> Home

> Origin of the Universe (Cosmology)
Science or Pseudo-Science?

> Origin of Life (Abiogenesis)
Science or Pseudo-Science?

> Common Descent (Darwinism)
Science or Pseudo-Science?

> How Does Evolution
Supposedly Work?

> Genetics

> Mutations

> Genetic Recombination

> Gene Duplication

> Natural Selection

> Fossil Evidence

> Stasis

> “Junk” DNA – The Biggest Blunder of Evolutionary-Based Science

> Endogenous Retroviruses

	"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." —John Horgan Former Senior Writer at Scientific American (1986-1997) in his book “The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age” Little, Brown, & Co.: London, 1997, p. 138. His awards include the Science Journalism Award of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (1992 and 1994), the National Association of Science Writers Science-in-Society Award (1993) and the 2005 Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Fellowship in Science and Religion.

Origin of Life (Abiogenesis) – Science or Pseudoscience?

In the past, the complexity of a single cell was unknown. But today, with the advancements in the field of genetics, it is inexcusable for anyone to summarize that life could have ‘self-assembled’ itself:

• “Despite considerable experimental and theoretical effort, no compelling scenarios currently exist for the origin of replication and translation, the key processes that together comprise the core of biological systems and the apparent pre-requisite of biological evolution. The RNA World concept might offer the best chance for the resolution of this conundrum but so far cannot adequately account for the emergence of an efficient RNA replicase or the translation system.”
  Eugene V. Koonin, MD, MS and PhD in Molecular Biology from Department of Biology, Moscow State University, Moscow, Editor of Genome Analysis section in Trends in Genetics, “The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life,” Biology Direct 2007 2:15.
  http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/15

It is known that DNA/RNA is made-up of inorganic elements of sugar and phosphate molecules with a nitrogen base. What is NOT known is how DNA/RNA miraculously creates organic matter, let alone matter that is as highly organized and specialized as a single cell: http://www.physorg.com/news148050302.html

• “The natural world is a shining example when it comes to the self-assembly of molecules. However, it has not disclosed all of its secrets yet. Controlling the shape and structure of self-assembled systems continues to be a stumbling block for scientists.”
  Institute for Complex Molecular Structures at Eindhoven University of Technology in cooperation with Utrecht University, “Nanotechnology: Self-assembly Of Building Blocks Of DNA Can Now Be Easily Controlled” May 15, 2009, ScienceDaily website.
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090514084122.htm
  
• “We understand very little about how dissipation of energy lead to the emergence of ordered structures from disordered components in the systems.”
  George M Whitesides and Bartosz Grzybowski, “Self-assembly at all scales” Science magazine, March 29, 2002; 295, 5564; Research Library Core, page 2418. (See PDF)
  
• “Despite centuries of study, researchers still know relatively little about the forces that guide atoms to self-assemble into molecules. They know even less about how groups of molecules join together to create living cells and tissues.”
  Donald E. Ingber, “The Architecture of Life” Scientific American, January 1998.
  http://vv.arts.ucla.edu/Talks/Barcelona/Arch_Life.htm

Another indicator of ignorance is the existence of Harvard University’s ‘Origins of Life in the Universe Initiative.’

Its purpose is to attempt to prove that life arose spontaneously without God, and its long term strategy includes, “adding faculty members and a collection of multi-million dollars facilities.”

If it’s so easy to “reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention," why does it appear that they’re planning on a lengthy endeavor by adding future facilities?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20050815/ai_n14882732/print

Regardless of all the recent hype, there is absolutely NO evidence that life arose from non-life:
“However, Darwin’s 1859 classic, On the Origin of Species, somewhat ironically doesn’t answer that very question – how species actually originated. And to this day, how that first tiny pool of chemicals twitched to life remains a puzzle.”
http://www.physorg.com/news148050302.html

Spontaneous or purposeful?

Because random ‘self-assembly’ of life from non-life is a stretch, the word ‘spontaneous’ was replaced with the more seemingly scientific term called ‘abiogenesis.’ Instead of an instant assembly of inorganic materials, abiogenesis supposedly gives way to a slower piecemeal brew that still miraculously assembles itself into a self-sustaining single cell organism:
“Instead of life arising from non-life on a regular and observable basis, abiogenesis proposes life arising from non-life at some particular point in the ancient, unobservable past. But abiogenesis differs from spontaneous generation in another important way. While spontaneous generation proposed the emergence of a complete, complex cell or organism from organic molecules in one huge jump, abiogenesis draws from gradualism, where the original life forms were much simpler than modern cells and only gradually evolved their present-day form of complexity. Thus, abiogenesis not only places the spontaneous generation of life far in the past, but the life that is generated was supposedly much simpler, thus easier to generate spontaneously.”
http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Abiogenesis

Every hypothesis of abiogenesis has its own flavor and some even claim that extraterrestrial particles of interstellar dust caused life on earth to begin:
http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=
article&sid=2434&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Other speculations:
http://www.physorg.com/news115988029.html
http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2007/463.html
http://www.uga.edu/news/artman/publish/071030_DNA.shtml
http://www.physorg.com/news100533246.htm
http://www.hhmi.org/news/szostak4.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

REVIEW HOW ABIOGENESIS HOLDS UP WHEN USING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD OF TESTING A HYPOTHESIS:

1. Make observations.
   
2. Form a testable, unifying hypothesis to explain these observations.
   “By 'testable,' we mean the predictions must include examples of what is likely be observed if the hypothesis is true and of what is unlikely to be observed if the hypothesis is true. A hypothesis that can explain all possible data equally well is not testable, nor is it scientific. A good scientific hypothesis must rule out some conceivable possibilities, at least in principle.”
   http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html
   
3. Deduce predictions from the hypothesis.
   
4. Search for confirmations of the predictions; if the predictions are contradicted by empirical observation, go back to step (2).
   (From: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html)
   

Results:
Using the standards established by the Scientific Method listed above, each evolutionary explanation for Abiogenesis has:

1. NO observations of occurrence;
   
2. NO defining hypotheses that allow for testing;
   
3. NO exclusive predictions that allow for deductions;
   
4. No confirmations because there are NO exclusive predictions.

REVIEW WHAT IS CONSIDERED AS NATURALISTIC BY EVOLUTIONARY STANDARDS:

“In science, explanations must be based on naturally occurring phenomena. Natural causes are, in principle, reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others.”
“Science, Evolution, and Creationism,” 2008, National Academy of Sciences (NAS), The National Academies Press, third edition, page 10.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=10

Using the standards above:

• Are there any evolutionary explanations for the evolution of life from non-life a “naturally occurring phenomena” within know scientific information, laws, and principles?
  
• Can any be “reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others”?
  

Results:
Since the answer is “no,” all existing evolutionary explanations for the evolution of life from non-life MUST be given the correct status of being supernatural, i.e. something attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.

For more information, refer to:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/abiogenesis.asp
http://www.trueorigin.org/originoflife.asp

	“Despite considerable experimental and theoretical effort, no compelling scenarios currently exist for the origin of replication and translation, the key processes that together comprise the core of biological systems and the apparent pre-requisite of biological evolution. The RNA World concept might offer the best chance for the resolution of this conundrum but so far cannot adequately account for the emergence of an efficient RNA replicase or the translation system.” —Eugene V. Koonin MD, MS and PhD in Molecular Biology from Department of Biology, Moscow State University, Moscow, Editor of Genome Analysis section in Trends in Genetics, “The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life”, Biology Direct 2007 2:15. http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/15