The birth of life

Grab to eternal life!

Jesus is the way,
the truth, and the life

CHAPTER 5 –

The birth of life

One axiom of the theory of evolution is that life has been born from lifeless material. It has been assumed that this could have taken place by itself, as long as conditions were just right. Usually, these conditions refer to an atmosphere that included hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water vapor, but not the most important agent for us, namely free oxygen. Secondly, different kinds of radiation and light should have occurred in this atmosphere – causing chemical changes that then created the agents in question: amino acids. This subject, and the chemical engineering of amino acids under laboratory conditions are described in a school biology textbook (Koulun biologia, lukiokurssi 2-3, 1987, Tast – Tyrväinen – Mattila – Nyberg, p. 172). Also, the two quotes below indicate that it has been impossible to experimentally prove spontaneous generation and that it clearly goes against practical observations:

In the beginning, the atmosphere of the Earth contained, in addition to water vapor, hydrogen, ammonia, and methane gases. Since there was no oxygen in the atmosphere, the ozone layer did not protect the Earth. Therefore, the ultraviolet rays of the Sun were able to freely penetrate the surface of the Earth. Rain washed ingredients from the mainland into the seas making them salty.

   (...) The formation of organic material from simple materials has also been experimentally proven. In these experiments, electric discharges were conducted into a closed vessel containing methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor. Many organic materials, like amino acids, were obtained as a result.

The spontaneous generation theory that prevailed in the 1700s suggested that organisms were born from lifeless materials. In the 1860s, Louis Pasteur proved this untrue. According to the present view, spontaneous generation has indeed happened, but apparently only once. (Koulun biologia, lukiokurssi 2-3, 1987, Tast – Tyrväinen – Mattila – Nyberg, p. 172)

It has been impossible to produce life in a laboratory. However, this has been attempted by man only for some decades. Nature had hundreds of millions of years of time and innumerable warm puddles on the empty surface of the globe as the testing grounds. It was enough that life began in one puddle. From there, it spread onto every part of the globe. (Heikki Oja, Polaris, p. 144)

ARE THE THEORIES SATISFACTORY?

As we start to study the mystery of the birth of life, we must note that the issue is not so simple as some publications suggest. Usually, in this area the experiment with birth of life by Miller has been discussed, but if we start to study the experiment and possible initial conditions on Earth, we are faced with insuperable problems. The composition of the atmosphere in the beginning and the formation of proteins are especially problematic:

The composition of the atmosphere in the beginning. As stated, the above-mentioned theory supposes that in the beginning, the atmosphere included hydrogen, ammonia, and methane, but no free oxygen at all, since free oxygen would have prevented the formation of proteins and nipped the reactions in the bud.

   However, when studying this issue further, one finds that it is not very likely, since the following things go against it:

Precambrian rocks. One thing speaking against an oxygen-free atmosphere are Precambrian rocks. Many Precambrian rocks that have been determined to be the oldest ones include oxygenated iron minerals, which indicate that there was oxygen already at that stage. The idea that there would have been no oxygen in the atmosphere in the beginning clearly goes against these practical observations. Ken Towe has explained the problem:

"There is one problem related to the studies of the early Precambrian age. On one hand, it is admitted that there was no gaseous oxygen in the beginning and that life started in such an environment. On the other hand, many Precambrian rocks, including the oldest known layers, include oxygenated iron minerals. Therefore, at the time they were formed, there was free oxygen. Where did it come from?" (p. 115, Jim Brooks Näin alkoi elämä / Origins of Life)

Was the composition the opposite of what it is now? The theory presented above also includes an idea that the composition of the first atmosphere was just the opposite of what it is now; in the beginning, there was no oxygen but there were hydrogen, methane, and ammonia, while the current atmosphere is the opposite of this. (The current atmosphere contains 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.9% argon and 0.1% other inert gases and carbon dioxide.)

   The radical change of the atmosphere is indeed difficult to prove in practice. It is based only on the supposition that spontaneous generation required an oxygen-free atmosphere, because otherwise amino acids could not have been formed. There is no other reason to this kind of a supposition and it is not supported by practical observations. Therefore, one may well ask whether the atmosphere really changed so drastically or whether it was oxygen-free in the first place?

Gases lighter than oxygen. The idea that gases lighter than oxygen, but not oxygen itself, would have remained in the atmosphere seems impossible. Why should hydrogen have remained in the atmosphere of the Earth instead of oxygen, because – being the lightest of all gases – it would be the first one to escape into outer space? Hydrogen would most likely have escaped right away into space, since the Earth is believed to have been hot and its crust partly molten. The hotter it is, the easier it is for gases to escape, because the movement of a gas intensifies as heat rises. An atmosphere containing hydrogen would probably not have remained intact for long (it has been thought that this kind of an atmosphere prevailed on the Earth for millions of years) and the amino acids would not even have had time to form.

Is oxygen dependent on photosynthesis? Generally, it is supposed that oxygen appeared on the Earth because of photosynthesis, which generated the oxygen. It has been thought that green plants caused the oxygen level of the atmosphere to increase.

   However, this is not necessarily true: instead, some of the oxygen may have been created by the ultraviolet light of the Sun that disperses water and produces oxygen and ozone. It would rather have been quite a special combination if there had been no free oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere, since there must have been oxygen together with hydrogen as water and water vapor. This selective occurrence hardly seems possible. Therefore, oxygen must have already been present then.

Another piece of evidence contradicting the idea that the atmosphere of the Earth was oxygen-free is the oxygen found from Mars. Plasma spectrometer Aspera, which was sent to Mars to take tests, measured that as much as 3.5 tons of oxygen is carried every hour by solar winds from the gas perimeter of Mars into space. This proves that the existence of oxygen is in no way dependent on organic activity, i.e., on photosynthesis. It also proves that there could have been free oxygen on Earth in its early stages as well.

Formation of proteins is another problem. If we, nevertheless, assume that amino acids were formed in an oxygen-free atmosphere and survived the ultraviolet radiation by penetrating water – as has been hypothesized – we come across a whole new set of difficulties. (Getting into water was necessary, because there was no oxygen in the atmosphere and thus no protective ozone layer, and without ozone, the ultraviolet radiation would have quickly destroyed the newborn amino acids. In other words, this is a considerable problem: the amino acids could not have been formed in an oxygenous atmosphere and in an oxygen-free atmosphere they would have been immediately destroyed. Both alternatives – an oxygenous and an oxygen-free atmosphere – would have been detrimental to amino acids.)

   The difficulty is: how could amino acids have been able to combine with proteins in water? If there was a surplus of water, it would not have assisted the formation of proteins; instead, quite the contrary would have occurred. It would have caused the already formed combinations to return back to their structural elements. Such reactions are always dependent on the prevailing circumstances and because of the water surplus, they would only have moved backwards, i.e., back to their original state of amino acids, and not forward at all. The compounds would not even have been created:

According to the sea hypothesis, the chemical evolution and the birth of life occurred in sea or in a pond. However, under these conditions the spontaneous birth of macro molecules required for the birth of life is in no way possible. Let us imagine the birth of a large protein molecule in water. As the amino acids are joined together by a peptide bond, one water molecule is always released. The bigger the polypeptides created, the more water gathers to the right side of the reaction equation. At least according to the present existing laws of chemistry and physics, the reaction will always reverse if there is enough water, i.e., spontaneous hydrolysis of the created molecules will occur. Someone should continuously remove water to prevent the protein from falling to pieces. (Mikko Tuuliranta, Evoluutio – tieteen harha-askel?, p. 18)

Because a peptide bond is thermodynamically unstable in an aqueous solution, the formed proteinoid would be extremely prone to hydrolytic decomposition in the warm seas that prevailed in the beginning. Thus, no single protenoid could have been preserved for a long time. This fact causes a fundamental problem. (Lehninger A.L., Biochemistry, p. 1041, Worth Publishers, Inc., [1975])

No life. If the formation of proteins in water was possible in spite of everything, more problems were still to come: even though the protein molecules had turned into amino acids, the molecules would still have lacked whatever it was that made them alive. It is a question of a more refined form of a dead material; just as iron, plastic, and rubber can be formed into a car, but there is no life in this car. In the same way, a dead body has just the right materials and right structures, but there is no life in it. The right materials and structures, therefore, would hardly assist us in solving the puzzle of life. Correct materials alone cannot bring about life:

And we have not still touched the problem itself: the birth of life. Egg protein is not life, it is only one of the materials that form a living organism. Even if we had an entire Earth full of egg protein, we still would be no closer to the solution. We can prove that life creates and uses egg protein, but there is not a single shred of evidence that egg protein creates life. (Thoralf Gulbrandsen: Puuttuva rengas [Jakten på apemennesket], p. 41).

Imperfect theories. The next comments indicate well how problematic the birth of life is and how the evidence for it is lacking. There is still a big gap between a living and a lifeless material, and the researchers have not made any progress in the matter in the last century. It has been impossible to solve the problem of the birth of life:

Paul Davies: “When I began to write this book, I was convinced that science had almost solved the mystery of the birth of life. (…) I have spent one or two years studying this area and now I think that there is an enormous gap in our knowledge. We have, of course, a good idea of the time and place of the birth of life but there is still a long way to go to understanding the series of events. This gap in our understanding is not mere ignorance about some technical details but it is a notable conceptual defect. (…) Many researchers are careful to say publicly that the birth of life is a mystery, although behind closed doors they openly admit to being confused.

… (9)

Andy Knoll, a professor of Harvard University: “As we try to compile a summary of what we know about the deep history of life on Earth, the origin of life and phases of its forming which led to the biology that can be seen around us now, we have to admit that it is in the dark. We do not know how life began on this planet. We do not know exactly when it began and under what conditions.” (10)

REFERENCES:

1. Pekka Reinikainen: Unohdettu genesis, p. 25

2. John D. Barrow : Maailmankaikkeuden alku, p. 37

3. Same, s. 36-37

4. Andy Knoll (2004) PBS Nova interview, 3. may 2004, cit. Antony Flew & Roy Varghese (2007) There is A God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. New York: HarperOne

5. Heikki Oja: Polaris, p.128,129

6. Kari Enqvist and Jukka Maalampi: Tyhjästä syntynyt, p. 14

7. Pekka Reinikainen: Unohdettu Genesis, p. 24

8. Joseph Silk in his book "Big Bang"

9. Paul Davies: Viides ihme, 1999, p. 14,15

10. Andy Knoll (2004) PBS Nova interview, 3. may 2004, cit. Antony Flew & Roy Varghese (2007) There is A God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. New York: HarperOne

Jari Iivanainen