Critiquing the Evolutionist's Explanation for the Origin of Life

A Critique of the Reductive Atmospheric Model for the Synthesis of Amino Acids

 

Introduction & Overview

Before the 1950's, evolutionists had been faced with the problem that the only known source for amino acids was other living things. Although evolutionists believed that life had begun by purely naturalistic causes, they did not have a viable naturalistic explanation for how that life could have begun. Then in the 1950's Stanley Miller did an experiment in which he passed an energy source through some gases and created a few different types of simple amino acids.

It appears that many educated people commonly believe that with Stanley Miller's synthesis of a few amino acids as well as subsequent experiments, an evolutionary process for the origin of life became more than a speculative theory; it became a legitimate scientific explanation. Many have believed that the scientific key for our life's origin had been uncovered. Based upon Miller's and subsequent research, evolutionists have claimed that we now have a scientific model explaining how life began or at least how it could have begun on the early earth. Pick up any book on evolution up through the early 1990's and you will find the story that our early earth did not have any oxygen. Why? As we will see below, as far as we currently know this special non-oxygen atmosphere is required in order for the building blocks of life to be formed.

Note - throughout this article, "evolution" refers to macro-evolution [e.g. apes eventually becoming humans, etc.], not micro-evolution [e.g. changes in the shape of a finch's beak and the final result is still a finch].

What's at stake?
Unless evolutionists are able to demonstrate how life could have at least theoretically emerged by purely naturalistic means, the theory of evolution belongs to the realm of mythological and metaphysical speculation. Currently there is only one non-biological source known for synthesizing amino acids - a reductive gas mixture exposed to energy.

If the scientific evidence renders the current model of a reductive atmosphere impotent for creating life and if the geologic evidence were to further suggest that the earth has always had an oxygen atmosphere, then the current theory of evolution, while being politically correct among some scientists, would be seriously injured. Without the reductive atmospheric model for the synthesis of amino acids, the theory of evolution has no current scientific means to get off the ground.

A creationist might be tempted to claim ultimate victory if it can be conclusively shown that a reductive atmosphere never existed on the earth or even if it did that it would be impotent in creating the thick amino acid soup which the evolutionists needs. However, to remain credible, the creationist can not claim such a victory if this can be demonstrated. Here's why. What would actually have been refuted is simply one theory about how evolution could have begun. Theoretically at least, there may be numerous other possibilities (i.e. - aliens/ a meteor brought a simple form of life to the earth, etc.) For more information about this see the article on philosophy of science.

Amino Acids Why All the Fuss?

When we peer into the chemistry of life, we discover that life is made up of bio-proteins. Bio-proteins constitute those proteins which are found in living things and which living things produce. They are the work horses for living systems. These proteins have different shapes which allow them to perform very specific functions.

Each of these proteins are made up of a chain of smaller units called amino acids. It is these amino acids which are the building blocks making possible the processes of life. Each bio-protein is composed of a very specific sequence of amino acids. An amino acid sequence which is improper is non-functional. The smallest of these bio-proteins contains 55 amino acids arranged in a precise order. However, the average size of a bio-protein contains a chain of 250 of these amino acids linked in a designated order.

Without amino acids ... there is no life. Without a valid naturalistic mechanism to create amino acids, the evolutionary account for the origin of life is not scientifically viable. Unless it is possible for amino acids to form naturalistically and for this naturalistic model to have existed at some point in time in earth's history, evolution can not at this time be regarded as a scientifically plausible theory. What is all the fuss about? Unless it can be scientifically demonstrated that all of the essential amino acids for life could have formed naturalistically, the scientific evidence at this time would suggest that life did not begin with blind naturalistic forces. We would be left with the viable option of a powerful Creator God.

 

The Basic Evolutionist's Story and the Early Confidence

Since the time of Miller's experiment, evolutionists have insisted that the early earth did not have the atmosphere which we have today. While the exact composition has been debated, they have been in agreement that it did not contain any oxygen. Energy impacted this atmosphere through the forms of lightning and the sun's rays to form amino acids which rained into the oceans. With the passage of millions of years, the ocean's concentration of amino acids grew until at one point in time the right combination of the building blocks of life were assembled and the first form of primitive life emerged.

 

The Role of an Atmosphere Devoid of Oxygen in this Story of the Origin of Life

Oxygen is corrosive. In the presence of oxygen, amino acid molecules break down. If the earth has always had an oxygen atmosphere, even billions of years could not naturalistically produce life because there would be no amino acids forming. They simply can not be created in an oxygen environment. To quote Stanley Miller and Harold Urey, "It would not have been possible to synthesize organic compounds non biologically as long as oxidizing conditions were present on the earth." Stanley Miller and Harold Urey, "Current Problems in Research: Organic Compound Synthesis on the Primitive Earth," Science July 1959: Vol. 130, p. 245. Or as Richard Lemmon wrote, "It appears that the accumulation, on the primitive Earth, of the necessary 'building blocks' for the first living cell required a reduced atmosphere." (Reduced means "no oxygen.") Richard Lemmon, "Chemical Evolution" (Chemical Review: Feb. 1970), p. 96 And so the evolutionary model demands an oxygen free atmosphere. But if the earth has always had an oxygen atmosphere, then with our current scientific understanding, evolution must at this time be relegated to a curious mythological story of the 1900's.

 

Quotes from Evolutionists Regarding the Reductive Atmospheric Model for the Synthesis of Amino Acids

Following Miller's work, many assumed that the possibility of evolution had finally been demonstrated. The following quotes are placed in chronological order while the emphases are my own. You should notice a couple of things. First, the role which oxygen plays in these statements. Second, how the later sources are not as confident as the earlier quotations and actually point to a very real crisis in the evolutionary theory for the origin of life. These quotations were selected at random from books available at the San Jose public library.

"The composition of the gases of the early atmosphere is not known for certain, but perhaps included water (in the form of steam), carbon dioxide, ... ammonia and methane. There was probably no free oxygen. From these gases, at sufficiently high temperature, simple organic molecules could have been formed with the energy available from short-wave (ultraviolet) radiation. ... Some very impressive experiments by Miller and others have shown that such a combination can take place. .... There is therefore no longer any doubt that the first stage of the formation of life can occur under the influence of entirely 'natural' conditions such as may well have existed early in the earth's history." Edited by J. Z. Young and Tom Margerison, The Explosion of Science: From Molecule to Man (Crown Publishers: New York: 1969), p. 86

"Some four billion years ago the Earth's atmosphere consisted mainly of water vapor, nitrogen, methane, ammonia, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen. Ultraviolet radiation from the sun bombarded the seas, forming complex organic molecules that eventually acquired the ability to reproduce themselves. Free oxygen formed by the dissociation of water vapor gave rise to the "ozone blanket" a layer of oxygen molecules in the upper atmosphere that screened the emerging life forms from lethal ultraviolet." Roger Lewin, Thread of Life: The Smithsonian Looks at Evolution (Smithsonian: 1982), p. 93

"Although it is agreed that oxygen was lacking, exactly which gases were present in the ancient atmosphere is a matter of debate. Earlier suggestions that methane and ammonia were prevalent have given way to the idea that nitrogen, carbon dioxide (or carbon monoxide), hydrogen and water vapor predominated. .... At first glance, the idea that complex organic molecules such as amino acids, formed spontaneously through natural geochemical processes is surprising. Today only living organisms (and organic chemists) can create such compounds. Their synthesis requires special conditions, notably the absence of oxygen. ... No one knows how life progressed from 'biotic soup' to the first replicating cells." Linda Gamlin and Gail Vines, The Evolution of Life (Oxford University Press: 1987) pp. 143, 144

"Although we lack direct evidence about the early Earth, we can make some basic generalizations about it. But keep in mind that much is still unclear and that the complete picture has not yet been achieved. ... If you could visit ancient Earth, you would be in for quite a surprise. The atmosphere was quite poisonous and could not support life as we know it. Scientists do not know the exact composition of that early atmosphere. Most agree that it contained some water vapor (gaseous water), carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide, methane, and hydrogen cyanide. Did the atmosphere contain any oxygen, so necessary for life on Earth today? The answer is unclear. Many scientists believe that was little or no oxygen in the early atmosphere. But recent evidence indicates such theories may have to be adjusted; the early atmosphere may have contained oxygen." Cells: Building Blocks of Life 3rd ed. (Prentice-Hall: 1997) pp. 12,13

"Today we know that the gases Miller placed in the flask do not match the atmosphere of early Earth. So we cannot say that life began in a manner similar to Miller's experiment. ... The exact process that would have made this possible is another question scientists have not yet answered. ... One theory begins with the notion that the early oceans began somehow to fill with the chemicals that make up living things. We can think of these oceans as a kind of "soup" containing the substances needed for life. ... "How did that process [of life] occur? Again, there are no clear answers - only theories .... At this time, however, no one can say whether any one theory is right or wrong. What can be said is that somehow, through some process, the chemicals that make up living things did group together and form the first cells." Cells: Building Blocks of Life 3rd ed. (Prentice-Hall: 1997), pp. 14, 15

This final quotation is intellectually honest in revealing that the bottom line of evolution is actually "somehow, through some process." Although this quote was not written with the intention of claiming that evolution reflects a metaphysical belief system instead of conclusions gleaned from scientific data, this is what it actually demonstrates. There is no scientific evidence currently available that demonstrates "this is how it could have really happened." You are asked to believe that somehow through some process life began through naturalistic processes. According to current scientific knowledge, in order for life to have arisen naturalistically it is imperative that there was no oxygen in that early atmosphere, yet even Prentice-Hall in its recent 1997 publication admits that the evidence points in quite a different direction!

The following quotes from Franklin Harold, an evolutionist, emphasize the current state of knowledge regarding the story of prebiotic soup as well as scientific inquiry into origins in general. I appreciate his honesty and candor.

"Creation myths lie at the heart of all human cultures, and science is no exception; until we know where we came from, we do not know who we are. The origin of life is also a stubborn problem, with no solution in sight …Biology textbooks often include a chapter on how life may have arisen from non-life, and while responsible authors do not fail to underscore the difficulties and uncertainties, readers still come away with the impression that the answer is almost within their grasp." Franklin Harold, 2001. The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms and the Origin of Life, Oxford University Press, p. 235-236.

"Life arose here on earth from inanimate matter, by some kind of evolutionary process, about four billion years ago. This is not a statement of demonstrable fact, but an assumption almost universally shared by specialists as well as scientists in general. It is not supported by any direct evidence, nor is it likely to be, … The reasons for the general consensus are, first, the lack of a more palatable alternative; and second, that absent the presumption of a terrestrial and natural genesis there would be no basis for scientific inquiry into the origin of life." Ibid, p. 236, 237.

"It bears repeating that we know very little for certain, and that it is seldom possible to formulate hypotheses that can be falsified by experiment; the opinions of scholars are, therefore, colored by personal beliefs about what should have happened, and even about what is meant by 'life.'" Ibid, p. 239.

"A historical theory must account for historical events, and in truth there is not (and perhaps cannot be) convincing evidence that there ever was a rich broth of organic substances, or that it played the role assigned to it by the theory." Ibid., p. 244.

These last quotes reveal the truth about the actual scientific data underlying evolutionists' passionate claims. A philosphical assumption of naturalism is driving the theory of evolution, not the actual scientific data. Let's take a look at the unraveling of the story of the reductive model for the synthesis of life.

 

The Wonderful Nature of Science: The Ability to Make Predictions and Test Theories

One of the values of science is its ability to propose a theory which is capable of predicting what data should exist and what results experimentation should produce if the proposed theory is valid. Through empirically testing those predictions, false theories can be identified and rejected while cumulative evidence can be gathered suggesting which theories appear to be valid. For example, if the law of gravity is valid, then one can make predictions about how certain experiments should react. Experiments today and tomorrow will either furnish evidence that supports or refutes the law of gravity. Accordingly, if the theory that the earth originally had a reducing atmosphere is true, then scientists should be able to use this theory to make predictions about the model and the earth. If the theory is correct, then there should be geological evidence that this occurred. Similarly, chemistry ought to reveal that the proposed model is actually capable of producing what the story claims. And so forth.

The following material represents a sample of the scientific predictions which were made. The quotes reveal how the predictions squared with the actual evidence which was found.

 

1. Geological Expectations

If the earth had a reducing atmosphere which lasted for billions of years and was responsible for producing life, one would expect such an atmosphere to have made an impact upon the geology of the earth. As Richard Lemmon wrote, "Any discussion of the chemistry of the primitive Earth must begin with its atmosphere. That atmosphere would, in turn, have controlled the chemistry of the oceans and surface rocks." Ibid., p. 96

 

Expectations

All of this evidence can be summarized by the confession: "geologists have lost faith in the reductive atmosphere." Franklin Harold, 2001. The Way of the Cell, Oxford University Press, p. 242.

 

2. Chemical and Physical Predictions

If we are the product of evolution, then one would predict that the reductive model of the early earth should have provided favorable circumstances for the formation of the needed thick amino acid soup so necessary for life to emerge.

The actual evidence is summarized in the following chart.

"The physical chemist, guided by the proved principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics cannot offer any encouragement to the biochemist who needs an ocean full of organic compounds." D. E. Hull, Nature 186 (1960).

 

3. Probabilistic Expectations

If we are the result of naturalistic forces over vast amounts of time, the chance occurrence of life originating from amino acids ought to be at the very least a possibility, if not a probability.

"By 1966 a major change in scientific thought was underway. ... It was there that signs of an impending crisis first emerged ... in the words of Murray Eden of MIT, was the need 'to relegate the notion of randomness to a minor and non-crucial role' in our theories of origins. This conclusion was based on probability theory, which shows mathematically the odds against the chance formation of the highly complex molecular structure required for life. With the help of high-speed computers, programs could be run which simulated the billions-of-years' process based on the neo-Darwinian model of evolution. The results showed that the complexity of the biochemical world could not have originated by chance even within a time span of ten billion years. .... These comments reflect the impotence of chance or randomness as a creative mechanism for life's origin." Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley and Roger Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (Philosophical Library: 1984) pp. 2,3

 

4. Cosmological Expectations

According to common evolutionary theory, our solar system originated from a common ball of cosmic dust and each planet and moon was subject to the same physical forces. If this is true, then one might expect other planets in our solar system to also have begun with similar chemical atmospheric conditions and thus other planets or moons might also yield evidence of early forms of life.

"In 1974 Stanley Miller, ... said that: We are confident that the basic process [of chemical evolution] is correct, so confident that it seems inevitable that a similar process has taken place on many other planets in our solar system .... We are sufficiently confident of our ideas about the origin of life that in 1976 a spacecraft will be sent to Mars to land on the surface with the primary purpose of the experiments being a search of living organisms. In 1976, on the eve of the first Mars landing, NASA's chief biologist, Harold P. Klein, explained that if our theories of origins are correct, we should find corroborative evidence of it on Mars. ... A significant opportunity for confirmation had arrived. .... What is responsible for the dashed expectations held about life first on the moon, then Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and now Saturn and its moon Titan? It cannot be denied that the 'pure chance' view of the origin of life is a position of extreme faith. ... The question must be asked whether there is a flaw in our theory of chemical evolution &endash; a flaw at such a fundamental level that it mars both theories, 'pure chance' and 'directed change." Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley and Roger Olsen, The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (Philosophical Library: 1984), pp. 4,5,6,

Because many people will remember the meteorite from Mars (ALH84001) which was unveiled to the world in a press conference several years ago involving President Clinton and NASA, many people assume that there is scientific evidence of life beyond the earth. The following quotes from even our local paper (San Jose Mercury News August 7, 2001) reveal the commonly accepted conclusions after the dust settled:

"Mars meteorite helped launch search for life. Most researchers doubt rock contains fossils." Section F, p. 1.

"Life on Mars Theory was short-lived. Five years ago, researchers said they had found evidence in a meteorite suggesting that one celled-organisms lived billions of years ago on Mars. their theory generated a great deal of scientific and popular interest, but has not held up to scrutiny." Section F, p. 1.

One source which provides a more detailed evaluation of the evidence is William Schopf's Cradle of Life, 1999. The following excerpts come from this book.

"Several weeks before the August news conference, I received a phone call from NASA headquarters informing me that the JSC scientists ... had completed studies of a meteorite they claimed held evidence of ancient life on Mars. ... But because some at headquarters thought the evidence 'a bit iffy,' they wanted an outside expert to publicly evaluate the findings when they were announced to the world. .... A copy of the soon-to-be published report arrived the next day. I studied it carefully. Three times. I was not impressed. ... Critical questions had not been asked. Articles published earlier and critically relevant to the authors' contentions had been ignored. More plausible and alternative ways to explain the findings were given short shrift. The manuscript's concluding claim of 'evidence for primitive life on early Mars' seemed overblown, ill-conceived." William Schropf, Cradle of Life Princeton University Press: 1999, p. 306.

"Perhaps the most obvious lesson learned from this latest chapter in the search for life on Mars is one all too familiar: initially, at least headlines and sound bites win while facts and reason lose. Most Americans (more than 60% by one poll) agree that 'NASA has proved primitive life was present on Mars. In the face of iffy evidence and a multitude of unanswered questions, why do so many take this view? Some simply want to believe, others are impressed by NASA's track record and think its backing to be foolproof. .... A second lesson is that scientists are no more immune from workplace pressures than anyone else." Schopf, p. 325.

 

Problem with Miller's Experiment

Miller's experiment did not even imitate the theoretical conditions which were being proposed. In his experiment he briefly exposed the gases and then pulled "the chemical results" safely away from the source of energy and into a holding area thus preserving them from the destructive forces of the energy source. Later experiments which allowed the reactions to remain exposed to the energy sources, such as would have been present in the theorized early atmosphere and in the water, caused the small amount of amino acids which had been created to be virtually all destroyed!

 

CONCLUSION:

The chemist, the geologist the mathematician and the results of solar exploration have not supported the predictions of the reductive model for the synthesis of life. What's wrong? This particular model or is the whole ideology bankrupt?

The current model faces some very serious problems. The previous quote from Prentice-Hall's 1997 publication Cells: Building Blocks of Life which honestly admits that the evidence suggests that the primitive earth had an oxidized atmosphere destroys any hope of amino acid synthesis by naturalistic forces. Furthermore, the accumulative evidence of Hull's quote: "The physical chemist, guided by the proved principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics cannot offer any encouragement to the biochemist who needs an ocean full of organic compounds," and the geological evidence which lacks what should be there (organic mud) but provides evidence of what should not be there (oxygen) suggest that we owe our origins to something other than purely naturalistic processes.

The more recent quotes (2001) by Franklin Harold summarize the current state of the scientific evidence:

"Life arose here on earth from inanimate matter, by some kind of evolutionary process, about four billion years ago. This is not a statement of demonstrable fact, but an assumption almost universally shared by specialists as well as scientists in general." Harold, p. 236

"It bears repeating that we know very little for certain, and that it is seldom possible to formulate hypotheses that can be falsified by experiment; the opinions of scholars are, therefore, colored by personal beliefs about what should have happened, and even about what is meant by 'life.'" Ibid, p. 239.

"A historical theory must account for historical events, and in truth there is not (and perhaps cannot be) convincing evidence that there ever was a rich broth of organic substances, or that it played the role assigned to it by the theory." Ibid., p. 244.

In view of what science actually reveals, how strongly should the theory of evolution regarding our origins influence our thinking? At what point should one abandon the notion (at least until science can put a serious possibility on the table) that we owe our origin to purely naturalistic causes? When does it make sense to credit an all powerful God with the creation of life?

To close, here are a couple more relevant quotes:

"Those who work on the origin of life must necessarily make bricks without much straw, which goes a long way to explain why this field is so often regarded with deep suspicion. Speculation is bound to be rife, and it has also frequently been wild. Some attempts to account for the origin of life on the Earth, however ingenious, have shared much with imaginative literature and little with theoretical inference of the kind which can be confronted with observational evidence of some kind or another." Anonymous, Nature Vol. 216 (1967): 635.

"I won't quote figures because exponential numbers are unreal to people who are not used to them, but a metaphor by Fred Hoyle has become famous ... that a living organism emerged by chance from a prebiotic soup is about as likely as that 'a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.'" Philip Johnson, Darwin on Trial 2nd Ed. (Inter Varsity Press: 1993), p. 106.

 

 

Other articles on evolution which may be of interest.

Evolutionary Junk DNA? Science Now Confirms It Is Not Junk!

 

Barry Newton, Copyright © 1998 revised, 2003

Reading Room

     

Central Church of Christ Home Page