The
Origin Of Life
By Isvara Krishna das
Abiogenesis, the theory that
life originally arose from non-living matter, is an unproven theory.
The hypothesis about life
generating from the spontaneous combination non-living matter is merely
another assumption. There are other answers. For example, we could
state that life did not generate from the spontaneous combination of
material elements. There are no reasons to reject this possibility.
The moment of life's
generation cannot be observed, thus some have the opinion that because
of this impossibility this question does not belong to the realm of
legitimate science. Scientists can only surmise a probable succession
of events, they cannot offer tangible empirical proof for abiogenesis.
The scientists developing this theory, and one of the articles of
Nature magazine (Anon, Nature, 216, 1967, page 635), admit that this
explanation of origin of life is based on assumptions, speculative
theories. "Certain assumptions about abiogenesis, no matter how amazing
they are, belong more into the realm of fiction than among theories
supported by genuine observations".
Although the various
assumptions about origin of life can be examined to some degree by
laboratory experiment, these models are not testable, and cannot be
verified when we discuss the origin of life. In other words the
successive scenarios of life's origin remain the product of imagination
and not factual knowledge. Interestingly, as we will see below, these
imaginative theories have many contradictions.
It is very difficult to
reconstruct the conditions pertaining to our earth planet billions of
years ago. Moreover, it is impossible to understand them and obtain
definitive knowledge by empirical means. For the scientists researching
the origin of life this has advantages. There is a very wide selection
of putative primordial conditions they can select to support their
specific theories. Amazingly, despite of such a wide choice they cannot
offer a single experimentally proven, detailed process that can result
in the creation of a single self-replicating, complex molecule or cell
from chemicals, that does not violate existing physico-chemical laws.
The number of scientific problems is huge.
If we describe in full
detail precisely how a house is to be built, then we have to explain
the origin of each part and the ingredients making it up, and then how
the various parts and ingredients connect together. We would expect a
similar recipe from the proponents of the naturalistic origin of life,
or at least an explanation of the origin of the biological components
of the simplest (one-celled) species and the way they combine. So, let
us examine what "chemical evolution" teaches us, and what are the
theoretical and practical problems.
According to popular
theories of life's origin there were different sources of energy
available (electricity in the form of lightning, geothermal heat,
ultraviolet radiation etc.). The interactions of these energy
sources with the primordial
atmosphere produced organic molecules that accumulated in the
primordial ocean, or according to other theories in lagoons, pools,
clay, rocks etc. This is supposedly how the precursors of organic
compounds originated, the amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, etc. Later
it is assumed that these molecules combined (polymerised) into long
chain molecules (e.g. polypeptides or proteins and polynucleotides).
Then following this development cells surrounded by membranes appeared.
These cells saw their inner complexity gradually increase so that
enzymes and living cells evolved to be just as we know them. Scientists
tried to prove the first step of this scenario of chemical evolution,
the spontaneous generation of amino acids, sacchrides, purines,
pyrimidines, by various laboratory experiments. They created many basic
types of amino acids, saccharides and other various assumed components
of the primordial soup.
Despite this, there are
serious objections against these experiments. We know that the
experiments are designed to produce these results. The experiments
could only be acceptable if they accurately simulated the earth's
primordial condition. Thus, the results of the experiments have to
become unacceptable when the laboratory conditions do not resemble
likely ancient natural conditions. In this analysis we show the
unacceptable, crucial human interventions that influence the results of
these experiments. In most cases the conditions during the experiments
were highly artificial and grossly simplified so that they bore little
or no resemblance of the processes occurring on the early earth.
Now, we discuss some of the
unrealistic imposed conditions that would not occur naturally.
* When they were using
ultraviolet radiation as the energy source, they used short
wavelengths. Long wavelengths were avoided because they decompose the
chemicals. In reality, the sun's whole spectrum would have reached the
early earth.
* The electrical discharges
used during the experiments to imitate lightning had a current density
nine times greater than found naturally. It therefore cannot be
considered to be an accurate representation of the natural phenomena.
As C. E. Folsome in his book The Origin of Life (p.62) says - "Two days
of sparking represents an energy input into the system comparable to
some 40 million years on the surface of the primitive Earth".
Carl Sagan in his book "The
Origins of Prebiological Systems" (page 195) explains that during the
experiments the biochemist carefully extracts part of the desired
chemical-products thus protecting the produced chemicals from
decompositon caused by the energy source that generated them. Thus, as
Sagan remarks, when we speak about the origin of life we also have to
consider that there are not only generating processes but decomposing
processes too, and thus the process produces other results if we do not
remove the harmful products. 'We use energy sources to make organic
molecules. It is found that the same energy sources CAN DESTROY these
organic molecules...' (paraphrased quote)
* In the laboratory
experiments energy sources were used separately. However, no
consideration was given to the fact that one energy source can destroy
the product created by another, additionally decomposition
predominates.
* In several experiments it
is assumed that if a chemical reaction occurs between one or more
compounds while separated from other chemicals, these reactions could
also occur in the presence of primordial soup containing other
compounds. However, the presence of a third chemical can prevent the
chemical reaction taking place at all or cause a differing reaction.
Thus during the experiments such "desired" chemicals can be produced,
which in reality could not be generated.
Therefore, as we can see, in
the laboratory experiments scientists manipulated conditons. This is
however contradicts their basic assumption that life could not
originate under the direction of some external supernatural power.
Thus, their prebiotic experiments prove nothing more than an
understanding that life originated by ntelligent design, under well
organized conditions and directed processes. As Brook and Shaw wrote:
"These experiments...claim abiotic synthesis for what has in fact been
produced and designed by highly intelligent and very much biotic man."
The theories of life's
origin miss the point that even if life could be generated outside the
laboratory, there are still many factors that could block further
development, and actually destroy it. Some factors are: ultraviolet
radiation from the sun; the decomposition of hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and
nitriles (RCN); the reactions of the carbonyl groups with amino groups;
accidental amide synthesis during the generation of polypeptides; the
break down of polymerisation of polypeptides and polynucleotides; the
hydrolysation or decomposition of amino acids and polypetides etc.
It seems therefore that
evolutionary biology cannot yet give a satisfactory account of the
origin of life's "building-blocks" let alone the whole "building", of
one celled organisms.
Here is one quote describing
the complexity of living cells.
To grasp the reality of life
as revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand
million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a
giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New
York. On the surface of the cell we would be able to see millions of
openings, like port holes of a ship, each opening and closing allowing
a continual stream of materials to flow in and out.
If we were to enter one of
these openings we would find ourselves in a world of amazing technology
and bewildering complexity. We would see endless highly organized
corridors and conduits branching in all directions away from the
perimeter of the cell, some leading to the central memory bank in the
nucleus and others to assembly plants and processing units. The nucleus
itself would be a vast spherical chamber more than a kilometer in
diameter, resembling a geodesic dome inside of which we would see,
neatly stacked together in ordered arrays, the miles of coiled chains
of DNA molecules. We would see around us, in every direction, all sorts
of robot-like machines. We would notice that the simplest functional
components of the cell, the protein molecules, were astonishingly
complex pieces of molecular machinery, each one consisting of about
three thousand atoms arranged in highly organized 3-D spatial
conformation." (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis).
In a single cell more than
10,000 molecular machines are working together in amazing harmony. The
unsolved problem regarding the origin of life is: Can non-living, dull
matter simply governed by the laws of physics and chemistry generate
this amazing complexity in even the most simple cell. It well within
the realms of possibility, that one who tries to explain the process of
generation of such complexity is undertaking an impossible task.
Even if the building blocks
of living organisms could originate randomly, for which no present
theory comes close to providing an explanation, a difficult question
still remains to be answered. What is the mechanism by which simple
chemicals could combine to form life's vital complex proteins, nucleic
acids, and complete organisms. Obviously, for this process there is a
need for energy, heat, electricity, chemical energy or energy from the
sun. It is clear that energy is required. However, energy alone is not
a sufficient condition for the formation of macromolecules. For
example, the energy of dynamite is not constructive and thus cannot
create a house from a pile of bricks.
For the energy to be useful,
it has to be properly directed by some mechanism. There are many
thousands of scientific papers and reports on attempted protein and DNA
synthesis in the laboratory. Although they allow doubtful prebiotic
conditions, the experiments have not succeeded. Thus, these failures
only illustrate how difficult it is to create a particular complex
system with high information content without a flow of directed
energy.
Whilst the theories sound
good, like Dean Swift's story of Gulliver's Travels and the flying
Island of Laputa, it is possible with non-functional and unproven
materialistic speculations to build a tower in the sky. However, if we
consider objectively what scientists know for sure about the origin of
life then the short answer is, NOTHING. There are therefore no
compelling reasons for us to accept these naturalistic assumptions.
Anybody can propose and
demonstrate a theory for the development of complex mechanisms that
have the ability to develop into self-replicating organisms. However,
so long as there is a lack of experimental proof, we have to accept
that there is no proof of the 'recognized' naturalistic origin of life.
The scientific community is
well informed about the basic difficulties regarding the origin of
life. It is likely that this why Harvard University give annual grant
of one million dollars to a group of scientists researching the origin
of life. If, despite the many dollars and effort expended, we still do
not have a proper answer, then we have to consider seriously
another possible explanation.
According to observation and
experience, the material elements do not generate living entities,
either spontaneously or under artificial circumstances. Although the
majority of the biologists assume that life originated by biochemical
process, they cannot support this theory by experiment. It is very
strange that the modern science, despite all its endeavors, cannot
reproduce what supposedly happened in nature spontaneously in the past!
All the combined efforts of scientists, all the money invested in the
experiments and all the consciously directed and controlled laboratory
conditions have been to no avail because they have not yet created life
from matter. Believers in the materialistic viewpoint take refuge by
escaping into an undefined far future and the hope that eventually they
will succeed in carrying out an experiment that no one today can do.
But then it may be that even then it will be impossible.
If anyone still thinks that
scientists will be able to create self-replicating organisms, then it
must be considered, how important conscious manipulation in planning,
direction, dosage, regulating and calibrating laboratory instruments
are for the accomplishment of such an experiment. This acts as a proof
of the impossibility of abiogenesis or the creation of life from
lifeless, dull matter and instead supports the idea that biological
complexity can be created only by an intelligence that is higher than
lifeless dull matter.
We have to accept that there
are people who believe in the origin of life from matter. However, we
should not condemn them for this nor that they carry out research
according to such an understanding. Despite their views, the concept
that the world was planned is
entirely plausible and remains an explanation without problem. We can
think about the origin of life in the following way. If neither nature
nor we have the ability to make organisms from matter, then maybe a
higher power is able to do this. We would also suggest the material
structures are not living, but rather within the material bodies there
is a nonmaterial factor that is the cause of life and consciousness.
Such an approach is in complete agreement with our observations and
simultaneously gives a reasonable answer why the theoretical and
practical attempts of the scientists to create life from mere reactions
of chemicals are always doomed to failure.
