Just what are chances of life beginning by chance? Dr. John Peet of the Biblical Creation Society leads us through the arguments.
Professor Sidney Fox, a chemist researching for a mechanistic explanation for the origin of life, entitled a paper 'In the beginning, life assembled itself ...' This is clearly in contrast to the biblical claim that 'In the beginning, God created ...' Is there any reason for believing Sidney Fox? Another scientist said that the origin of life 'can never be repeated by us, but we could ask proper questions, knowing the problem.' So, let's ask the questions.
There are many chemicals involved in a living system, but to keep the problem reasonably simple, we will concentrate on the simplest group of chemicals, the amino acids. 20 of these occur in nature and they combine to form proteins. From these, we get many of our bodies' structural materials (muscles, skin, hair, etc.) and they also form a constituent part of enzymes. Without enzymes, no metabolic process can occur in a living organism. They are vital to life. There are many different enzymes in the body, facilitating processes such as the digestion of food. Without them, reactions would be, at best, excessively slow. The amino acids combine in large numbers (hundreds or thousands of units). The choice of the units and sequence of their combination is critical to the structure and so the activity of the protein.
Yet, all these proteins are made up from just 20 naturally-occurring amino acids, though many more can be synthesised in the chemistry laboratory.
The synthesis of the amino acids
The first questions must be: Where did they come from? What were their precursors? The evolutionists believe that these chemicals originated from the reaction of atmospheric gases. But the problem is that the modern atmosphere, based on oxygen, would not generate these compounds; rather, it would destroy them. This, of course, is what happens when we die - our bodies rot away; the amino acids are destroyed along with the other chemicals essential for life. So, the atmosphere 'had to be' anaerobic, that is, not containing oxygen (the destructive component of our atmosphere).
Various suggestions have been made, in particular, that it consisted primarily of methane, ammonia, carbon dioxide and water. There is no evidence for this. That is merely the atmosphere that the theory requires. In fact, the evidence, both geological and astronomical, is against it.
The earliest rocks, the Precambrian, demonstrate that the earliest atmosphere was of similar nature to that known today. This is evidenced by the fact that some of the rocks are in an oxidised state (that is, they have been affected by oxygen). Other scientists have noticed the absence of suitable compounds in the rocks that would have resulted from such an atmosphere. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe said: 'Their absence in the geological record may be construed as evidence against the soup.' This so-called 'soup' is the mixture of chemicals that were presumed to have occurred in the primeval seas. One writer described it as a 'rich soup', but, as Hoyle and Wickramasinghe showed, this is fanciful, not realistic.
A key experiment in this area was that of Stanley Miller who exposed a mixture of ammonia, methane and water to an electrical discharge and obtained a mixture of amino acids. This looked good for the theory except:
a) the gases did not represent the original atmosphere which we know (e.g. from geological studies) actually existed;
b) the experimental conditions have no natural counterpart (past or present);
c) the amino acids formed were in the wrong proportions or even, in some cases, not those that occur in nature;
d) the amino acids formed were of the wrong orientation.
Taking up the last point, we need to know that many organic chemicals (those based on carbon and found in living cells) can be left-handed or right-handed in their molecular orientation. Amino acids have a left-handed configuration. There is no known chemical reaction that can generate solely left-handed (or right-handed) chemicals. Miller's experiment did not. The wrong configuration can have fatal consequences and so would hinder the production of life.
Furthermore, the atmosphere and products described are unstable even under the atmospheric conditions proposed. For example, ultraviolet radiation would destroy 97% of the simplest amino acid (glycine) before it reached the earth's surface. The methane would only last for 1% of the time required for the reaction and the ammonia would be destroyed within 30,000 years! In addition, since ammonia is very soluble in water, little would remain in the atmosphere - most would be in the sea! Furthermore, the action of ultraviolet radiation on the seas would have generated an atmosphere with a similar amount of oxygen to the present day very early in earth's history.
The polymerisation of the amino acids
Let's assume that these insuperable problems could be solved, how could the amino acids then join together to form proteins? The process in which they join together is called 'polymerisation'. This is achieved by the removal of water. It occurs continuously in our bodies due to the presence of enzymes. But the evolutionist has not got his enzymes - they cannot be formed until after the proteins!
Proteins do not form spontaneously from amino acids. Miller and Orgel have stated that, 'we doubt that...biological polymerisation could have taken place except in an aqueous environment.' In fact, the reverse process, hydrolysis (breakdown by the chemical action of water), is spontaneous. This is what happens in our duodenum when we eat. So the aqueous environment proposed by Miller and Orgel is the last place to find polymerisation at work!
The concentrations of the initial amino acids present would have been so small that the amount of protein resulting would have been negligible and the rate of formation would have been infinitesimal!
There is a further problem which is often ignored. How did the right proteins form? The function of these chemicals is ultimately dependent on the sequence of amino acids. A single mistake in this sequence can produce a defective protein, even a fatality. By way of illustration, the haemoglobin in our red blood cells contains a protein chain of three hundred amino acids. One genetic error results in the seventh amino acid being changed. Normally this amino acid is glutamic acid; in this case it has become valine. The consequence is sickle cell anaemia. The consequence is a fatal condition. This is but a single example of the effects of errors in this protein. The sequence had to be correct in the first red blood cell for it be functional. But where did this information come from? Every protein in our body had to be correctly sequenced to be effective. The probability of even one protein being correct through a chance process indicates that this is an impossibility.
The formation of primitive cells
To look any further seems ludicrous. If we cannot get amino acids and we cannot form proteins, it would seem foolish to look for cells. But Fox went on and claimed that he had formed primitive cells from some small proteins (technically, peptides). He claimed that his chemicals assembled themselves into microspheres and these would be the first step towards a living cell.
Even Fox admitted that his microspheres were unstable: they dissolve on agitation, on warming and on dilution. What hope for them in the oceans! The multiplication that he claimed for these cells was no more than we see with soap bubbles - there is no reproduction or replication.
In fact, the cell is a most complex machine involving a control centre, an energy generator, an assembly line and a waste disposal unit (to put it simply). Whenever did such a machine arise spontaneously from inorganic matter?
Potter, a molecular biologist, has said that the simplest form of life requires not less than one thousand substances, but it would be many thousand more than that. Another leading researcher in this field, Morowitz, estimates that the simplest conceivable cell requires 124 different proteins - plus sugars, lipids, nucleic acids, etc.
Conclusion
Remember, we have considered only amino acids, the compounds for which this is the most favourable scenario. For the simplest sugar, for example, the amount generated would be less than one molecule in the whole universe!
Chemistry actually inhibits the evolutionary scenario. There is no satisfactory route for the synthesis of the essential chemicals. Even if they were produced, under the proposed conditions they would be incompatible. The environmental conditions would also lead to their rapid destruction.
We quoted Miller. After 42 years of research, he acknowledges, 'I come up with a dozen ideas a day and I usually discard the whole dozen.'
Francis Crick, famous for his work on DNA, wrote: 'The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions that had to be satisfied to get it going.'
Yockey has published many papers in the biological journals as a result of his studies in the field of the chemical origins of life. He has drawn the following conclusion: 'One must conclude that no valid scientific explanation of the origin of life exists at present ... Since science has not the vaguest idea how life originated on earth, ... it would be honest to admit this to students, the agencies funding research and the public.'
