Dismembering Evolution 3: Origins

“There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution"

George Wald, 1954. The Origin of Life. Scientific American August: 44-53.

“When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

Sherlock Holmes

One of the nasty sticking points for evolution has been how life has come about from non-life. To date, despite millions of dollars spent on research into the origins of life, no answer has yet been found.

It is an acknowledged fact that in order for evolution to even have a chance to start life must already be around. It is also an acknowledged fact that “the spark of life” remains an utter mystery to the scientific community. It is also somewhat acknowledged, at least among scientists who are being intellectually honest with themselves, that to remove the divine from the process of life, you must make the conscious decision to believe in a theory that has been disproved again and again, a theory that actually has its roots in religion, from a time before science was very well developed, the theory of spontaneous generation.

Yes, there are experiments that have shown the under certain conditions the simplest amino acids can be formed by random chance. However, there has been no evidence found, in the lab or in nature, that these simple amino acids manage to randomly find each other, and then bond to each other in the appropriately complex molecules that consist the most basic blocks of life, ad then after all of this has been done, spontaneously start working in such a way as to be “living”. There are also some serious flaws in the experiments that I know of that have shown that amino acids can form randomly in nature.

I am talking, of course, about the famous Miller-Urey experiment. This experiment, and the repetitions of it have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that given a strongly reducing environment of hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water vapor, combined with electricity can randomly produce some simple amino acids. This experiment relies on an oxygen poor environment in order for it to be anything like proof of the possibility of random chance producing just the right random assortment of amino acids to create the protein building blocks of life. While the dominant theory of the Earth’s primitive atmosphere was one that consisted almost entirely of the aforementioned components this experiment could have been considered said proof.

One problem; that was not the Earth’s primitive atmosphere.

Geological studies of sedimentary rock going back before the accepted origin of life demonstrates an atmosphere less like the one used in the Miller-Urey experiment, and more like the one we have today.

Wait a minute. Let me get this straight. Recent geological evidence is showing a popular theory that produced a Nobel Prize winning experiment to be, shall we say, less than accurate? It would seem so.

Let us assume for a moment that the amino acids that were produced in the experiment predate not just life, but also the oxygen rich atmosphere. That would mean that the amino acids would have to be stable enough to remain intact in large enough numbers to find each other, combine, and make life millions of years after they were first formed. For many molecules this is a reasonable model, but not for the amino acids produced in the experiment. The amino acids produced in the Miller-Urey experiment break down very rapidly in an oxidizing environment, which geology has shown existed long before any life we have yet discovered ever appeared on this world.

This is a very brief synopsis of a subject that has filled far more space than I can reasonably take here. Hopefully, I have presented enough to give a clear picture of a simple scientific truth. That truth is that this thing that we have been taught as proof of evolution, as proof of an evolutionary source of life, is simply not true.

Given the importance of this information you might think that school textbooks would be updated with it in order to ensure the most accurate education possible. However, as of 2003 the college textbook I used on my oceanography class was still using the disproved model of the Earth’s primitive atmosphere, and teaching it as fact before going into the Miller-Urey experiment, as well an experiment by Linus Pauling that was along similar lines. I consider this to be a disgusting bit of miseducation. How can a responsible, respected scientist write a textbook that was deceitful about such an important piece of geologic history? There are only two ways. The first, and most common, is ignorance. There is so much to keep up with in any scientific field that it can be difficult, even for insiders, to keep up with it all. The second, and much more disturbing, is willful deception.

Still, all of this is not enough. It is not enough because the whole discussion becomes moot in the absence of matter and energy. The bigger question becomes; where did the matter come form anyway?

The most popular scientific theory is the Big Bang. In my last post I have allowed for the Big Bang to be true. Therefore, let’s assume the Big Bang is true. Let’s assume that all of the matter in the universe was once contained in an infinitely dense quantum anomaly that exploded, spewing forth matter and energy that ultimately formed the universe we know today.

Some call this science. I call it a description of a Creation event.

Why?

Ask yourself this. Where did the quantum anomaly come from in the first place?

The fact is that science has shown all matter and energy, including the quanta that comprise it, cannot be created or destroyed. It must exist in this universe in an eternal state. It will never go away, and no new matter will ever be made. Okay . . . then where did the Big Bang come from?

Here is where I am going to really annoy some people and use what they will call a “God in the gaps” argument. However, since we have already established that the creation of matter violates the laws of nature the only logical answer remains that something more powerful than the universe, something that is eternal, self sustaining, and incredibly powerful must have created said matter in order for the Big bang to have occurred. Going one step further, for the law of entropy to be violated to create the complexity of life out of the simplicity of non-life, there must also be something that does not need to obey entropy. I will avoid talking in depth about the spark of life, not because I think science will ever find the answer, but because it will prove to be too much God for some people to handle.

There are theories about matter being rifted in from other dimensions, and that is how we got the matter for the Big Bang. It does not solve the origins of the matter in the other dimension. There was even a big deal when one physicist suggested that maybe we CAN getter matter from absolute nothingness. This made a splash for a short time before being dismissed as ridiculous.

The simple fact is that for all of this to have started the known laws of nature must be violated.

Even if I were to grant some measure of truth to evolution, the spark of life is a creation event that is outside the realm of possibility in nature. The electrochemical reaction that make even the simplest of cells work cannot start on their own. If they did then we should have observed, at some point, a dead bacterium jump starting itself in the presence of the nutrients it needs to conduct life processes. An experiment where bacteria were starved to death, then bathed in food should have produced at least one bacterium restored to life. It should be easy if it were possible, even a small culture contains millions of bacteria. A few years of attempts should produce at least one bacteria restored to life.

It has never happened because it is not possible. It has never been funded because the scientific knows the experiment is both futile and ludicrous.

Such an experiment will fail in the presence of electricity to jump start the cells too. It is an impossible endeavor.

Anyone care to try it?