Apologist “ But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man 
that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” ( I Pet. 3:15)
West Side Church of Christ A Editorials Articles
By Many or By Few
Where I Stand
The New Testament (2)
Be Not Yoked The New Testament (3) Holy Spirit Baptism A Criticism of Hume
Creating Life
Copyright Eric L. Padgett  03-30-2012

    A third serious problem faced by chemical evolution is that of chirality.  All amino acids derived from living organisms come in the left-handed form, with only a few exceptions.  When amino acids are formed in the laboratory, there is always a 50-50 percent mixture of right- and left-handed forms.  Right-handed amino acids can be separated from left handed forms, but it is only through sophisticated processes.  Any formation of amino acids in the laboratory would have produced this 50-50 percent yield.  Yet the amino acids found in living beings is always 100 percent left-handed.  Just how a 50-50 percent yield of right- and left-handed amino acids would eventually produce a 100 percent yield of only left-handed amino acids is not clear, especially since 50 percent of L-forms revert to D-forms through the process known as racemization.

    Finally, in all of our collective experience we have yet to see life formed from non-life.  The knowledge gained from scientific experimentation is supposed to be based upon what we can observe, test, and repeat.  Producing life from inorganic matter has not been observed once, or accomplished once, much less repeated.  It has not been from a lack of trying.  Every since Dr. Miller fifty years ago produced a batch of “tar” and two amino acids scientists have been trying to accomplish what Miller failed to do.   Trying, but to no avail.   

     Might scientists sometime in the future produce life in a test tube from inorganic matter?  Perhaps.  But what would this tell us about design, order, and intelligence in the universe?  In the meantime, based on the hard, scientific evidence available to us, it seems far more reasonable to believe that life did not arise from non-living matter.  It seems far more reasonable to believe that the living organisms that inhabit our beautiful planet came from some pre-existing Life.


Endnotes


1.  Bryson, Bill, A Short History of Nearly Everything, Broadway Books: NY, 2003, pp. 358-363.

2.  Peter Radetsky, Life’s Crucible, By: Earth, 1056-148X, February 1, 1998, Vol. 7, Issue 1

3.  http://www.stanford.edu/group/STS/techne/Fall2002/srinivasan1.htm.


   A second problem faced by the evolutionary hypothesis is that the same energy sources needed for the development of the amino acids would also be detrimental to their continued existence.  In Miller’s experiment a trap was set at the bottom of the tube which collected the product and prevented the next discharge from affecting the newly formed amino acids.  But if the ocean acted as a crucible in which life was formed, new molecules would have to be forming as older ones were being destroyed by heat, lightening or ultraviolet radiation.  Though ultraviolet light would have been an excellent source of energy, it would also have destroyed any new chemicals produced without an ozone layer to protect them.

Stanley Miller

    Life is exceedingly diverse and abundant on this planet.  Estimates range from anywhere between three million to two hundred million different varieties of animals, 70,000 fungi, 4,000 species of earthworm, 750,000 species of insect, 248,000 species of plant, 20,000 types of Lichen, 50,000 species of mollusk, 400,000 beetles, and 4,000 types of bacteria that inhabit our planet.1    The prevailing theory among evolutionists is that all of this rich variety of organic life sprang from a mixture of inorganic matter–certain amounts of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor energized by an electrical discharge.  Life, it is said, began in a primordial, prebiotic soup.

    The problem with this scenario from the scientific standpoint is that it has never been observed or duplicated.  This is not to say it has not been tested.  It has.  A lot.  In 1953 Stanley Miller conducted an experiment in which he was able to produce a few amino acids, which are often touted as the building blocks of life.  In fact, they are the building blocks of proteins and proteins are essential to life.  But what was produced in the laboratory was not life, it was far from it.    As noted by Peter Radetsky,  

“how do you get simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the necessary chemical changes that will convert them into more complicated compounds, or polymers, such as proteins? Miller himself throws up his hands at that part of the puzzle. "It's a problem," he sighs with exasperation. "How do you make polymers? That's not so easy."’2

Indeed.  Radetsky concluded, “One thing is for certain: No one has solved the mystery.”

    The prevailing evolutionist’s hypothesis for the origin of life on a primitive earth faces several very difficult problems. We will examine four.  The first of these is the composition of the early atmosphere.  Miller postulated, and it was long believed, that the primitive atmosphere was without any free oxygen molecules.  It was under these conditions that amino acids were produced in Miller’s experiment.  However, though it is really impossible for anyone to know just what such an atmosphere might be, it is now generally believed that the early atmosphere did possess oxygen.  “Wickramasinghe and Hoyle support the view of a less reducing atmosphere due to geological data that shows the earliest rocks show signs of oxidation.”3  Oxygen in the atmosphere would have been detrimental to such amino acids.

Christian Apologist