Faith Versus Evidence: The Theory of Abiogenesis

Every religion has a story regarding the origin of life. The Hebrew religious text

known today as the Old Testament states that Elohim created the universe in six

days. According to this account, on the third day the Hebrew deity Elohim created

the first lifeforms - grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding

fruit after his kind. But is this account true and accurate? How can it be tested,

verified, and possibly falsified? What is the evidence that the first lifeforms were

grasses, herbs and fruit bearing trees that all emerged at the same time? This

article will discuss some of the evidence for the origins of life and what the first

lifeforms were based on the scientific evidence gathered so far after almost 400

years since the beginning of modern science.

The first point that needs to be clarified is that the origin of life is not the

study of evolution as many religious commentators claim. Evolution is a branch of

biology that studies the evidence for the diversity of lifeforms and how they change

over time once they are already present. Evolution does not address the question of

how life began and what the first lifeforms were. The origin of life is a topic

studied and researched under a branch of chemistry called Abiogenesis. So the

current state of knowledge on how the first lifeforms came to be is called the

Theory of Abiogenesis. It is a branch of chemistry or more specifically a branch of

organic chemistry. Organic chemistry specializes on studying carbon-based compounds

and their derivatives. So when creationists claim that evolution is false because it

cannot present any information on the origin of life one may now point out to them

that, exactly, evolution is not about that topic at all so of course it does not

provide that answer. This is analogous to one saying the Theory of gravity is false

because it does not show us how to design a motor vehicle or aircraft, and we all

know it does not, however without the theory of gravity being established, there

would be no automotive engineering or aeronautics to begin with.

At this juncture this author would like to point out that he is not a credentialed

expert in the field of Abiogenesis and is not attempting to be construed as one.

This article makes no new or original claims, but rather presents the current state

of established knowledge in this field of study. The theory of Abiogenesis is very

complicated especially for those who have little prior education in science, and

also it uses data from many diverse fields such as geology, climatology, etc etc.

This article will provide a summary of some of the cogent points established so far

as well as those currently undergoing further investigation. But unlike religious

claims readers are not to accept any of the material presented on faith but by cross

checking the references and confirming the material.

According to the geological evidence the first lifeforms appear in the fossil record

at around 4.15 billion years ago in what is called the Hadean eon. So we can infer

that life originated on earth before this time. To understand what may have caused

it we will want to know what the prevailing conditions were on earth at the time.

For example during the Hadean eon there were no trees or plants as we know them

today so we can infer that that the atmosphere at the time was much different from

now. We know there were no trees at the time because plants appear in the fossil

record for the first time during the paleoproterozoic era around1.4 billion years

ago, and these plants were algae yet to evolve into complex plants we have today.

For example we know that a lot of the oxygen we have today comes from plants who

release it as a by product of photosynthesis. So if there were no trees back then,

then we know the oxygen content of our atmosphere was different from now. This is

one example of how the conditions back then were different from now. We shall call

the conditions back then as the primordial earth and primordial atmosphere

respectively. The exact prevailing conditions of the primordial earth and detailed

description thereof will not be presented in this article for the sake of brevity

but readers are encouraged to look it up.

It turns out the primordial earth was very wet and very warm, and the atmosphere

contained many different kinds of gases including hydrogen, hydrogen cyanide,

methane and ammonia. DNA is a long chained molecule made from just four kinds of

nucleotides namely adenine, thiamin, cytosine and guanine. So the first question to

be answered is where did the nucleotides come from? The following steps address this

question as well as other relevant details that describe how the first living cells

formed according to the evidence gathered so far.

Step 1: Formation of nucleotides. In 1961 a researcher named Joan Oro left hydrogen

cyanide and ammonia in an aqueous solution in his laboratory under conditions

similar to those that prevailed on the primordial earth. By itself the solution

produced adenine one of the nucleotide bases that makes up DNA. This substance

however was not a complete nucleotide because to make one the molecule would have to

be attached to a sugar called a ribose which itself must be attached to a phosphate

group. Today biochemistry has understood how the phosphate group can be formed under

such conditions, what we dont know yet is how the ribose is attached. But as always

research is ongoing. And if we can get some our very smart high performing Ghanaian

scientific talent to work in this field they may figure it out and win our first

Nobel Prize in the sciences.

Step 2: Nucleotides to polynucleotides. Once the nucleotides are formed they must

now join together to form chains of nucleotides known as polynucleotides. In the

1980s British researchers discovered that a form of clay called Montmorillonite was

the perfect catalyst for this process. It has been confirmed that Montmorillonite

was abundant in the sea floor of the primordial oceans as well as in warm pools of

water on land.

Step 3: Polynucleotides to RNA. Some polynucleotide chains, for example ribonucleic

acid also called RNA, are able to replicate themselves. In other words they can make

exact copies of themselves naturally. These copies are not 100% exact but some

copies may have been more stable and robust to survive in the conditions than others

and would continue to replicate and pass their traits while the weaker or less

adapted ones may have disintegrated or broken apart.

Step 4: RNA to proto-cell. As these RNA molecules continued to replicate themselves

they shared their environment with other chemicals that also thrive in

Montmorillonite clay. One group of such compounds are the lipids. Examples of lipids

include fat, wax, cholesterol, and monoglycerides. Lipids in their natural state

tend clump together to form spherical structures called micelles. RNA molecules that

were surrounded by these structures would therefore easily be enclosed within a

micelle membrane. The micelle membrane would also protect the RNA and improve its

chances of survival and success at replicating itself. Today we know that cell

membranes essentially consist of a lipid bilayer. So at this juncture we have

essentially seen the formation of the first primitive cell. These primordial cells

do not look much like the cells we know today, and this is because over 3.7 billion

years later they have evolved and diversified.

Step 5: RNA to DNA. Over hundreds of millions of years RNA grew more complex. The

single strand became a double strand and the better adapted DNA molecule evolved.

One of the fundamental differences between RNA and DNA is that DNA needs proteins to

replicate itself. Proteins are made of amino acids which are often called the

building blocks of life. So the question arises, where did the first amino acids

come from? No, no gods or goddesses were necessary, natural processes alone can

account for them as follows.

Step 6: Formation of Amino acids. Since the 1950s a number of experiments using

Montmorillonite and simulating the primordial earth conditions have produced amino

acids as well as long chains of amino acids called polypeptides. It turns out that

Montmorillonite is a natural breeding ground for all types of complex organic

chemicals. The most famous of such experiments is the Urey-Miller experiment

conducted by Dr Stanley Miller and Dr Harold Urey in 1952 at the University of

Chicago in the United States. This experiment marked a milestone for the theory of

Abiogenesis. The purpose of the experiment was to test the hypothesis that

conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized

organic compounds from inorganic precursors. This hypothesis had been introduced by

Alexander Oparin and J.B.S Haldane in the 1920s but had never been tested at this

point. The experiment mimicked conditions of the prebiotic earth and used

electrical sparks to simulate lightening. The ingredients used included water,

methane, ammonia, and hydrogen in proportions known to have existed in the

primordial earth. At the end of the week long test 15% of the initial carbon had

formed organic compounds, 2% of the carbon had formed 5 detectable amino acids that

were known to be necessary for DNA to replicate, as well as amino acids known to be

used to make proteins in living cells. In 2008 researchers at the University of

California, San Diego reviewed the archives and repeated this experiment using more

recent sophisticated equipment, more advanced detectors, and computer programs and

found that actually not 5 but 22 amino acids were produced. All these amino acids

found were exactly among those needed for DNA to replicate. Although far from

conclusive, this is very compelling evidence to support the hypothesis that organic

compounds including amino acids formed from inorganic precursors in the primordial

earth, and formed the building blocks of life as we know it today.

It must be noted that that the theory of Abiogenesis is still in its infancy and has

less than 40 years of published literature to its credit, and that many of the

evidence presented in this article are still under intense investigation. We still

have a lot to learn about this process and researchers acknowledge there may be more

intermediate steps that we are yet to discover. However the reality is a far cry

from the ideas sold by world religions that life popped out of nowhere by the

miraculous intervention of a deity who himself popped himself into existence out of

nothing. Yet religious fundamentalist say it is the scientists who believe life and

others stuff popped out of nowhere. This is false, scientists currently have a

working hypothesis of how life may have emerged out of the primordial earth. So

based on the steps enumerated in this article, if a god really did create life, at

which step did he come in, and why? Step 1, Step 4, Step 5? If the chemical

processes can happen on their own why would a god need to intervene at all? If we

can understand how self replicating molecules can produce some of these complex

molecules then we dont need to invent gods, goddess, invisible deities and spirits

to create anything, because after all this is not a guessing game, it is an

investigation following the evidence. At this point let us pause and consider some

of the creationist arguments they use to caricature science and the theory of

Abiogenesis in particular. Most of these arguments are of no merit and one factor

that enables them thrive may be the failure of education systems to deliver the

information of science to the general public.

1. It is impossible for simple chemicals to form more complex ones without any

intervention. Or they say complex things break down to simple things but not the

other way round.

Answer: Really? Just because creationist websites continue to pass this stuff

around and convince themselves that they are special before their god, does not mean

it is true at all. We know these claims are not true because we know that left alone

simple organic compounds can polymerize and form long chained molecules all by

natural processes. High school chemistry students know this within their first term

of organic chemistry class.

2. But this theory goes against the 2nd law of thermodynamics

Answer: The fact is the natural formation of self-replicating molecules does not

conflict with any of the laws of thermodynamics. I would suggest people who make

that argument actually read the material, but knowing religiously inclined people,

they will not because they do not even read their own holy books, they rely on

cherry picked quotations from their pastors and are satisfied with that. It was not

surprising that a recent survey in the US found that people who do not believe in

god actually knew on average 3 times more about the bible than those who regularly

attended church services. But in all fairness I will admit that thermodynamics is

one of the most difficult topics to understand, and I therefore have a deep respect

for mechanical engineers who are required to study this topic extensively and master

it at the undergraduate level.

3. You cant get something from nothing.

Answer: When creationists say this it has one caveat, except for their god. Really?

Only the Hebrew deity Yahweh can create himself from nothing. But actually

evolution, and in this article Abiogenesis do not claim something came from nothing.

In evolution a species must already be present for it then to evolve over time. In

the case of Abiogenesis certain inorganic compounds had to be present in the

primordial earth for the RNA, DNA, and proto cells, to have then later formed. So

no, it is the religious who are claiming something can come from nothing not the

scientists.

4. If you put the parts of vehicle on a table, can they self assemble themselves to

form a car you can actually drive?

Answer: no they will not. Because the parts of a vehicle are not self replicating

and we know that vehicles are assembled by humans so the questions does not even

apply. On the other hand the building blocks of life amino acids are

self-replicating molecules that can make copies of themselves and assemble

themselves naturally on their own, without the intervention of any third party, so

in fact a god was not even necessary to create life in the primordial earth. It

formed from inorganic precursor molecules all by itself, naturally.

5. So how come this process is not taking place now?

Answer: Because the conditions on earth have changed. Over 3 point something billion

years later hydrogen, hydrogen cyanide and methane are no longer common in the

earth?s atmosphere. However there may be other planets in the universe where the

process is taking place right now. We just do not have the technology to visit other

planets beyond our solar system at the moment so we are stuck here with what we

have. One day our descendants may have this opportunity. But that will only happen

if we prioritize our education and develop our science potential. And of course we

would have to retire all those ancient silly god beliefs that hold back our progress

and advancement.

6. Creationists claim the probability of such events occurring in astronomically too

low to be credible.

Answer: Those who have actually taken a class on statistics and probability will

know that the value of a probability of an event occurring is always less than one,

or one if the event actually occurs. Also we know from our high school math that if

we multiply two numbers less than one we get an even smaller number than the two we

multiplied. If we multiply four numbers, we get an even smaller number, and so it

goes. We also know that the probability of say two independent events happening

equals the product of the two probabilities (multiplying). So if a process has say

six steps as in this process the probability of all these events happening will be

less than the six steps individually. In the theory of probability, this is called

the law of independent events. If we were to calculate the probability of a certain

sequence of events happening as we leave our house to go to work we would get a very

very very small number because each time we are multiplying all these small

probabilities based on the law of independent events. A vivid example will be used

to demonstrate. Lets say as I leave my house to go to work there is a probability

that I will be attacked and killed by armed robbers (probability of 1/1000), lets

say my car may explode due to a fuel leak and kill me (probability 1/2000), I may

have an unknown disease in my family which may make me collapse and die in my car

before I even spark it (1/900), as I pull out of my driveway I may be hit and killed

by a crazy driver on drugs who is fleeing the police or may be mentally unstable

after fighting with the wife (1/750), as I get on the highway I may get hit by a

truck (1/650). Now assuming I reach my work place I may be shot at by a disgruntled

employee who has just been laid off (as we know this a happens often in the western

world) (1/680), and there can be several other considerations we could add but lets

just assume only these listed are relevant. So what is the probability that I will

not make it back home to my wife and children today as I leave to go to work?

According to the law of independent events, the answer would be

(1/1000)*(1/2000)*(1/900)*(1/750)*(1/650)*(1/680) = 0.000000000000000001675

This is just over one chance in a billion-billion attempts, an almost insane

insignificantly small number that one would conclude my probability of dying today

is improbable and even almost zero. And yet people die on their way to and from work

every single day. Once the event occurs it then actually has achieved of probability

of 1 because it has happened and now has the same probability that I will eat today

(if I am not totally broke of course). So high improbability does not mean

impossibility. Not at all. It just means that event may have a very low frequency of

occurring but the event can occur live at any time. Same applies to Abiogenesis. The

steps outlined above, all have low probability but they can happen, and if we are

correct with the theory so far it already happened live and that is why you and I

are here, not because some Hebrew speaking deity suddenly decided to start a project

and created the universe. And before the creationists condemn my calculations, let

me tell you that these are the similar calculations that are done by our insurance

companies everyday to tell us how much premium we must pay for our life insurance,

car insurance, home insurance etc etc. So creationists can tell us that their

insurance premiums are based on magic before we can take them seriously if they want

to challenge 250 years of probability theory. The creationist claim is based on

mathematical ignorance. Again I will be the first to admit that mathematics,

statistics and probability are difficult subjects to learn and master, so it is

easier to believe in phantom beings and unsubstantiated claims to fill the gaps of

ignorance. I will also acknowledge scientists lack of effective communication and

explaining these difficult concepts to the general public. Science has failed in

that regard and needs to do a better job.

At this juncture we can now address some of the pertinent questions. Was life

created on the third day as the Hebrew scriptures say? No sir, not at all, life

began at least 4.15 billion years ago and evolved to this day. Were the first

lifeforms grass, herbs and fruit bearing trees as the bible claims? No sir, not at

all, the bile is based on the ignorance of ancient desert nomads. The first

lifeforms were proto-cells that formed by lipids encasing self-replicating

polynucleotides in the primordial earth, as the theory of Abiogenesis currently

posits. Is the rest of the Genesis creation account credible then? Probably not. If

the authors got the first step wrong chances are the rest of it is also wrong, but

again we acknowledge that the bible was written by and for barbaric illiterate

Hebrew tribesmen who became the forefathers of the Israelites.

We now call on the religious members of this medium to come forward and explain to

us why their god or gods were unable to correctly describe a universe and the life

they claim they created. Did the miracles happen too fast so they were unable to

correctly document the details?

kwaku ba, November 2010