The
origin of life is certainly one of the most important
outstanding questions in science today and not part of the current theory of
evolution, which relies on the genetic system of
life already being in place. In 1953, graduate student Stanley Miller, working under the guidance of the
eminent chemist Harold Urey, made an amazing discovery in a very
simple laboratory experiment. He found that the primary building blocks of
life, the amino acids as well as other organic compounds, can be synthesized
spontaneously by sending an electrical spark through a mixture of methane,
hydrogen, ammonia, and water.50
At
the time these were thought to be the ingredients of
the primitive EarthÕs atmosphere. Theists since have been quick to point out
that the exact ingredients in the early Earth may have been different and
concluded, therefore, that MillerÕs results were no evidence for natural origin
of life. Indeed, life did not spontaneously form
from the ingredients in MillerÕs experiment, and no one has yet managed that
feat. However, many experiments have confirmed MillerÕs findings with a wide range of gases.
The
Miller-Urey result provided excellent evidence for a
more general principle in nature that many people still find difficult to
accept. They demonstrated, in the laboratory, that simple molecules can assemble naturally into more complex molecules. As
described previously, this feature of simplicity evolving into complexity can
be found in physics and other sciences besides biology, and disproves the
argument made by proponents of intelligent design creationism that the
existence of complexity in the universe cannot be explained naturally. In the
case of life, since purely natural processes can generate the basic elements of
life, no obstacle exists for their ultimate assembly into more complex forms.
Certainly the current biological cell itself is far too
complex to have arisen by purely random processes, and no biologist claims it
did. However, it is now well established in the laboratory that chemicals
themselves evolve independently of the specific mechanisms of biological
evolution.51
If the spontaneous formation of some complex
system that had at least some of the
properties of life were observed, then it would provide evidence that life had
a natural origin.
The
exhaustive review of the literature on lifeÕs origins provided by Albrecht Moritz in the TalkOrigins Archive
contains many examples of proposed mechanisms and provides extensive links to
references. Moritz is conservative: ÒAfter critical study of the scientific
literature I conclude that advances in our knowledge, with particularly
exciting findings in the last decade, have now made the spontaneous origin of
life a plausible assumption.Ó52
Recall that it only takes a plausible assumption to defeat the God-of-the-gaps argument.
See
also the beautifully illustrated article ÒLife on EarthÓ by Alonzo Ricardo and Jack W. Szostak in the September 2009 issue of Scientific American.53 Here are the key concepts summarized by
the editors:
Researchers have found that the genetic
molecule RNA could have formed from chemicals present
on the early Earth.
Other studies have supported the
hypothesis that primitive cells containing molecules similar to RNA could
assemble spontaneously, reproduce and evolve, giving rise to all life.
Scientists are now aiming at creating fully self-replicating artificial organisms in the laboratory—essentially giving life a second start in order to understand how it could have started the first time.
Notes
50. Stanley
L. Miller, ÒA Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth
Conditions,Ó Science 117 (1953): 528–29.
51. Paul F. Deisler Jr., ÒHow Did Life Begin? A
Perspective on the Nature and Origin of Life,Ó Skeptic 16, no. 2(2011):
34–40 and
references therein.
52. Albrecht Moritz, ÒThe Origin of Life,Ó TalkOrigins Archive, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html
(accessed December 17, 2009).
53. Alonzo Richardo and Jack W. Szostak, ÒLife on
Earth: Fresh Clues Hint at How the First Living Organisms Arose from Inanimate
Matter,Ó Scientific American (September, 2009): 54–61.