroup, Australia,1986) cherts that are3400 to 3500 Ma in age show definite arrangement of filamentous prokaryotic organisms of six different types based on their microscopic morphology. These are probably cyanobacteria within ancient fossilized stromatolites as determined by the C-12 to C-13 ratios determined by mass spectrometry. How much older are the first anaerobes if RUBISCO was already active this long ago! Incredible to contemplate, but life is probably a very common phenomenon throughout the MW as about 10% of stars are G spectral class stars whose planets may well be inhabited. There is no need to any longer produce magical beings…..we are on the verge of discovering how life came into existence on this planet and it won’t be long until we have a completely artifical life system which we can perform experiments on to understand the process in more detail. This will eventually allow us to refine our search for life in the MW.

  9. Let me just comment on one thing as others I believe to have been covered in the article itself. As someone who use to work as Statistical analyst, I do believe I hold reasonable understanding of probability. Without needing to go into too many details, let me just say that today scientist are creating new theories with multiverses, string theories etc in order to accommodate for the possibility of the “probability” of life starting in one of the many universes out there.

    I don’t hold such views, as simply put it, even now we acknowledge that even if we were able to understand this concept better at some point in the future, there would never be any chance of proving their existence, so how can then this idea prove anything else or why should this idea be any better than the idea of God?

    You also make false assumption that infinite number of possibilities is out there. For that to happen infinite number of variables would have to be lined up precisely to allow for infinite amount of possibility. This will never happen, so there has to be limited variations of the existent universe, with many repeated sequences that exist in our universe there will only be so many variables. We also see much evidence of organised available material and you will note many similarities both amongst the stars and biological life on earth.

    But one thing that no Chemist or Biologist would claim is that things just spontaneously merge into complexity. We have existent matter and material that seams to go the other way around we see degradation of matter not vice versa. There is significant coding in our DNA and RNA and before you go there I am aware of the errors, but regardless of that there is still significant complexity, and all the material that is used is somehow miraculously made available in this small place of the universe we call earth. This is where I like to remind people like Richard Dawkins when he tells me that we should not believe in fairytales and mythical creatures and should rely on the science to answer all our questions that in fact science is long way off from answering all the questions that we ask today.

    Questions of meaning; Why are we here? Where are we heading? Who are we? What is the meaning of life? Those things can only be answered with God otherwise we live in meaningless dog eat dog world that will never see the meaning of justice and reason.

    Defend the word

Comments are closed.