Difference between revisions of "Origin of life"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 4: Line 4:
 
The other school of thought is that non-life became life solely by means of natural processes.  This is commonly referred to as ''abiogenesis'' and "chemical [[evolution]]".<ref name="creationresearch.org">http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationbc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=86&Itemid=85</ref> High-profile evolutionists [[PZ Myers]] and Nick Matzke, agree that the origin of life is part of the evolutionary [[paradigm]], as does [[Richard Dawkins]].<ref name="Origin of life">[https://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]</ref> Abiogenesis is only a hypothesis, not a developed or accepted scientific theory.<ref>Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 2023. ISBN 0309475783. "Studies of the chemical origins of life start with the hypothesis that mixtures of simple small [[molecule]]s under the influence of various energy sources and early Earth environments created the building blocks of life and that interactions among these molecules eventually lead to life itself (Figure 12-2)."</ref><ref name="Luisi"/>  
 
The other school of thought is that non-life became life solely by means of natural processes.  This is commonly referred to as ''abiogenesis'' and "chemical [[evolution]]".<ref name="creationresearch.org">http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationbc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=86&Itemid=85</ref> High-profile evolutionists [[PZ Myers]] and Nick Matzke, agree that the origin of life is part of the evolutionary [[paradigm]], as does [[Richard Dawkins]].<ref name="Origin of life">[https://creation.com/origin-of-life Origin of life]</ref> Abiogenesis is only a hypothesis, not a developed or accepted scientific theory.<ref>Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 2023. ISBN 0309475783. "Studies of the chemical origins of life start with the hypothesis that mixtures of simple small [[molecule]]s under the influence of various energy sources and early Earth environments created the building blocks of life and that interactions among these molecules eventually lead to life itself (Figure 12-2)."</ref><ref name="Luisi"/>  
  
−
There are two main classes of origin-of-life research: chemical synthesis and molecular assembly.<ref name="Tour"/> The transition from non-living to living has never been observed in the wild or in the laboratory.<ref name="Luisi"/> Nor has self organizing molecules to a living cell, ever been observed in the wild or in a laboratory either.<ref name="Tour"/>   
+
There are two main classes of origin-of-life research: chemical synthesis and molecular assembly.<ref name="Tour"/> The transition from non-living to living has never been observed in the wild or in the laboratory.<ref name="Luisi"/> Nor has self organizing [[molecule]]s to a living cell, ever been observed in the wild or in a laboratory either.<ref name="Tour"/>   
  
 
Committees for the National Academies of Science have observed that chemists have held skeptical views of abiogenesis because of extensive laboratory experience indicating that there are numerous chemical problems that inhibit nature, which has no direction or goal, from synthesizing any complex biochemical molecules that are needed for cellular life to even emerge.<ref name="NAS">Committee on the Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems; Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life (2007). The Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems. National Academies Press. pp. 58–60. ISBN 978-0309104845. "Chemists’ objection to the notion that life is a natural consequence of organic reactivity is simple and comes from broadly based empirical experience in organic-chemistry laboratories. Addition of energy to mixtures of organic species makes the mixtures more complex and less likely to support life. Shapiro has provided a thoughtful and detailed discussion of the difficulties. Briefly summarized, it suggests that existing prebiotic chemistry experiments do not offer plausible hypotheses for routes to complex biomolecules. In the complex chemical mixtures generated under prebiotic conditions, one may be able to find trace amounts of amino acids and perhaps nucleobases. Some might indeed catalyze reactions that have some utility. But other compounds may well inhibit catalysis or catalyze undesired reactions. For example, Joyce and Orgel pointed out that the clay-catalyzed condensation of nucleotides to yield small chains performed best, under the conditions that they considered, if only one enantiomer of the starting material was present. If both were present, the desired reaction with the desired enantiomer might be inhibited by the other enantiomer. Furthermore, the combination of any bifunctional molecule into an information-bearing polymer would be expected to be terminated at an early stage by the presence of an excess of molecules that bear only one functionality. Even crystallization, a well-documented method of obtaining order through self-organization, is not a particularly powerful way to separate mixtures of organic chemicals into their constituents. Normally, an organic compound must be relatively pure before crystallization occurs. That salts crystallize better may explain why crystals are more common in the mineral world than in the organic world. Even organic salts can have problems in crystallizing from an impure mixture. Those facts generate the central problem in prebiotic chemistry. Spontaneous self-organization is not known to be an intrinsic property of most organic matter, at least as observed in the laboratory. It can be driven only by an external source of free energy that is coupled to the organic system."</ref> Among the most common problems in prebiotic chemistry is the fact that origin of life research and experimentation relies on so much human intervention and fails to provide evidence for abiogenesis as a result of reliance on such frequent intervention.<ref name="Tour">James Tour, Charles B Thaxton, Walter L Bradley. 2020. The Mystery of Life's Origin. Discovery Press. ISBN 1936599740. 13. We're Still Clueless About the Origin of Life</ref><ref name="Richert">Richert, C. Prebiotic chemistry and human intervention. Nature Communications 9, 5177 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07219-5</ref>  
 
Committees for the National Academies of Science have observed that chemists have held skeptical views of abiogenesis because of extensive laboratory experience indicating that there are numerous chemical problems that inhibit nature, which has no direction or goal, from synthesizing any complex biochemical molecules that are needed for cellular life to even emerge.<ref name="NAS">Committee on the Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems; Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life (2007). The Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems. National Academies Press. pp. 58–60. ISBN 978-0309104845. "Chemists’ objection to the notion that life is a natural consequence of organic reactivity is simple and comes from broadly based empirical experience in organic-chemistry laboratories. Addition of energy to mixtures of organic species makes the mixtures more complex and less likely to support life. Shapiro has provided a thoughtful and detailed discussion of the difficulties. Briefly summarized, it suggests that existing prebiotic chemistry experiments do not offer plausible hypotheses for routes to complex biomolecules. In the complex chemical mixtures generated under prebiotic conditions, one may be able to find trace amounts of amino acids and perhaps nucleobases. Some might indeed catalyze reactions that have some utility. But other compounds may well inhibit catalysis or catalyze undesired reactions. For example, Joyce and Orgel pointed out that the clay-catalyzed condensation of nucleotides to yield small chains performed best, under the conditions that they considered, if only one enantiomer of the starting material was present. If both were present, the desired reaction with the desired enantiomer might be inhibited by the other enantiomer. Furthermore, the combination of any bifunctional molecule into an information-bearing polymer would be expected to be terminated at an early stage by the presence of an excess of molecules that bear only one functionality. Even crystallization, a well-documented method of obtaining order through self-organization, is not a particularly powerful way to separate mixtures of organic chemicals into their constituents. Normally, an organic compound must be relatively pure before crystallization occurs. That salts crystallize better may explain why crystals are more common in the mineral world than in the organic world. Even organic salts can have problems in crystallizing from an impure mixture. Those facts generate the central problem in prebiotic chemistry. Spontaneous self-organization is not known to be an intrinsic property of most organic matter, at least as observed in the laboratory. It can be driven only by an external source of free energy that is coupled to the organic system."</ref> Among the most common problems in prebiotic chemistry is the fact that origin of life research and experimentation relies on so much human intervention and fails to provide evidence for abiogenesis as a result of reliance on such frequent intervention.<ref name="Tour">James Tour, Charles B Thaxton, Walter L Bradley. 2020. The Mystery of Life's Origin. Discovery Press. ISBN 1936599740. 13. We're Still Clueless About the Origin of Life</ref><ref name="Richert">Richert, C. Prebiotic chemistry and human intervention. Nature Communications 9, 5177 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07219-5</ref>  

Revision as of 20:00, August 22, 2025

Intelligent design
Intelligent design theorists contend that the core feature of life consists of information processing systems that cannot be fully explained as being the result of unintelligent causes alone. When evolutionist Richard Dawkins was young, he recognized that the complexity of life indicates a designer.

There have been a number of proposals regarding the origin of life on earth. However, the various proposals fall into two schools of thought. One, held by creationists, is that life originated divinely/supernaturally. The other school of thought is that non-life became life solely by means of natural processes. This is commonly referred to as abiogenesis and "chemical evolution".[1][2] High-profile evolutionists PZ Myers and Nick Matzke, agree that the origin of life is part of the evolutionary paradigm, as does Richard Dawkins.[3] Abiogenesis is only a hypothesis, not a developed or accepted scientific theory.[4][5]

There are two main classes of origin-of-life research: chemical synthesis and molecular assembly.[6] The transition from non-living to living has never been observed in the wild or in the laboratory.[5] Nor has self organizing molecules to a living cell, ever been observed in the wild or in a laboratory either.[6]

Committees for the National Academies of Science have observed that chemists have held skeptical views of abiogenesis because of extensive laboratory experience indicating that there are numerous chemical problems that inhibit nature, which has no direction or goal, from synthesizing any complex biochemical molecules that are needed for cellular life to even emerge.[7] Among the most common problems in prebiotic chemistry is the fact that origin of life research and experimentation relies on so much human intervention and fails to provide evidence for abiogenesis as a result of reliance on such frequent intervention.[6][8]

Life is more complex than just having the right cellular components merely existing or even being in the right place since even in the case of extensive prebiotic chemical cheating such as using a completely dead cell with all the components in place, it is not possible generate life out of it once more by blind nature alone.[9]

Another major problem in prebiotic chemistry is the water paradox, the fact that water is essential for all living cells and yet it is very destructive to cellular machinery and components, a balance that is incredibly chemically delicate.[10] The prominent origin of life researcher Stanley Miller said the origin of life problem was more difficult than he or anyone else had imagined.[11]

Current status

Origin researcher Pier Luisi in 2018 stated "the turning point of non-life to life has never been put into one experimental set up. There are, of course, several hypotheses, and this plethora of ideas means already that we do not have a convincing one."[5]

Dr. Walter Bradley said: "The optimism of the 1950's is gone. The mood at the 1999 international conference of the origin of life was described as grim - full of frustration, pessimism, and desperation."[12] Prominent origin of life researcher Klaus Dose wrote about the "immensity of the problem" for naturalistic explanations of the origin of life and stated, "At present all discussions on principle theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."[12]

In 1996, John Horgan wrote in Scientific American: "The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion." [13] Even Stanley Miller of the famous Miller-Urey experiment, wrote in Scientific American that the "problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and most other people, envisioned.[12] Horgan also wrote that Stanley Miller had referred to current proposals of the origin of life as "nonsense" and "paper chemistry".[1]

Stanley Miller, however, wasn't the first to highly disparage the existing proposals that scientists had come up with for the origin of life though natural means. Chemist and science writer Andrew Scott in 1988 said that "[d]ue to this scarcity of financial resources the study of the origins of life has been forced to become a most efficient and cost-effective industry from just a thimble-full of facts the scientists engaged in that study manage to generate a virtually endless supply of theories!"[14]

Properties and processes required for non-living chemicals to become living

Life requires multiple chemical processes to exist simultaneously in a microscopic space. According to leading water & life chemist Felix Franks[15]

"To translate the dictionary definition into scientific terms, life processes, as we understand them, must encompass all of the following functions in sequence:

  • To control the synthesis of simple, chiral molecules and their reactions to form complex polymers, based mainly, but not exclusively, on carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus
  • To program and direct the assembly of such molecules into supramolecular structures, organelles, cells, organs, tissues, and organisms, that is, the achievement of differentiation in the right places and at the right time
  • To control cascades of chemical reactions (e.g., metabolism), resulting in growth to maturity, steady-state maintenance, defense against predators and chemical deterioration, energy- conversion processes, reproduction, followed by a more-or-less rapid senescence and expiry"

Problems for origin of life views involving only nature

Francis Crick

The attempt to explain the origin of life faces numerous difficult problems which is why the theory has not fared well in recent times:

  1. Laboratory experience from centuries of organic chemistry indicate that cross contamination of impure reactants and products in the natural world inhibit further formation of more complex biomolecules from simple ones, separation of necessary compounds generally does not occur in nature, any functional molecule that could even form would get terminated by the majority of nonfunctional material it emerged from, and self-organization is not a intrinsic property of biological matter.[7]
  2. The water paradox is the chemical reality that water is essential for life and yet it destroys cellular components (e.g. proteins, enzymes and nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA).[10]
  3. Naturally, molecules never direct themselves towards life or even complex cellular machinery.[6]
  4. The problem of homochirality (see Chirality)[16] refers to a fundamental puzzle in the origin of life, where essential biomolecules like amino acids and sugars are exclusively one "handedness" (enantiomer) in living cells (left handed amino acids [designated as "L-" such as in L-Lysine], and right handed sugars [designated as "D-" such as in D-glucose]). The problem is that laboratory experiments show that natural prebiotic chemistry produces equal amounts of both right and left handed forms (a racemic mixture) and this contaminates and inhibits any further synthesis, essentially killing synthesis of any useful molecules.[6]
  5. Polymerization problem [17]
  6. The window of opportunity for any chemical synthesis in the wild is very short (hours and days at best, not thousands or millions of years). For example, when it comes to the spontaneous formation of the long and complex molecules like RNA and proteins, these molecules degrade rapidly in water, with a 600-unit RNA chain having a half-life of only about four hours.[18]
  7. Chicken or the Egg problem regarding DNA and proteins: John Horgan wrote: "Many investigators now consider nucleic acids to be much more plausible candidates for the first self-replicating molecules. The work of Watson and Crick and others has shown that proteins are formed according to the instructions coded in DNA. But there is a hitch. DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins. To those pondering the origin of life, it is a classic chicken-and-egg problem: Which came first, proteins or DNA?" - (John Horgan,[science writer], "In The Beginning...," Scientific American, Vol. 264, No. 2, February 1991, pp. 100–109, p. 103)"[13]
  8. Complexity of the cell: Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote regarding the complexity of the cell: "To grasp the reality of life as it has been 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. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow 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 supreme technology and bewildering complexity... Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which-a functional protein or gene - is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?"[19]
  9. Catch 22 problem regarding oxygen and the early earth: Mike Riddle cites the "catch 22" dilemma regarding oxygen on the early earth in regards to a hypothesized naturalistic origin of life: "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."[20]
  10. Implausibility of the RNA World hypothesis.[21][22][23]

Philosophical Presuppositions and Origin of Life Scenarios

Noted physicist and bioinformatician Hubert Yockey, who worked under Robert Oppenheimer on the Manhatten Project wrote the following regarding the crucial role the philosophical presuppositions play in the origin of life issue:

“ Faith in the infallible and comprehensive doctrines of dialectic materialism plays a crucial role in origin of life scenarios, and especially in exobiology and its ultimate consequence the doctrine of advanced extra-terrestrial civilization. That life must exist somewhere in the solar system on ‘suitable planets elsewhere’ is widely and tenaciously believed in spite of lack of evidence or even abundant evidence to the contrary.[24] ”

Yockey's statement regarding the philosophical presuppositions playing a crucial role in origin of life scenarios can be seen in regards to Sir Francis Crick the Nobel Prize winning biologist who was the British co-discoverer of the structure of DNA. Crick has described himself as an agnostic with "a strong inclination towards atheism."[25] In 1973, Francis Crick and the chemist Leslie Orgel published an article in the International Journal of Solar System Studies (Icarus) which posited that life may have arrived on earth by a process they called "Directed Panspermia".[26] The abstract for the aforemention Icarus article states that Directed Pamspermia is a "theory that organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings on another planet."[26]

Michael Behe

In 1992, the popular magazine Scientific American published an interview which explored Crick's belief in the hypothesis Directed Panspermia.[24] American biochemist and intelligent design advocate Michael Behe wrote concerning the interview: "The primary reason Crick subscribes to this unorthodox view is that he judges the undirected origin of life to be a virtually insurmountable obstacle, but he wants a naturalistic explanation."[24]

Young earth creationist Gary Bates went further in criticism of Directed Panspermia and wrote that "Crick’s atheistic faith leads to absurd pseudoscience".[27] He also wrote:

“ Although he tried to solve the problem of the source of intelligence for the creation of DNA without God, Crick only succeeded in pushing the problem into outer space where...it cannot be tested. After all, if such alleged aliens, in turn, were not created by a greater intelligence than themselves, then how did they evolve from non-living chemicals in the first place?[27] ”

Atheist Philosopher Doug Jesseph and the Origin of Life

In October 1997, atheist Jeffery Jay Lowder, a founder of Internet Infidels, stated that he believed that in regards to atheism "the most impressive debater to date" was atheist philosopher Douglas Jesseph.[28] Yet Doug Jesseph claimed in a debate with William Lane Craig in 1996 that the origin of life had a detailed atheistic explanation(s).[29] As noted earlier, in 1996, John Horgan wrote the following regarding what the highly respected origin of life researcher Stanley Miller believed to the case regarding naturalistic explanations of the origin of life: "Miller seemed unimpressed with any of the current proposals on the origin of life, referring to them as “nonsense” or “paper chemistry.”"[30] In addition, as stated earlier, in 1996, John Horgan wrote the following in Scientific American: "The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion."[13]

Biblical creationists and the issue of intelligent life on other planets

Biblical creation organizations argue that the biblical and scientific evidence suggests that God did not create intelligent life on other planets nor did it naturally arise through macroevolution.[31]

Intelligent design theorists and life on other planets

The Privileged Planet is an intelligent design theory documentary which argues that the earth contains a rare and finely-tuned array of factors which makes earth suitable for complex life.[32]

2009 origin of life debate

Dr. Stephen Meyer published an article favoring intelligent design in a peer reviewed science journal which had traditionally only published material advocating the evolutionary position.[33]

In 2009, Dr. Stephen Meyer and Dr. Richard Sternberg debating Dr. Michael Shermer and Dr. Donald Prothero concerning on the topic of the origin of life.[34] The Discovery Institute declared concerning the debate:

“ To call the debate a massacre would be a discredit to Sitting Bull. The only thing I can say is that Shermer needs to add a point to his booklet on how to debate "creationists" — namely, leave Donald Prothero at home in his van by the river...

Some of the best points came later in the debate, when Sternberg slammed Prothero with factual put down after factual put down, citing the current literature time and again. His command of the subject matter — from population genetics to junk DNA — was so far and above beyond Shermer and Prothero's knowledge, so far above their pay grade, that it was almost painful to watch him school them point after point. As I said before, shortly you'll be able to watch the debate for yourself. But be warned, it isn't pretty.[35]

”

An audio copy of the debate has been made available to the public.[34]

Creation Science and Intelligent Design Theorist Views

Creation scientists hold that God supernaturally created the various animals and plants on earth and naturalistic explanations are implausible. They offer numerous arguments on why naturalistic explanations of the origin of life are inadequate.[36][37]

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer argues that naturalistic explanations for the origin of life have failed and that inference to the best explanation for the origin of biological information is an intelligent cause.[38] In Darwin's Doubt, he writes:

  • "... invoking natural selection does not help to explain the origin of the first life"
  • "Natural selection assumes the existence of living organisms with a capacity to reproduce." (prologue, p. viii)
v • d • e
Creation vs. evolution
Evolution
Hoaxes, Controversies, and Debates
Creation science and Creationism

See also

External links

Creation science articles and videos:

Articles:

Videos:

Intelligent design theorists articles and audio:

Articles:

Audio:

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/36/36_4/abiogenesis.html
  2. ↑ http://www.creationbc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=86&Itemid=85
  3. ↑ Origin of life
  4. ↑ Origins, Worlds, and Life: A Decadal Strategy for Planetary Science and Astrobiology 2023-2032. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 2023. ISBN 0309475783. "Studies of the chemical origins of life start with the hypothesis that mixtures of simple small molecules under the influence of various energy sources and early Earth environments created the building blocks of life and that interactions among these molecules eventually lead to life itself (Figure 12-2)."
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Pier Luigi Luisi. 2018. The Emergence of Life: From Chemical Origins to Synthetic Biology. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781108735506. p. 416.
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 James Tour, Charles B Thaxton, Walter L Bradley. 2020. The Mystery of Life's Origin. Discovery Press. ISBN 1936599740. 13. We're Still Clueless About the Origin of Life
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Committee on the Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems; Committee on the Origins and Evolution of Life (2007). The Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems. National Academies Press. pp. 58–60. ISBN 978-0309104845. "Chemists’ objection to the notion that life is a natural consequence of organic reactivity is simple and comes from broadly based empirical experience in organic-chemistry laboratories. Addition of energy to mixtures of organic species makes the mixtures more complex and less likely to support life. Shapiro has provided a thoughtful and detailed discussion of the difficulties. Briefly summarized, it suggests that existing prebiotic chemistry experiments do not offer plausible hypotheses for routes to complex biomolecules. In the complex chemical mixtures generated under prebiotic conditions, one may be able to find trace amounts of amino acids and perhaps nucleobases. Some might indeed catalyze reactions that have some utility. But other compounds may well inhibit catalysis or catalyze undesired reactions. For example, Joyce and Orgel pointed out that the clay-catalyzed condensation of nucleotides to yield small chains performed best, under the conditions that they considered, if only one enantiomer of the starting material was present. If both were present, the desired reaction with the desired enantiomer might be inhibited by the other enantiomer. Furthermore, the combination of any bifunctional molecule into an information-bearing polymer would be expected to be terminated at an early stage by the presence of an excess of molecules that bear only one functionality. Even crystallization, a well-documented method of obtaining order through self-organization, is not a particularly powerful way to separate mixtures of organic chemicals into their constituents. Normally, an organic compound must be relatively pure before crystallization occurs. That salts crystallize better may explain why crystals are more common in the mineral world than in the organic world. Even organic salts can have problems in crystallizing from an impure mixture. Those facts generate the central problem in prebiotic chemistry. Spontaneous self-organization is not known to be an intrinsic property of most organic matter, at least as observed in the laboratory. It can be driven only by an external source of free energy that is coupled to the organic system."
  8. ↑ Richert, C. Prebiotic chemistry and human intervention. Nature Communications 9, 5177 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07219-5
  9. ↑ David Deamer. 2020. Origin of life: what everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0190098996. pages 87-88 "The bottom line is that ALL the essential parts of bacterial cells have been shown to work in isolation. However, no one has ever tried to put them back together. Is this even possible? Can a mixture of bacterial parts that is not alive be revived?...Are they alive? Will they grow and reproduce? After all, the ribosomes, genomes, and enzymes are all back together in one place. Most knowledgeable scientists would say, "No! They will NOT be alive!" But they can't know for sure, because no one has done the experiment. I tend share their skepticism - for a very good reason. All the components of the cell may have been put back together in a tiny membranous bag, but we have disrupted an invisible order having to do with feedback loops that regulate metabolism. In the absence of feedback controlling thousands of enzymes, it may be impossible for the cells to come back to life."
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 Marshall, Michael (10 December 2020). "How the first life on Earth survived its biggest threat — water". Nature. 588 (7837): 210–213. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-03461-4. "This suggested to many researchers that life arose near the surface of the ocean. But many scientists today say there’s a fundamental problem with that idea: life’s cornerstone molecules break down in water. This is because proteins, and nucleic acids such as DNA and RNA, are vulnerable at their joints. Proteins are made of chains of amino acids, and nucleic acids are chains of nucleotides. If the chains are placed in water, it attacks the links and eventually breaks them. In carbon chemistry, “water is an enemy to be excluded as rigorously as possible”, wrote the late biochemist Robert Shapiro in his totemic 1986 book Origins, which critiqued the primordial ocean hypothesis. This is the water paradox. Today, cells solve it by limiting the free movement of water in their interiors, says synthetic biologist Kate Adamala at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. For this reason, popular images of the cytoplasm — the substance inside the cell — are often wrong. “We are taught that cytoplasm is just a bag that holds everything, and everything is swimming around,” she adds. “That’s not true, everything is incredibly scaffolded in cells, and it’s scaffolded in a gel, not a water bag.” If living things keep water controlled, then the implication, say many researchers, is obvious. Life probably formed on land, where water was only intermittently present.
  11. ↑ Why Abiogenesis is impossible
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 Quoted in Strobel, Lee, The case for Faith, p.107.
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/orignl01.html#orgnflfmjrprblmschcknndgg
  14. ↑ Quoted by Jones, Stephen E., Creation/Evolution Quotes: Origin of Life #2
  15. ↑ Felix Franks. 2010. "2. Water and Life Friend or Foe?". In Harper, Charles (ed.). Water and Life: The Unique Properties of H2O. CRC Press. ISBN 9781439803561 page 13
  16. ↑ Sarfati, Jonathan, Origin of life: the chirality problem, Journal of Creation 12(3):263–266, December 1998.
  17. ↑ Sarfati, Jonathan, Origin of life: the polymerization problem Journal of Creation 12(3):281–284, December 1998.
  18. ↑ James Tour et al. "Thermodynamic Limitations on the Natural Emergence of Long Chain Molecules: Implications for Origin of Life" BioCosmos: New perspectives on the origin and evolution of life, vol. 5, no. 1, Sciendo, 2025, pp. 64-71. https://doi.org/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010
  19. ↑ Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books, London, 1985, pages 328 and 342
  20. ↑ Riddle, Mike, Can natural processes explain the origin of life? 17th May, 2007 (Answers in Genesis).
  21. ↑ http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm
  22. ↑ Sarfati, Jonathan, Self-replicating enzymes?, Journal of Creation 11(1):4–6, April 1997.
  23. ↑ Cairns-Smith, Graham, Genetic Takeover: And the Mineral Origins of Life, Cambridge University Press, 1982 (Quoted on Creation Ministries International web-site).
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 24.2 http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm Reprint of an Creation Research Quarterly September 2001 article The Spontaneous Generation Hypothesis by David P. Woetzel
  25. ↑ Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books reprint edition, 1990, ISBN 0-465-09138-5, p. 145.
  26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zzz.html
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 Bates, Gary, Designed by aliens?, Creation 25(4):54–55, September 2003
  28. ↑ http://www.infidels.org/infidels/newsletter/1997/october.html
  29. ↑ http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/doug_jesseph/jesseph-craig/jesseph1.html
  30. ↑ http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp
  31. ↑
  32. ↑ The Privileged Planet documentary website
  33. ↑ http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1489
  34. ↑ 34.0 34.1 http://greatcloud.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/audio-of-stephen-meyer-vs-michael-shermer-debate/
  35. ↑ http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/12/ouch_intelligent_design_guys_p.html
  36. ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp
  37. ↑ https://books.google.com/books?id=caGCTtPi-aMC&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=mood+and+conference+and+origin+and+life+and+bradley+and+grim&source=web&ots=iyVq9fDDDR&sig=ub92i66wAgY0UslPEM1WLlxSl9M
  38. ↑ http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html
Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Origin_of_life&oldid=2153647"