THE TRUTH ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE
No matter what you currently believe, what follows may shock you.   Virtually everything you may have learned about the origin of life while in high school, college and even advanced classes in the top universities is WRONG!   The search and debate for a naturalistic cause of life has been raging for decades with each side repeating somewhat cherry picked facts that inferentially support their side of the debate.  As recently as Ten to twenty years ago, many thought the origin of life issue was put to bed with the RNA world theory; then more recently, clay theory, thermal vents, etc… They now realize, there is so much more to the issue!

The last few decades have provided an explosion of new biological research and discovery that has turned the origins debate on its head. Many will be horrified by the implications of these discoveries, but love them or hate them… facts are always facts; and facts form the strongest foundation for any belief system.  For all who prefer to believe that which is actually true, rather than that what is preferred to be true, this is for them.  Following are many of the most recent thoughts, analysis and discoveries of current top origin of life researchers.  No matter what side of the debate you are on, this may shock you. 

These are not just my words or opinions.  The article is comprised of the thoughts and statements of the world’s current top researchers including current top University professors, PHD’s and Nobel Laureates throughout the world.   It provides not just an overview of the most difficult facets of the origin of life issue, but for those who want to dig deep they will find not only researchers verbatim quotes and opinions, but direct cites to their articles, books and even peer reviewed papers. The long and fiercely held beliefs of many will be seriously challenged; for others it will serve as confirmation of what they already felt they knew.   Love it or hate it… this is the current state of origin of life science.   Prepare to be amazed!  

A simple fact… There are only three possible pathways for the arrival of the DNA/RNA instructions that’s fundamental the origin of the first protein, the first living cell and all life that followed.  

• It arose from a random combination of chemicals, to amino acids, to proteins to life; in other words, chance.
• It resulted from natural chemical affinities i.e. attractions that assured that eventually amino acids would chemically assemble in a specific way that produces proteins and then life.   BUT… If it can be shown that neither of these two “naturalistic” causes; are capable of providing a natural pathway to life; what’s left?
• A Purposeful Cause-  The inescapable inference would be that the creation of precisely arranged amino acids into the multitude of structures required to create hundreds of fundamentally different proteins that then combined in a precise assemblage from which life arose was the result of some purposeful intelligent cause.  It that’s the case the only logical question is who or what is that intelligence?    

Sound incredible?  Nobel Laureate Francis Crick, Richard Dawkins and several other top researchers, when faced with the limited options for an origin of life actually posited that life may have been planted on earth by an advanced alien civilization!   CLICK HERE for further discussion of origin of life options.  

WE KNOW SOME REQUIRED STEPS HAPPEN- We just need more time for the rest…
In this article we will actually assume that each step required for a naturalistic origin of RNA, do DNA, to protein actually occurred via a total naturalistic pathway–  Subsequent to assuming the success of each step, we then analyze how far the ball has actually moved towards it not just being alive, but sufficient to replicate itself to continue life  and to evolve.

The fact is, most highly educated, intelligent people fundamentally misunderstand the magnitude and even NATURE OF THE ORIGIN OF LIFE PROBLEM.  The facts are available for all to find, but unless they are specifically searched for, they won’t be found.  Consequently, no matter how brilliant we may be, our understanding of these important issues that form our belief systems will remain woefully outdated.  

The real problems with origin of life theories are never taught in high schools and rarely even in college biology courses.   It’s taught as if, other than a few details, it is well understood.  The fact is we are nowhere near to solution.  Every examined path has run into impenetrable brick walls.  Additionally, the myriad of multilayered problems are rarely discussed and when they are, the discussion usually consists of cherry picked facts that are known to be insufficient or even irrelevant to the problem.  (see the Miller Urey experiment, RNA, Clay theory and others in this article CLICK HERE)   Then when relevant facts are conveyed, it’s usually done in a manner that glosses over or even completely ignores the lack of explanatory relevance with which all posited theories are plagued.    Consequently, even the best and brightest student of biology is usually left oblivious to the acute issues involved in a naturalistic pathway to life. 

I’ve had discussions with many who have completely mastered the biology curriculums of high school or college, and even received top honors.  However, what they actually learned is so biased and incomplete that when they engage in a conversation they often respond with a relentless dismissive recounting of the “facts” they learned that are now known to be almost certainly false such as the “RNA World”, “Thermal vents”, “Clay Theory”, “Haeckel’s embryos”, etc… It’s done without even the slighted pause to consider that something new may have been discovered since high school or college.

    The fact is, the most recent evidence has figuratively cut the legs off all past and presently taught theories for a chemical, natural origin of life…. and almost no one knows it because it’s never taught!   

MAKE NO MISTAKE… DNA IS A CODE!

*THE ORIGIN OF LIFE PROBLEM*  Short link to article. http://wp.me/p2EGlL-7Wb
Foundational to even the simplest life is DNA. The informational properties of 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.

According to Genomics researcher Craig Venter: “All living cells that we know of on this planet are ‘DNA software’-driven biological machines comprised of hundreds of thousands of protein robots, coded for by the DNA, that carry out precise functions.”    

Richard Dawkins, River out of Eden, 16-19, states: “After Watson and Crick, we know that genes themselves, within their minute internal structure, are long strings of pure digital information. What is more, they are truly digital, in the full and strong sense of computers and compact disks, not in the weak sense of the nervous system. The genetic code is not a binary code as in computers, nor an eight-level code as in some telephone systems, but a quaternary code, with four symbols. The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular-biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer-engineering journal. . . .”

Make no mistake 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 used to build its biological equivalent! 

WHERE DID THE CODE COME FROM?
*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 much more complex that just the origin of the code, it’s how could the existence of a code create life?  Even if we assume that a complete, coded informationally rich DNA or RNA chain naturalistically came into being via random combinations of amino acids in a “hypothetical” prebiotic soup.  Is one assemblage of DNA or RNA life? No.  For the sake of argument, let’s assume it did, what now?

By itself a strand of DNA or RNA is little more than an inanimate, string of linked specific amino acids.  No matter how intricate, complex or informationally rich, what can they really accomplish by themselves? Nothing!  Neither is life.  To be fair some brilliant scientists have found that RNA has in addition to information bearing properties some limited self-replicating properties.  In fact, it was that discovery that led to the hypothesis of an amino acid filled prebiotic soup i.e. the RNA world (discussed later). However, this finding has done little to nothing in solving the origin of life problem.  In fact Sidney Altman who won the Nobel Prize in 1989 for his work with RNA now asserts that an RNA divorced from existing life probably never existed.   See 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 ASSUME RNA/DNA AROSE NATURALLY…  even if we assume that the hypothetical primordial soup of trillions of amino acids randomly produced a perfect informationally rich RNA, what then?  It would simply disintegrate!  DNA is known to be a robust and hardy molecule, but because it requires protein to build it, a natural origin is impossible.  However, RNA is a very unstable molecule that dissolves easily and quickly. 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 nature, sunlight, UV rays, wind, heat, cold or it would quickly disassemble in any existing liquid… In other words, the RNA would disintegrate into nothingness before life had a chance to arise.

RNA WORLD, WHY NOT AMINO ACIDS DIRECTLY TO PROTEIN?  We need amino acids for RNA and DNA; and DNA and RNA contains the code required to arrange amino acids into proteins and then to life.  So each are vital components of not only the existence and continuance of life but to its very origins. However, assuming they could have naturally occurred, they are universes away from the creation of a protein, let alone a living cell.  But for now, let’s bypass DNA and assume a protein arose directly from amino acids in a primordial soup.  Even the simplest protein consists of a specified chain of usually 100 or more amino acids arranged in a particular sequence so that it folds into a perfectly created 3 dimensional protein.  The odds of any functional protein arising naturally is incomprehensibly unlikely (more on this later).  But let’s assume it actually happened; amino acids created a protein.  Does that solve the origin of life problem?  No!

Yes, amino acids are the building blocks of life.  The fact that amino acids can be found in nature, divorced from life is the foundation for the argument that: “since the building blocks of life can be created naturally, so can actual life”.   However, when we look deeper and realize that strings of 100 or more perfectly sequenced amino acids are required to create even the simplest protein.  (as discussed later, even one functional protein is an incredibly unlikely event).   But even if it  happened, one protein is not a living cell.  A simple cell is life, but even the simplest living cell is comprised of hundreds of various proteins, each specifically constructed with various functions and folded into distinct, three dimensional shapes that allow them to fit together perfectly to create the biological mechanisms required for repair and continued life.

Consequently,  even if we assume amino acids naturally assembled to create a protein, it still falls far short of a plausible naturalistic pathway to life.  True, amino acids are the building blocks of life… but as a pathway to a naturalistic origin of life, they are no more important to a living cell, than is a speck of dirt to a naturalistically constructed King’s Castle.  It’s necessary, but far from sufficient.   Consider…

• Properly combine enough assorted specks of dust and types of dirt can create a brick.  But the existence of the dirt is far from sufficient for a brick’s creation. Nor is the existence of one brick sufficient for a castle.  Tens of thousands of bricks are required build a palace but their existence, also is not enough.  Unless each brick is perfectly arranged, all you have is a big pile of bricks.  Consequently, even though we have the building blocks for bricks, that by itself is woefully insufficient for the creation of a castle. 
• By way of analogy, amino acids chained together and sequenced in EXACTLY the right combination will create a protein.  Then enough proteins perfectly arranged and connected can create a cell.  But just as the existence of dirt is not sufficient for a castle, the existence of amino acids is not sufficient for the creation of life.  It takes, more… much more…

Realize, that the simplest possible living cell would require an absolute minimum of, at least, 250 to 350 perfectly assembled and specifically arranged proteins in order to build a the essential insulative cell membrane, cytoplasm, many internal biological protective and repair mechanisms plus a coded replication system for reproduction.  (Currently the simplest cell known, contains about 450 various types of perfectly placed proteins).  Unless the first proteins all came into being simultaneously and functionally connected, it would not be life.  And until it’s life, evolution to higher forms is an impossibility.  Amino acid to protein to life is a MUCH higher bar than dust to mansion. 

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*.

BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT… LET’S ASSUME A LIVING CELL AROSE! 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 virtually impossible did happen*… a living cell arose!

*A LIVING CELL FROM A PURELY NATURALISTIC MECHANISM!*.
Great!… but poor little cell… Unless this newly created living cell arose with, not only, all it needed just to BE “alive”;  In order to STAY alive it must have also include a DNA like set of instructions for repairing each and every one of the hundreds of individual proteins needed  for building, repairing AND MAINTAINING every protein, otherwise, it would soon die!   IT MUST ALSO HAVE…  coded information sufficient to allow the DNA code and the entire cell to replicate themselves!…   But what’s missing from this scenario?…  Consider…

THINK ABOUT IT INFORMATION IS NOT ENOUGH!, if simultaneous with its creation and all the coded information it needed… unless it was simultaneously equipped with a *biological mechanism* capable of reading and translating the DNA codes into their biological physical equivalents, there would be an INSURMOUNTABLE PROBLEM!   Unless it was all a functional part of the very first living cell, when it died… *the existence of life on earth is over!*  (But maybe cells were simpler in the past? Life was less complicated?  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. Based on all we know, ALL CODES REQUIRE…
1. A “coder”; to convey or create the code.
2. A “reader”; i.e. some intended receiver, capable of understanding the information within 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 that is intended to used in conjunction with: 
• A printer, computer, etc… to receive and translate digital information to a physical document or present it in a visual form to a monitor.
• In factories, computers transcribe coded digital information to machines that are directed to produce products that are the physical equivalent of the code. 

In exactly this same fashion, within all living cells and all living organisms, it always starts with the DNA code being sent to ribosomes to be read and have the information “translated” into the specific proteins required to create the countless amazing biomechanical machines that are integral to the continued life, function and even reproduction of each cell*.

Think about it, whether relating to computers, 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. The information is received and understood by a separate “something”, usually us or our machines.
3. If appropriate, the information is then acted upon to create the intended mental or physical manifestation of the information conveyed.

• The fact is, we have never seen an exception:
  • *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 the SOURCES OF CODES are always a purposed intelligence*.

*GOD OF THE GAPS?  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 not yet learned… It is the result of 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 a 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 in the first place?
If the cat is not and never was there, no matter their brilliance, persistence, creativity, fortitude… it doesn’t matter. They won’t find that cat!

Contrary to the blank check assertions of many naturalists, more time and research can not solve all problems.  The most persistent, brilliant researcher will NEVER prove that he is the father of his mother.   Why?  Because we know that is not how reality works.   That hypothesis is contrary to all we know of nature. Just as mothers create sons, according to all we know, coders create codes.   

Consider, how much time, money and effort would be spent searching for that black cat if after 50 years of research the sum total of evidence and reasoning for its existence is that:
1 A number of chemicals that can be found in proteins were found.   They know cats are made of proteins.  They know cats now exist in many places.  The downside?  They can find not one iota of evidence that a cat or even an actual cat hair or cat related protein ever existed in that room.
2. They also found that the room has mice in it.  Therefore if a cat had been there, it would have a ready food source thus capable of surviving.  The downside?  Still no actual evidence that a cat was ever there; only the existence of potential prey capable of sustaining a cat…  if it existed.
3. More downsides… If a cat had been there, they realize they should be able to find waste materials proving it.  However, even after years and years of examining each and every cranny they can find none… but they continue to search insisting it was there, they just need more time!
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 remarkably close to the the sum total of evidence our top researchers have that “empirically” supports a naturalistic cause of life.  Most of the basics used to support the hypothesis we’ve already discussed.
  • 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 created by a random combination of amino acids. (see below, the primordial soup having ever existed is far from certain)
  • Although, a very specific combination of amino acids has an infinitesimal chance of creating an RNA or DNA molecule; the fact is, divorced from an already living system not even one has ever been seen.
  • The creation of a protein from amino acids is an absolute requirement to the first living cell, but one protein is not even close to life.   Unless hundreds of proteins come into being at exactly the same moment in the exact proper assemblage, it would not be life.

In addition to all of the above issues, the fact is 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.

Amazingly enough, 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)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3495036/pdf/1745-6150-7-23.pdf
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.

BUT LIFE MAY HAVE BEEN SIMPLER!?   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.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/12/991213052506.htm

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*.
http://allsolutionsnetwork.org/blog/the-problem-with-worldviews-are-you-trapped/#more-24351

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.
http://allsolutionsnetwork.org/blog/the-origin-of-life-who-wrote-the-manual
http://allsolutionsnetwork.org/blog/how-science-points-to-god
Remember, I used to be an atheist.  The information in the below article contains the info that started me looking to a different path.
http://allsolutionsnetwork.org/blog/science-is-used-to-kill-faith-for-me-it-created-a-christian
http://allsolutionsnetwork.org/blog/the-problem-with-worldviews-are-you-trapped