This is a reprint of an article I wrote for my website here (or as a PDF here):
In biology, abiogenesis (or chemical evolution) is the idea that life arose from non-living matter billions of years ago.[1] This idea directly contradicts the law of biogenesis, but is the only way in which life can arise in an atheistic world. The atheist, to get around this law, will claim that the law of biogenesis only applies to more complex beings. While scientific laws have been changed for known exceptions, these exceptions must be first proven. Abiogenesis has never been shown to be possible. Furthermore, it might be pointed out that a single-celled organism is extremely complex!
Due to its problems, evolutionists try to claim that chemical evolution is not part of evolution (in order to avoid discussing it), however, chemical evolution is part of the General Theory of Evolution.
The most popular abiogenesis theory today is the ‘warm soup’ theory, created by Alexandr Oparin, in his 1924 book, The Origin of Life. According to this theory, rain fell on the Earth for millions of years, creating a biochemical soup from which life ‘emerged.’ (Remember to watch out for magical words like ‘emerged,’ ‘appeared,’ etc. in evolutionist texts.) Organic molecules, according to Oparin, were created from chemicals energized by lightning, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc.[2] Many falsely think this was proven possible in the Miller-Urey experiment.
According to Oparin’s theory, cells evolved first, then enzymes, then genes.[3] It is known today that enzymes are required in order for genes to function, yet genes are necessary to produce enzymes. Neither genes nor cells can function without a variety of individually complex parts (different proteins, gyrase, ribosomes, etc.) They are irreducibly simple. The theory fails.
MILLER-UREY EXPERIMENT
In 1953, chemists Harold C. Urey and Stanley Miller performed a famous experiment testing Oparin’s thesis.[4] The experiment definitively proved the impossibility of abiogenesis, though it is remembered for the opposite. The hope founded on this experiment is summarized well by famous evolutionist-atheist, Carl Sagan:
“The Miller-Urey experiment is now recognized as the single most significant step in convincing many scientists that life is likely to be abundant in the cosmos.”[5]
Perhaps this is why Sagan predicted the Viking landers would find life on Mars – a prediction that proved to be false.[6]
Methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water were placed in a glass container, then subject to electrical discharge, simulating lightning. After several days, several organic compounds, including amino acids, were created, as well as several toxic compounds (carbon monoxide, cyanides, etc.)[7] Neither the experiment nor its replications were ever able to produce more than half of the 20 amino acids necessary for life.
The experiment also excluded oxygen, which would’ve hindered the process. Ancient rocks (according to evolutionist dating methods) show evidence of an oxygen-rich atmosphere, as do banded iron formations (BIFs), and old hematite (a mineral) formed underwater.[8]
In addition, the experiment yielded equal quantities of right-handed and left-handed organic molecules. Almost all amino acids used in proteins must be left-handed, and nearly all used in carbohydrates and polymers are right-handed. The opposite types can be toxic to life.[9]
Another problem with the experiment was Urey’s incredibly unrealistic speculation that the oceans would’ve contained approximately 10% organic matter.[10]
Miller fine-tuned the conditions in his experiment, making them unnaturally safe for amino acids to form. Contaminants and impurities that would’ve otherwise killed the acids were removed, pH was regulated, and proteins were thermally denatured.[11]
Also note that Miller used specific wavelengths of ultraviolet light, filtering out others, due to the destructive power of UV that exceeds its constructive power by several magnitudes. Miller also constructed traps to remove the amino acids before they could be destroyed by the radiation – this would not happen naturally. Conditions on Earth are, and always have been, highly unfavorable to abiogenesis. Even the ocean would not protect against UV light until several meters in depth. A single motion could have disturbed the acids enough to destroy them.[12]
Some evolutionists now think that abiogenesis may have happened in hot submarine vents, but the extreme heat would have accelerated the decay of the amino acids.[13]
OXYGEN-UV PARADOX
Ozone (O3) forms when oxygen (O2) is struck by cosmic radiation. Without oxygen in the atmosphere, there can be no ozone. Ozone is necessary to protect life from UV radiation. The oxygen necessary to produce ozone cannot be created without life. Several explanations have been concocted to save first life from UV light:
Mineralization of cells may have reduced the rate of death from UV. This is confirmed by experiments but reducing the rate of death doesn’t allow for the required population increase.
Life may have formed far enough underwater to block UV, but not light. But water blocks UV at about the same rate as it blocks light, so this explanation is highly improbable. Data also shows that the depths at which the cells would have to descend are far beyond that of light.[14]
CHEMICAL ELEMENTS
The key elements for life were missing in high concentrations in the evolutionists’ alleged early Earth. Supposedly ancient rocks have very little carbon. Nitrogen is missing in clay and rocks that should be filled with it, if millions of years passed before life evolved.[15]
PROTEINS
The next step is for the amino acids to link together to form proteins. This cannot be done in the presence of oxygen (which would have been present at the time, according to previously cited evidence), and, as was demonstrated earlier, the required types of amino acids could not have been formed, and they would’ve been a toxic mix of left and right-handed acids. Amino acids don’t tend to bond together into proteins, but the other way around.[16]
The methods proposed to create proteins (e.g., radiation, heat, electrical discharges) destroy proteins thousands of times faster than they create them.[17]
It has been calculated that the chances of amino acids organizing themselves into even the simplest reproducing protein range from 1 in 10 to the power of 450 to 1 in 10 to the power of 600.[18] Compare that to the estimated 10 to the power of 78 to 10 to the power of 82 atoms in the known, observable universe.[19]
THE CELL
Cells are incredibly complex. Nobel Laureate Dr. Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, writes:
“An honest man, armed with all knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle…”[20]
Crick, then, gives his theory of how life got here: panspermia (aliens did it). Of course, this only pushes the problem back further. How did alien life arise? Somewhere back there must be an immaterial Creator.
Famous astronomer/mathematician Sir Fred Hoyle gives his estimate: 1 in 10 to the power of 40,000.[21] That’s not going to happen. Ever.
CONCLUSION
We demonstrated, by scientific evidence, that abiogenesis is strictly impossible. The only solution is an eternal, immaterial Creator – God – who created life. Scientifically speaking, this is the only solution.
Physicist and information theorist Hubert Yockey notes that:
“The belief that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter, is simply a matter of faith in strict reductionism and is based entirely on ideology.”[22]
“And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:” (Ephesians 3:9).
Abiogenesis? Impossible.
SOURCES:
[1] Rogers, K., Abiogenesis, Encyclopædia Britannica, October 20, 2014.
[2] Oparin, A., The Origin of Life (New York: Dover), 1965.
[3] Dyson, F., Origins of Life, Cambridge University Press, 1990, p. 31.
[4] Rogers, K., loc. cit.
[5] Shapiro, R., Origins; A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, (New York: Summit Books), 1986, p. 99.
[6] Brown, W., In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, Center for Scientific Creation, 2017, 12. Extraterrestrial Life?
[7] Campbell, N. A., Mitchell, L. G., & Reece, J. B., Biology Concepts and Connections, 3rd edition, (San Francisco: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.), 2000.
[8] Oard, M. J., Did the early Earth’s atmosphere contain oxygen?, Journal of Creation, 24 (1): 13-14, April 2010.
[9] Coppedge, J. F., Probability of left-handed molecules, CRSQ, 8: 163-174, 1971.
[10] Bergman, J., Why the Miller-Urey research argues against abiogenesis, Journal of Creation, 18 (2): 28-36, August 2002.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Sarfati, J., Origin of life: the polymerization problem, Journal of Creation, 12 (3): 281-284, 1998.
[14] Diffey, B. L., Solar ultraviolet radiation effects on biological systems, Physics in Medicine and Biology, 36 (3): 299-328, 1990.
[15] Brown, W., Op. cit., 28. Chemical Elements of Life.
[16] Wald, G., The Origin of Life, p. 50.
[17] Gish, D. T., Speculations and Experiments Related to Theories on the Origin of Life: A Critique, (San Diego: Institute for Creation Research), 1972.
[18] Brown, W., op. cit., 40. Improbabilities.
[19] Villanueva, J. C., How many atoms are there in the universe?, Universe Today, 24 December, 2015.
[20] Crick, F., Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature, 1988, p. 88.
[21] Hoyle on Origin of Life, Creation Ministries International.
[22] Spontaneous origin of life “a matter of faith”, Creation Ministries International.