> Home

> Age of the Earth and Universe

> 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

> Fossils

> Stasis

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

>Endogenous Retroviruses
(ERVs)

> The 'Something From Nothing' Universe

	“Today, the question of the origins of life in the universe remains one of humankind's most compelling mysteries.” Harvard University's “Origins of Life in the Universe Initiative” website, “About” page. http://origins.harvard.edu/ About.html “Chemists have been able to observe many examples of self-organizing behavior with simple molecules, yet explaining the complex self-assembly of biomolecules had not been so obvious ... 'Perhaps in the near future we may look forward to more discoveries that will take us beyond the world of Darwin into an understanding of the basic chemical principles that drove the emergence of life on our planet and perhaps beyond.'” University of Montreal, “Origin of Life On Earth: Scientists Unlock Mystery Of Molecular Machine”, March 1, 2009, ScienceDaily website. http://www.sciencedaily.com/ releases/2009/02/090219 105324.htm

Origin of Life (Abiogenesis) – Science or Pseudoscience?

It is known that DNA/RNA is made-up of the inorganic elements of sugar and phosphate molecules that have a nitrogen base. What is NOT known is how these elements combine to create a program that can build structured organic matter, let alone something that is so highly organized and specialized as a single cell.

In the past, the complexity of a single cell was unknown. But today, it is inexcusable for anyone to seriously think that a cell, which is regarded as the basic unit of all life, could have ‘self-assembled’ itself.
See Discovery Institute's “Journey Inside The Cell” video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fiJupfbSpg&feature=bulletin

• “These principles also have been exploited by natural evolution, Winfree says: "Every cell, it appears, is a kind of universal computer that can be instructed in seemingly limitless ways by a DNA genome that specifies what chemical processes to execute, thus building an active organism. The aim of my lab has been to understand algorithms and information within molecular systems."”
  California Institute of Technology, “DNA Origami Seeds Control Complex Nucleation Processes”, April 9, 2009, ScienceDaily website.
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090408145604.htm
• “How proteins spontaneously "fold" from wiggling chains of amino acids into a wide variety of functional – or malfunctioning - three-dimensional molecules is one of the biggest mysteries in biochemistry.”
  Michigan State University, “Scientists post lower speed limit for cell-signaling protein assembly”, July 29, 2010, Physorg website.
  http://www.physorg.com/news199639666.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
• “Chemists have been able to observe many examples of self-organizing behavior with simple molecules, yet explaining the complex self-assembly of biomolecules had not been so obvious.” ...
  "Perhaps in the near future we may look forward to more discoveries that will take us beyond the world of Darwin into an understanding of the basic chemical principles that drove the emergence of life on our planet and perhaps beyond."”
  University of Montreal, “Origin of Life On Earth: Scientists Unlock Mystery Of Molecular Machine”, March 1, 2009, ScienceDaily website.
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090219105324.htm

But, the trend now is to simply cast aside the principle of cause and effect and instead believe in the unguided spontaneous molecular self-assembly of a cell:

• “We proposed that the genetic material could drive the growth of cells just by virtue of being there.”
  Jack W. Szostak, “Battle of the Bubbles May Have Sparked Evolution”, September 03, 2004, Howard Hughes Medical Institute: Research News.
  http://www.hhmi.org/news/szostak4.html

In 2005, Harvard University launched their Origins of Life in the Universe Initiative to study how life could have spontaneously begun without God:

• “"My expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention," said David R. Liu, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard.”
  Harvard University, “Harvard launches project researching origins of life”, August 15, 2005, Deseret News Publishing Co.
  http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20050815/ai_n14882732/print

The “very simple series of logical events” was obviously overstated because there is still NO naturalistic explanation for how life could have come from non-life:

• “Today, the question of the origins of life in the universe remains one of humankind's most compelling mysteries.”
  Harvard University's “Origins of Life in the Universe Initiative” website, “About” page.
  http://origins.harvard.edu/About.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

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.hhmi.org/news/szostak4.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.

	“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