The Bankruptcy of Materialistic Origin of Life Theories.
MISUNDERSTANDING OF ORIGIN OF LIFE
Life either originated naturally or unnaturally. Whichever is true, it has deep Theistic implications. Consequently, the debate on origins rages on with perceived high stakes on both sides; namely their ability to honestly hold to their preferred view of reality. Many may not like where the facts lead, but most prefer to believe what is true, rather than what is comfortable. That is what’s provided here; newly discovered scientific facts that will make some happy and others, not so much. But they are unequivocally the truth of the most recent research. The fact is, many highly educated, intelligent people fundamentally misunderstand the magnitude and even NATURE OF THE ORIGIN OF LIFE PROBLEM. The information is available for all to see, but unless specifically searched for, it will never be found and its existence will not even be known. The real failures of origin of life theories are never taught in our schools or even in our college biology courses. And when they are mentioned, the new research that is not supportive of chemical origins is rarely conveyed in a manner that elucidates the magnitude of the problems with which the origin of life theories are plagued. Consequently, even the best and brightest student of biology is often left oblivious to the acute issues involved in the finding a plausible naturalistic pathway to life’s origins. Consequently, if the subject the subject is broached, it’s often met with a dismissive recounting of “RNA World” or Clay Theory” without even pausing to acknowledge that something new may have been discovered since high school or that first year biology class. The fact is, the most recent evidence has figuratively cut the legs off all past and present theories for a chemical, natural origin of life. This article may be a profoundly eye opening experience for anyone who prefers current accurate information and understanding over systemic dogma. Don’t worry, although cites to top researchers are provided, the information is presented in a lay person friendly manner.
*THE ORIGIN OF LIFE PROBLEM* Short link to article. http://wp.me/p2EGlL-7Wb
Foundational to even the simplest life is DNA. The DNA molecule is perfectly analogous to the most sophisticated computer code. Even Bill Gates acknowledges this fact. It contains folders, sub folders, super folders, error correction mechanisms, etc… AND it is orders of magnitude more advanced than any code man has created. Additionally, not only is DNA is coded information, it is mathematically identical to the characters and function of the alphabet, Morse Code , binary code, hieroglyphics, and any other written or verbal language in existence and it operates in precisely the same informational manner. In short like any code or language, DNA’s only purpose is the storage and conveyance of functional information.
A SIMPLE UNCONTRADICTED FACT
*Other than at the core of life, there has never been an OBSERVED code of any kind originated by any means other than intelligence*. But consider this fact. For the origin of life researcher, the puzzle is not just the origin of the code, it’s how could it contribute to the first living cell. Even if we posit that what even top researchers do not agree that it’s possible, i.e that a complete, informationally rich DNA or RNA chain randomly, naturalistically came into being, assuming it did, what now? Is one assemblage of DNA or RNA life? No.
By itself a strand of DNA or RNA is little more than an inanimate, string of linked amino acids. What can they accomplish by themselves? Nothing! To be fair some of our brilliant scientists have found that RNA has in addition to informational, some self-replicating properties which is what actually led to the hypothesis of the RNA world (which will be discussed later). However, this finding has done little to solve the origin of life problem. In fact Sidney Altman who won the Nobel Prize in 1989 now asserts that an RNA divorced from life probably never existed. See Sidney Altman states in this talk https://youtu.be/IhQcK4PsStk at the 52:15 min mark but *RNA as the origin of life is not likely and that RNA has never been seen, absent being a part of existing life*. But let’s assume that RNA did come about naturally…
RNA and DNA are integral components to not only the existence of life but to its origins. However, even in the event that they could have naturally occurred, both are universes away from the creation of a protein, let alone a living cell. Realize, an amino acid is to a living cell, what a speck of dirt is to a mansion. Consider…
• Enough dirt when combined in just the right way can create a brick. With thousands of them, they can be specifically arranged to build a mansion. But one brick has little use.
• Enough amino acids combined in EXACTLY the right way can create a protein. The combination of, at least, 250 perfectly created and arranged proteins can be used to create a living cell.
Dirt to brick is simple… Amino acid to protein is impossibly difficult!
And that’s not me saying that. It’s one of the world’s leading origin of life researchers. Eugene Koonin, (a materialist) has now concluded. *The problem is so stark*, that the emergence of a coupled replication-translation system is unlikely, to the extent of being, *EFFECTIVELY IMPOSSIBLE*.
(More on this later) Furthermore, the *originator of the RNA first Hypothesis, Nobel Laureate Sidney Altman* states in this talk https://youtu.be/IhQcK4PsStk at the 52:15 min mark *RNA as the origin of life is not likely and that RNA has never been seen, absent being a part of existing life*.
For the sake of argument… even if we assumed RNA was created naturally and was the first step to life, unless it came into being concurrent with a type of cytoplasmic cellular fluid along with a concurrent protective cell membrane, it would have been fatally exposed to the unfriendly elements of the world, sunlight, UV rays, wind, heat, cold or quickly disassemble in the water … In other words, it would quickly disintegrate into nothingness before life could have arisen.
Current science dictates that the chances of all protein parts required for a living cell arising concurrently seems all but impossible; this has even been stated by top origin of life researcher, Eugene Koonin. *But let’s assume the almost impossible did happen*… a living cell arose!
*A living cell came into being via a purely NATURALISTIC mechanism!*.
Great… but poor little cell… Unless this newly created living cell arose with, not only, with its DNA containing a complete set of instructions for replicating each and every one of the hundreds of individual proteins required to build, repair AND MAINTAIN any cell… and in addition to instructions to replicate each protein, it must contain the information to allow the DNA code and the cell itself…
PLUS, if simultaneous with its creation it was not equipped with a *biological mechanism* capable of reading and translating the DNA codes into their biological equivalents, there would be a BIG PROBLEM! Unless all of this was included in the first living cell, when it dies… *the existence of life on earth is over!* (But maybe cells were simpler in the past? See below).
*UNDERSTANDING THE MAGNITUDE OF THE CODE PROBLEM*
DNA is a code. But a code without a translation system is useless; a bit like having a CD but no CD player. ALL CODES REQUIRE…
1. A “coder”; to convey or create that code.
2. A “reader”; i.e. some intended receiver, capable of understanding the language of that code.
3. A “translator or transcriber” capable of converting the informational properties into the intended embodiment of that information… physical, biological, written or even musical.
*A SIMPLE EXAMPLE*
In our world of technology, the binary code contains the information that creates the computer program and always needs:
• A printer or computer monitor to receive and translate digital information to a physical document or present it in a visual form to the monitor.
• In factories, machines transcribe coded digital information into machines that are responsible for the production of the products.
*In exactly the same fashion, within all living cells in all living organisms, it always starts with the the DNA code that is is sent to ribosomes read and “translate” the DNA’s information into the specific proteins required to create the countless amazing biomechanical machines that are integral to the life and function of each cell*.
Whether in factory products, human machines, biochemical mechanisms or even in the reading of a relaxing article, the process is always the same…
1. Information was first created by an intelligent agent.
2. Information is received and understood by a separate “something”, us or our machines.
3. If appropriate, it is then acted upon to create the intended manifestation of the information conveyed.
- As uncomfortable as it is for some:
- *Intelligently generated Information is always at the foundation of codes*.
*In the uniform and repeated experience of the history of humanity, there has never been even one observed exception to the proposition that all SOURCES OF CODES are the result of a purposed intelligence*.
- *Intelligently generated Information is always at the foundation of codes*.
*BUT JUST GIVE SCIENCE MORE TIME?!*
The problem regarding the ORIGIN OF LIFE doesn’t just stem from what we DON’T KNOW or what we have yet to learn… but rather from that which we DO know. The fact is, the more we learn, the more problems naturalistic pathways come up against. The issues with a natural chemical origin of life are not just the dearth of evidence supporting the hypothesis, but the abundance of continually expanding evidence that argues against it.
*THE BLACK CAT THAT WASN’T*
The usual response to origin of life problems is to just give science more time to find that naturalistic cause. But, consider, is it just possible that a naturalistic explanation does not exist? Is it possible that our scientists are effectively searching in a very dark, very large room, looking for proof of a very small, very black cat… that was never there?
If it is not and never has been there, no matter their brilliance, persistence, creativity, fortitude… it just doesn’t matter. They won’t find that cat!
How much time and effort would be spent searching for that cat if after 50 years of research the sum total of evidence for its existence is that in that dark room they found:
1 Chemical constituents capable of creating a cat protein, but other than knowing that cats now exist in other places, they can find not one iota of evidence that a cat or even a cat protein ever existed there.
2. The room has mice capable of keeping a cat well fed and alive, but still no real evidence of cats; only substances that could be able to sustain one.
3. If a cat had been there, they should find the waste materials proving its existence. But there are none.
Assuming there is no evidence other than this, why would they be so certain the a cat must have been in that room?
- By way of analogy, the above is about the sum total of evidence of our top researchers have that “empirically” support a naturalistic cause. The basics used to support the hypothesis.
- Amino acids can be created naturally.
- Amino acids are the components of all life… (but realize, they are NOT “cats” nor evidence of their existence*)
- A PRIMORDIAL soup would have contained trillions of amino acids thus increasing the probabilistic resources for the creation of a protein creating combination of amino acids.
- Although, the precise combination of amino acids could create an RNA or DNA molecule; but divorced from a living system not even one has ever been seen.
- The creation of a protein could lead to the first living cell, but one protein is not even close to life.
- However, unless hundreds of proteins come into being at exactly the same moment in the exact proper assemblage, no life will be forthcoming.
In addition to all of the above issues, the fact is that substantial empirical evidence of a primordial soup having existed is lacking. In fact, most evidence contradicts it.
*THE PRIMORDIAL SOUP*
Was there ever a primordial soup? i.e. The hypothesized massive seas of amino acids that could be used to create the first protein, then first living cell? According to most empirical data the answer is No. If it had existed we should find worldwide prebiotic chemical signatures of its existence.
Robert Shapiro, a top evolutionary biologist writes that the notion that “the bases, adenine, cytosine, guanine and uracil were readily available on the early earth [is] not supported by existing knowledge of the basic chemistry of these substances.” Additionally, he writes, “The evidence that is currently available does not support the availability of ribose on the prebiotic earth, except perhaps for brief periods of time, in low concentration as part of a complex mixture, and under conditions unsuitable for nucleoside synthesis.
Even with its many documented flaws, the RNA world hypothesis remains the most plausible naturalistic origin of life theory available. However, as noted, it suffers from a many serious problems. Even its most ardent supporters acknowledge this fact. See…
*A 2012 paper inBiology Direct by biochemist Harold S Bernhardt Keenly titled*,
“The RNA world hypothesis: the WORST THEORY of the early evolution of life (EXCEPT for all the others)
In spite of all of this, let’s assume that the prebiotic soup DID exist… Would that solve the problems?
*EVOLUTION OF AMINO ACID TO PROTEINS TO CELLS*
Even assuming the existence of the primordial soup full of amino acids that created a protein, what would that accomplish? Basically nothing. Is a protein life? No. Other than by a living organism, have we never observed the natural formation of a protein? No.
Even so, for the sake of argument, let’s give it the benefit of the doubt. Let’s assume that against all the evidence there was a primordial soup. Further let’s assume that in spite of the impossible odds of doing so, the amino acids combined in just the right sequence to create an actual protein.
Assuming a protein was created; ONE wouldn’t be enough. Until there are sufficient functional, connected proteins to create even the simplest living cell, it can’t “evolve” to anything more. The concept of evolution by natural selection has no more relevance to an isolated protein than it does to a rock.
So how many proteins does it take for life? Even the simplest LIVING cell would have require, at least, 265 to 350 proteins that had to arise simultaneously; connected and functioning like a well-oiled machine. And no, the often touted response that life may have been simpler does not save it.
Even the simplest living cell must have a myriad of certain functions and parts that work seamlessly to sustain itself. In fact, it has been determined that 265 to 350 proteins is the minimum for a stripped down version of what can constitute life’s basic components.
The conflagration of past and the most recent research all indicate that a naturalistic pathway to the first cell simply is not plausible. *But there continues the naturalistic belief that a natural chemical pathway to life MUST exist, (because the alternative is an UNNATURAL pathway). Although, there is no shortage of conjecture, there is virtually no empirical evidence of it being true*.
I applaud the research. It has been and continues to be an never ending source for a world of incredible knowledge. However, it simply appears they are hard at work searching for something that empirical data and analysis indicates just doesn’t exist! i.e. They may be searching for a black cat that’s not there!
* *The fact is that regarding the origin of life research*, the emergence of the first living cell is at an absolute dead end. Yes, there is still plenty of conjecture within the scientific community, but EVERY naturalistic account has hit a brick wall, with no doorway apparent…
*WHAT TOP RESEARCHERS SAY*
As Francis Crick, (co-discoverer of the structure of DNA), stated “…there is too much speculation running after too few facts”
Additionally, one of our *leading origins of life researchers Eugene Koonin*, (a materialist) has now concluded.
*The problem is so stark*, that the emergence of a coupled replication-translation system is unlikely, to the extent of being, *EFFECTIVELY IMPOSSIBLE*.
He then goes on to say for it to happen we must be part of a “multi verse”. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1892545/
In light of the reams of new evidence and the obvious Theistic inferences, why not, at least, recognize the possibility there was a “coder”?
*I BELIEVE THE REASON IS AN UNYIELDING FAITH IN NATURALISM*
The committed naturalist has an absolute *FAITH* that there MUST be a naturalistic explanation and furthermore, that there is and can be no God. Me? I believe in following science wherever it leads, even if it leads to God. I used to be an atheist. It was current science that motivated me to rethink that position.
Remember, I used to be an atheist. The information in the below article contains the info that started me looking to a different path.