Abiogensis & the Myth of the Organic Soup
Cosmology - Astronomy - Astrobiology





The Origin of Life: Abiogenesis & the Myth of the Organic Soup






ABIOGENESIS & THE
MYTH OF THE ORGANIC SOUP
Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D.

MAGICAL RELIGIOUS FOUNDATIONS OF SPONTANEOUS GENERATION

For thousands of years humans have gazed into the heavens pondering the nature of existence, and asking: What is god? How did life begin? Are we alone in the vastness of the cosmos. Are there people on other planets? Did god create man in the image of god? Or did man create god in the image of man? Is there any meaning and purpose to life? Or is it all a cruel cosmic joke.

Humans have long stared into the abyss and the abyss has stared back. Answers and explanations have ranged from the religious and supernatural to the magical thinking of many modern day scientists who have created their own gods and religions which they call: Darwinism, the Big Bang, and Abiogenesis.

Theologians have attributed the origin of life to the hand of god. Many modern scientists reject god and instead embrace a theology of miracles preaching that life came from non-life, from lightning bolts striking a random mixture of chemicals in a supernatural organic soup--an idea so absurd and laden with magical thinking, it is the equivalent of discovering a computer on Mars, and claiming it was randomly assembled in the Methane sea.

The belief that life comes from non-life, has been known by many names: vitalism, spontaneous generation, the organic soup, and abiogenesis. What all have in common is a belief in super natural conditions which act on the earth or non-living matter to create life from non-life. It is religion masquerading as science. In fact, these beliefs, although dressed up in the language of science, have been part of Church dogma from as early as the 3rd century.

"Very tiny animals result from the corruption of mortal things. For many of these arise either from defects of living bodies, or from excrements, or exhaltations, or from putrfecation of dead bodies..." -St. Augustine, Catholic Bishop, Church Father, and Catholic Saint.

In the Judeo-Christian Bible, the story of Genesis, it is stated: "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so." Thus, according to the early Church Fathers, god must have given the Earth special life giving powers: "The earth is said then to have produced grass and trees causaly, that is, to have received the power of producing"--St Augustine. "For if there are creatures which are successively produced by their predecessors, there are others that even today we see born from the earth itself" -St Basil, Archbishop of Ceaserea

According to the Catholic Church, "god" created the Earth, and God gave the earth the potential for spontaneously generating plants and animals and this power has never been taken away. Thus the Earth retains these supernatural god-like generative powers, even today. "There was already present in all animated bodies, a certain natural force, as it were, preseminated, and as it were, the primordial beginnings of the future animals which were to arise according to the genera and differences of things, through the infallible administration of the unchangeable Creator who makes all things."-St. Augustine.

Therefore, life can be produced from non-life--a view that had been adopted by numerous branches of the Christian religion and most scientists.

Religion is a powerful and pervasive sociological and cultural force, influencing scientists, teachers, parents, children, and even the most liberal and progressive of thinkers, some of whom expend considerable effort fighting against it while simultaneously embracing the supernatural foundations which support it. In consequence, religious beliefs and faith in supernatural forces are often repackaged in the language of science.

EGOCENTRIC MAGICAL THINKING OF CHILDHOOD

Yet other factors contribute to this pervasis belief, including culture, and the magical thinking characteristic of early childhood, where inanimate objects such as toys, shadows, rocks, and so on, can be endowed with life. Piaget referred to this egocentric stage of intellectual development as "Preoperational." Preoperational thinking dominates during the ages of 2-4, when children believe the world revolves around them, and where they assign living attributes and even personalities and purposeful behavior to inanimate objects. It is difficult to completely escape these influences, for the child is father to the man.

Childhood, religion, and magical thinking are universal. There are even regions of the brain which subserve and give rise to religious and magical beliefs. Likewise, the belief that life comes from non-life, emerging from some primordial substance, including from the mud and muck of the Earth, is also universal and quite ancient, for the "evidence" was everywhere: "Some animals... come from fire, like the animalcules which appear in furnaces, others from putrid water... others from wine when it turns sour, others from the earth, like grasshoppers; others from the marsh like frogs; other from mud, like worms..."--Sextus Empiricus (200 AD).

HISTORICAL FOUNDATION OF ABIOGENESIS / EVOLUTION

Indeed, the question of origins has been debated for thousands of years, and many ancient philosophers approached the problem "scientifically." For example, the greek philosopher, Anaximander, (610 BCc. 546 BC) proposed that life first emerged when watery soil was evaporated by the sun, and there followed a progression of life forms which became increasingly complex. Thus, although Anaximander argued that life came from non-life, he believed humans came from the sea, from fish, and was originaly like a fish (Hippolytus, Plutarch, symp 8, 739 E). Thus, Anaxamander was among the first to formally proposed what today is called "abiogenesis" and to place it in the context of evolution.

Although they said nothing of evolution, the Greek Atomists, also championed Abiogenesis. According to this view, life emerged by chance when atoms came together forming living organisms.

THE SEEDS OF LIFE

Anaxagoras (500 BC 428 BC) held to a completely different school of thought which presaged some of the central concept of modern physics. Anaxagoras argued that matter could neither be created or destroyed. The same was true of life which he did not believe orginated on this planet. Instead, he proposed that the seeds of life flow throughout the cosmos and that these seeds have existed for all time, for eternity. All it took was an external force to cause them to mingle and genereate living things.

However, rather than generating fully formed creatures, Anaxagorous believed that the seeds for plants and animals were created through the mixture and combination of preexisting substances. These seeds then floated in the air and in space, and must have fallen to Earth with the rain. Once on Earth these seeds germinated and becae capable of reproducing themselves and this is how life on Earth began.

FISH, FROGS & HUMANS ARE SPONTANEOUSLY GENERATED?

Lucretius (99-55 BC), in his book, The Nature of Things" dismissed the idea that life may exist on other worlds, and argued in favor of spontaneous generation. "No living creatures can have dropped from the heavens... we may see in fact living worms spring out of stinking dung, when the soaked earth has gotten putrid after excessive rains. Many living creatures even now spring out of the Earth taking form by rains and the heat of the sun. Mother Earth herself gave birth to mankind and shed forth every beast."

Diodorus, a 1st Century, Greek Historian, residing in Sicily, wrote in his highly influential 40 volume work, Bibliotheca historica ("Historical Library"): "Even at the present day, the soil of Thebes at certain times generates mice in such size as to astonish all who have witnessed the phenomenon; for some of them are fully formed as far as the breast and front feet, and are able to move, while the rest of the body is unformed, the clod of earth still retaining its natural character.... The generation of forms of animal life can clearly be seen taking place in the pools of rain... whenever the river has begun to recede and the sun has throughly dried the surface of this slime, living animals take shape, some of them fully formed, but some only half so, and still actually united with the earth."

If all manner of living creatures can emerge fully formed from the slime and muck of the Earth, it does not require a huge leap of the imagination to conclude that some god may have created humans out of soil or clay--which is exactly what we are told in the priestly rewriting of Genesis as takes place in chapter 2: "But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

"GOD" EXPERIMENTS WITH ABIOGENESIS

However, this story is not unique. In a 1400 BC bass relief, the Egyptian god Khnum sits at a potter's wheel upon which stand two children which the god had fashioned out of clay. The Egyptians believed this god placed the first clay creations into the soil, and grew humans. This was also expressed in ancient Egyptian writing and hieroglyphics: "Man is clay and straw and god is his builder."

Hesiod, in 800 BC, explained that the god Hephaestus had been ordered by Zeus to "mix earth with water and to pour in it the voice and strength of humankind" and thus, to create humans. Four stages were envisioned, starting with the "golden race of mortal men" followed by the silver, then bronze, the "half gods" and then finally the race of iron--modern humans.

The ancient Sumerians and Babylonians held to similar ideas, except that they believed the gods created humans because they needed servants to tend their flocks and gardens; an idea later repeated in chapter 2 of Genesis in the Judeo-Christian Bible:

"And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground... And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed... And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it."

The Titan god Promethesus is also credited by the ancient Greeks as the creator of humans, which he fashioned out of the earth and water. However, instead of serving the gods, Promethesus attempted to serve man, giving him the gift and knowledge of fire--and for this crime of wisdom, Promethesus was to be punished for all eternity.

A similar idea appears in Genesis, in which a fallen angel or son of god, provides humankind with wisdom. However, it is humans and not Satan which are severely punished for this crime: "And God said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree of knowledge, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? ....I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

MAN WAS FASHIONED FROM THE SOIL?

Philosophers and historians living in Rome during the 1st and second century, also promoted the belief that life emerged from non-life and greatly influenced the thinking of the Early Church fathers. However, some of these learned men not only accepted the "man from soil" origins of humanity, but argued that the first humans were created in the soil of Egypt.

"For this fact it is manifest that when the world was taking shape, the land of Egypt could better than any other have been the place where mankind came into being because of the well tempered nature of its soil; for even at the present time, when the soil of no other country generates any such things, in it alone living creatures may be seen coming into being in a marvellos fashion." -Diodorus, 1st Century, Greek Historian (Sicily).

Most modern scientists do not believe it possible for a human, monkey, dog, cat, reptile or fish to be randomly created in a bubbling brew of organic chemicals or to arise fully formed, molded from the clay of the Earth. Although consisting of individual cells, these animals are much too complex. And yet, despite the fact that a single celled organism is also incredibly complex, many of these same scientists wish us to believe that these organisms somehow sprang from a mixture of muck and then gave rise to all subsequent species via Darwinian evolution.

DARWIN'S ORGANIC SOUP

Indeed, Darwin who attributed evolution to a "creator" in the final paragraph of his book, Origin of Species, also proposed, in 1871, that a single celled creature emerged from a warm little pond filled with salts and minerals:

"It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." (Darwin, 1871).

Darwinism has become a religion and a cult among modern day scientists and Darwinian tautologies require that life randomly evolved from a "warm little pond." Thus Darwinists oppose any possibility that life on Earth came from other planets as that runs counter to the beliefs of Darwin, and could call into question the basic principles of Darwinian theology; i.e. a random, purposeless evolution.

ARISTOTLE, ABIOGENESIS - THE SCIENCE OF RELIGION

Athough stripped of religious language, and placed in the contex of evolutionary theory, this theory is nevertheless identical to those ancient beliefs incorporated by the church. The modern scientific community has merely substituted terms such as "nature," "organic soup," "natural selection," and "random chance" in place of god and the supernatural. They call this theology, "science."

However, like the Darwinians, the Catholic Church also preached its theology was based on "science," and the teachings of Aristotle, "The Master of them that know."

Aristotle (384 BC 322 BC) believed there was purpose in the universe and in nature. This purpose could be seen in the progression from simple to complex life forms leading to humans. Monsters and women were evolutionary failures, he argued.

Aristotle also believed that life came from non-life, and all it took was water and warmth to make life appear. Therefore, life had sprung from lifeless matter.

Aristotle's work was enthusiastically adopted by the Catholic Church, in a fusion of beliefs known as "Scholasticism." Thus the faithful, including the scientific community were taught to accept every word of his writings, so long as they did not contradict the Bible. In consequence, those who dared to make scientific discoveries or to propose theories that appeared to contradict Aristotle, were severely criticized by the scientific community, and imprisoned, or tortured and murdered by the the church in the name of science.

The theory of abiogenesis, which proposes that life emerged from the soil, from clay, from a warm little pond, and thus, from-non-life is an idea steeped in religious dogma. And the Catholic church claimed that its dogma was backed by science. The modern scientific community make identical claims, and in the name of "science" have attempted to suppress or misrepresent all evidence which does not support their views; in particular, the belief in abiogenesis.

Aristotle's student, Theophrastus, was a biologist. But unlike most modern day biologists, Theophrastus rejected the theory of abiogenesis, warning that this belief was based on ignorance, faulty observation, and inconclusive evidence: "it may be rather that all the stages of development of their seed escape our observation.... More accuate observations must be made of the subject and the matter of spontaneous generation must be thoroughly inquired into."

ABIOGENESIS: THE MAKING OF A MYTH

All inquiries, however, have come up empty handed. Despite thousands of years of scientific observation and experimentation, absolutely no evidence has been presented that life has any source other than life. Even so,the scientific community clings to these myths, brushing aside all evidence to the contrary and claiming as proof "evidence" that often has little to do with the question.

Thus, for example, the scientific community and the Church claimed that maggots were spontaneously generated from rotten meat and garbage. This was obvious proof of abiogenesis, they preached. However, Frencesco Redi proved in 1680, that this was nonsense. Redi simply placed decayiing meat in a sealed jar and proved the meat remained maggot free.

Even so, despite repeated demonstrations that spontaneous (or gradual) generation is not plausible, many scientists, including Darwin, dismissed these findings and continued to champion the magical belief that life can be created from non-life. As evidence they pointed to an experiment performed in 1828, by Friedrich Wohler, which in fact had nothing to do with the origin of life.

Wohler used ammonium cyanate to synthesize urea--which is a major component of urine. Thus it was claimed that organic material which is normally produced biologically can be produced by inorganic substances, and therefore life can be produced from non-life. Of course, this experiment proves nothing of the sort. Moreover, ammonium cyanate is a biological substance. Amomonium is produced as a waste product by bacteria and number of animals. In fish and aquatic invertebrates, ammonium is excreted directly into the water. In mammals, sharks, and amphibians, it is converted to urea.

In fact, the synthesis of carbon compounds in a well equipped laboratory under the direction of an experimenter in highly controlled conditions, not only has little to do with the origin of life, but reflects little more than religious faith in a creator who engages in intelligent design. The scientific establishment was merely substituted terms such as "nature," "organic soup," "natural selection," and "random chance" in place of god and the supernatural.

Although the vast majority of almost all organic compounds are created biologically, and despite the fact that living creatures are not compounds, the scientific community in the 1800s seized upon Wohler's research and began claiming that the tinest and simplest of creatures, such as bacteria were also created by a mixture of various chemicals early in the history of the Earth. Thus, Darwin and others argued that life was spontaneouly generated from nutrient rich chemical reactions, and that life began in a warm pond of water filled with organic residue.

LOUIS PASTEUR: ABIOGENESIS DISPROVED

Yet, this view was also disproved in the late 1860s by Louis Pasteur who is considered the "Father of Modern Bacteriology." Pasteur demonstrated that bacteria are produced only from bacteria. Only life can produce life. Pasteur boiled a nutrient rich organic soup, killing all bacteria present, and poured this bubbling brew into a bottle with an open neck, or S shaped neck which would prevent bacteria from falling into the flask.

The organic broth in the open neck allowed dust and other material to fall inside and the bottle was soon brimming with bacteria. However, the organic soup placed in the S shaped bottle remained bacteria free, proving, again, that only life produces life and bacteria are generated only from bacteria which, in this case, fell from the sky into the open bottle. The theory of spontaneous generation had again been totally and "mortally" discredited.

RANDOM MIRACLES OF CHANCE: ABIOGENESIS - ORGANIC SOUP

And yet, despite all evidence to the contrary, the scientific community, the media, NASA, and most scientific journals continue to propagate the myth that life began in an organic soup. A number of possible scenarios have been put forward, all of which posit that life and DNA arose gradually when the Earth's atmosphere and oceans were struck with UV rays, or when various crystals, or clay particles, or enzymes, or proteins, and/or micro-molecules were randomly jumbled together by chance, and that these random occurrence coincided (by chance) with some electro-chemical, activating event, thereby organizing and giving these molecules life (DeDuve, 1995; Lamond & Gibson, 1990; Orgel 1994; Rebek, 1994). As the essential elements did not exist on Earth, alternate reality have been proposed, such as the RNA world, whereas others propose that exo-biological organic matter must have fallen to earth, and was then washed into the seas where these life promoting substances accumulated forming an organic sludge.

According to some of these theorists, as this accumulating extra-terrestrial organic material was mixed and churned together, it eventually formed an "organic soup." Presumably this bubbling organic brew was simultaneously subjected to massive doses of ultra violet radiation from the sun, as well as radiation given off from the core of the Earth. Presumably, these primeval conditions coincided with, and thus effected the course of chance molecular associations, thereby giving life to certain activated and irradiated molecular combinations, which again, were astro-biological and extra-terrestrial in origin.

Finally, these first living and behaving molecules began to engage in further "random" associations thus creating one simple life form that not only survived but was somehow provided with DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) or RNA (ribonucleic acid), genetic instructions, cytoplasm, and a cellular membrane, and the capacity to extract energy and reproduce itself by producing RNA- or DNA-based duplicates. Every creature and living thing, therefore, owe their existence to these chance occurrences where a multitude of organic molecules from outer space were randomly mixed together (by chance) and sprang to life, such that a single living molecule miraculously survived and began to reproduce.

However, when we consider the incredible complexity of a single cell, its complex protein and lipid membrane, cytoplasm, DNA, genetic instructions, as well as its capacity to extract and use energy, reproduce, and store and express information, etc., and so on, the above scenarios just do not seem likely. These and other scenarios are in fact incompatible with and are contradicted by cell theory and by what we know of genetics and the structure of DNA. In fact, there is no convincing evidence which supports these views, which are little more than conjecture.

Even when guided by teams of well funded scientists who employ all the tactics of "intelligent design" and every conceivable recipe, including tossing in biologically produced substances, the result is always the same. Life has never been produced from non-life. And yet, although all attempts to create life from non-life have failed, the scientific establishment have presented these failed experiments as proof for this failed theory.

STANLEY MILLER - HAROLD UREY: INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN DISGUISE

The most famous example of turning failuure into claims of success are the 1953 experiments performed by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey which the scientific establishment would have us believe are landmark experiments in biology. In fact, these experiments were a complete failure.

Many scientists believe that the Earth's oceans were originally extremely hot, and the atmosphere was made of gases such as ammonia, hydrogen, methane and water vapor. Thus it was proposed that Energy from lightning and ultraviolet rays caused complex chemical reactions which gave rise to life in the form of simple microorganisms.

Miller combined methane, hydrogen and ammonia with water, and sent flashes of electricity through it all; nothing even remotely associated with life was produced even though Miller employed methane and ammonia, which are biological waste product. Thus Miller may have employed biological substances in his attempt to create life.

The experiments were a complete failure. Initially, Miller and Urey were able to produce two amino acids, the constitutents of proteins, and nitrogen bases which are constituents of DNA. In subsequent experiments Miller eventually cooked up 12 additional amino acids--however this was not accomplished randomly, but in a precisely controlled experiment. Nevertheless, this organic soup also failed to show any signs of life. No elephants, tigers, dinosaurs, single celled bacteria, or even a fragment of DNA were produced.

MILLER COOKS UP THE WRONG AMINO ACIDS

As to the amino acids, those produced by miller had the wrong configuration and were incompatible with life. Moreover, in every subsequent attempt to create life, the resulting amino acids did not order themselves into functioning molecules. It is little more than magical thinking and an incredible leap of the imagination to believe a few amino acids, even if they possessed the right configuration, can create life.

Specifically, L (Left-handed) amino acids are characteristic of life. In fact, L- amino acids have identified in the Murchison meteor which is also riddled with micro-fossils and which is a likely a remnant of one of the planets which circled the planet star prior to supernova. However, in the Miller experiments and all subsequent attempts to manufacture life, equal amounts of the D and L- amino acids were generated. There is virtually no possibility that left and right amino acids, when mixed together in an organic soup, would somehow self-assemble and expel those which are of the wrong hand.

"Imagine a chemical factory and the incredible array of reactions taking place, with molecules precisely interacting with other molecules and fitting together and locking with various catalytic molecules, synthesizing, being broken down, collecting together, and reacting in a variety of fashion, all according to very organized process. Now image an exact mirror image of that factory and linking them together. They would self-destuct. They could only fuction together properly only if they had the exact same handedness" - Fred Hoyle

Amino acids, the small molecules that are strung together to make proteins, are all left-handed, and the sugars in the nucleic acids are also of the same hand. The key molecules have the same hand in all organisms. A mixture of right and left handed amino acids would not promote life, they would be completely unable to properly function.

THE SWEET FAILURE OF ABIOGENESIS

Miller and others who have failed to generate life from non-life, have also been unable to produce any of the sugars which are required for the creation of genetic material. The sugar ribose, for example, is an essential ingredient of DNA. Although abundant in interstellar clouds, suggesting they are manfuactured by living creatures, Miller and others have been unable to cook up ribose in their organic soups. In fact, ribose even if present, could not have survived the conditions of the early earth and would have quickly turned to tar.

In an attempt to claim this failure in fact supported the theory of abiogenesis, Miller and his supporters proposed an alternate super natural reality where the basic laws of genetics were suspended. In 1995, after years of failing to make ribose prebiotically, Miller concluded "The first genetic material could not have contained ribose or other sugars because of their instability."

These organic brews also failed to produce proteins and this is because an "organic soup" will never produce proteins, but will destroy them.

PROTEINS AND ENZYMES

Proteins serve as the cell's building blocks and enable it to function. All cells contain proteins and enzymes. Proteins are in fact manufactured via DNA--the substance which determines the structure of proteins, and which has generated untold life forms. The vast majority of proteins are composed of a mixture of up to 20 different amino acids, with the proportion of acids varying depending on the type of protein produced (Calladine & Drew, 1992; Strachan & Read, 1996; Watson et al. 1992). Proteins are the building blocks which comprise the organism and its manifold component parts.

The vast majority of proteins are enzymes. All enzymes are cavity scarred globules; the cavities acting to form conjunctions with other enzymes, much like a key fits into a lock. This enables them to chemically react and interact and to take specific shapes and forms.

Variations in the sequence in which these 20 amino acids are organized and fit together, therefore, can give rise to a variety of different shapes and forms, and can provide the resulting tissues and cells with specific and unique chemical and reactive properties (Calladine & Drew, 1992; Strachan & Read, 1996; Watson et al. 1992). Moreover, the manner in which they are fashioned and fit together can serve to convey specific messages. Hence, DNA produced enzyme/proteins, contains information, and serves as information bearing micro-molecules.

For every enzyme, and for every protein, there exists specific instructions which are maintained within the various multiple strands and sequence segments of DNA (Calladine & Drew, 1992; Strachan & Read, 1996; Watson et al., 1992). Through activation of various portions of the genetic code, a bacterium, or a complex human body can be fashioned. DNA, therefore, contains the ancestral and hereditary-based instructions for creating a simple or complex organism and its protein building blocks.

However, everything we know about proteins refutes any possibility that they were fashioned in an organic soup.

As summed up by Nobel prize winner Crick, "The most remarkable example of molecular archiecture found in living organisms is undoubtedly the protein family. Even a relatively simple protein may have as many as two thousands atoms, forming a fairly precise three-dimensional strucure, with every atom in its particular place, except when disturbed by the constantly jostling produced by thermal motion. Moreover, this intricate three dimensional shape is essential for its function. If the molecules, in a solution of water is heated, in most case the increased temperature will first loosen and then break the weak bonds holding the underlying chain in its correct fold so that the structure becomes jumbled and disorganized. No longer will it have the correct cavities, with the apropriate chemical groups, on its surface, and so it will no longer be able to fulfill its original function.. If other protein moelcules are also in this disorganized state, and are in the solution, they may all stick together and coagulate, becoming a tangled mass cannot unravel itself." --Crick.

THERE WAS NO ORGANIC SOUP

The Darwinians and the scientific establishment simply dismiss and ignore all evidence which proves the possibility of abiogenesis. By a leap of the imagination, they avoid the thorny problem of how animo acids could have become jigsawed together or how proteins could have been created in a mythical organic soup, focusing instead on the random combination of various pre-biotic organic molecules and the viability of compounds which supposedly created life.

Living creatures are not compounds. Life associated molecules are unstable, which gives them their life associated properties. Thus in an organic soup, these unstable molecules would have broken apart.

In fact, the chemical compositiion of the New born earth and its thin atmosphere, was not condusive to the formation of an organic soup or molecules that could be remotely construed as "pre-biotic" (P. Ehrenfreund & K. M. Menten, 2002. From Molecular Cluds to the Origin of Life. In G. Horneck & C. Baumstark-Khan. Astrobiology, Springer, 2002).

As no one has proved that life can be generated from non-life, even the term "pre-biotic" is little more than a fiction. However, even if we were to take this magical leap, pre-biotic molecules would have been instantly destroyed by the UV rays which bathed the new Earth which was lacking oxygen and was unable to generate a protective ozone atmosphere.

UV RAYS & NAKED DNA: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "PRE-BIOTIC."

Likewise, the early Earth lacked all the essential ingredients for the creation of a single celled creatures or its DNA which is the machinery of life. Even if all the elements necessary for creating DNA were present, naked DNA and all other so called "pre-biotic" molecules would have also been instantly destroyed by the UV rays which enveloped the unprotected planet.

The Early Earth was much colder as the sun was 25% less luminous than today (21,22). However, when the Earth was forming the sun may have been emmiting UV radiation at an intensity 10,000 times greater than today and 4 times greater at 3.5 billion years (25)--thus destroying all prebiotic molecules.

It was not until between 3.5 and 2.2 billion years ago that an organic haze had accumulated to a sufficient degree to protect against UV radiation (A.A. Pavlov et al., Journal of Geophysical Research, 2000, 105, 11981). After 2.2 BP, oxygen level increased markedly (J. Farquhar et al., Science, 2000, 289, 756). However, life was already flourising on Earth by 3.5 billion years BP, with the first evdience of life appearing 4.2 BP.

The organic soup is a myth. All the essential ingredients for life were absent or they would have been destroyed by the conditions of the new earth which was continually pummeled with asteroids, comets, and oceans of ice, alternately freezing and broiling and undergoing geo-thermal extremes. The basic organic chemistry which provides the foundations of life, are extremely unstable, and breaks down over time and in response to even the normal range of temperatures that characterized this planet (Crick).

We must also recall that not only did he planet lack a protective atmosphere, but for 700 million years the Earth was constantly bombarded by debris, which generated incredible temperatures and induced destructive levels of geo-thermal motion. These conditions are not conducive to the creation of life or organic chemistry, but would disrupt the strong chemical bonds which hold an organic molecule firmly together (Crick). this bombardment did not cease until 3.8 BP when life had already become established on Earth.

When we consider all the factors which would have prevented the creation of life from non-life on this planet, and couple that with the incredible complexity of the simplest of single celled creatures, the only viable conclusion is that the theory of the organic soup is a fraud.

CELL THEORY & COMPLEXITY: ONLY CELLS BEGET CELLS

It has been well established that all living cells arise from preexisting cells. That is, only life begets life and only DNA begets DNA. In this regard, it stands to reason that the first DNA equipped cells to arrive on Earth, were produced by DNA equipped cells that were astro-biological in origin.

The maxim, "only life begets life," is universal for all known Earthly creatures, including singled celled organisms, bacteria, and microbes. This well established rule of life provides the foundation for what has been referred to as "cell theory" as well as astro-biological contamination infection theory. All living things are composed of cells which contain DNA, and new cells are only formed when preexisting cells divide and replicate. Life begets life.

Another rule of cell theory is that old cells and new cells, and in fact all living cells, are fundamentally alike chemically, structurally, metabolically, and in regard to their cellular components (de Duve, 1995). Be it bacteria, animal, plant, or human, all cells are surrounded by a membrane (which may be partitioned by an internal membrane), and contain cytoplasm and DNA. All living cells act similarly in regard to heat transduction and the liberation and conversion of photopic-chemical energy found in foodstuffs; that is, energy which is ultimately derived, via minerals and inorganic chemicals (chemolithoautotrophs), or plants and organic molecules secreted by other species (heterotrophs), or sunlight (photoautotrophs).

Hence, all cells are governed by the laws of thermo-dynamics (though the second law is sometimes violated) and are capable of breaking down simple molecular building blocks, such as minerals and glucose, or carbon dioxide, or ammonia, or nitrates, which they use to promote life and DNA replication. All living cells are capable of converting these elements and breakdown products in order to create all the manifold and diverse proteins and carbon-containing molecules necessary for all aspects of cellular functioning. This includes regeneration of the cell wall, and the production of daughter cells, as well as the generation of proteins for maintaining the membrane, skin, skeletal system, heart, and so on. This is accomplished via instruction maintained within the macromolecules and polymeric molecules and nucleotides of DNA and these characteristics were also typical of those creatures who were among the first to take root on this planet.

THE COMPLEXITY OF LIFE

Consider the incredible complexity of the simplest of bacteria cells. Thoudsands of complex molecules are precisely jigsawed together to create its outmembrane, the componets of its cytoplasm, and the inner cellular machinery that enbables the cell to extract and use energy to self-nourish and reproduce. The fantastical idea that these molecules randomly and spontaneously organized themselves to create a complex living cell, requires nothing less than a belief in miracles.

Even the simplest of living cells (e.g. bacteria, archaea), maintain an inner wall which may consist of an acid-containing, fatty outer plasma membrane, within which is maintained the cell's cytoplasm and DNA. Moreover, even the simplest and most "primitive" single celled organisms are incredibly complex, and are capable of repairing their DNA as well as tears or openings in their membranes which are immediately sealed -which is accomplished via DNA induced protein synthesis. The simplest of living organisms are mind bogglingly complex and the notion that they spontaneously or even gradually arose on Earth, from an undersea volcano, or an organic broth, and within just a few hundred million years while the Earth was forming and under constant bombardment, becomes completely untenable, especially when we consider DNA and cellular complexity, and the fact that the oldest life forms were equally complex and the failure to find any evidence of precursor life forms.

For example, single cellular microbes are comprised of more than 2,500 small molecules (e.g. including amino acids consisting of 10 to 50 tightly packed atoms), as well as macro-molecules (proteins and nucleic acids) and polymeric molecules (which are comprised of hundreds to thousands of small molecules) all of which are precisely jigsawed together to form a single complex organism. The tiniest and most primitive of single celled creatures contain a variety of micro- macro- and polymeric molecules which fit and function together as a living mosaic of tissues.

Moreover, each of the many thousands of different molecules that make up a single cellular creature perform an incredible variety of chemical reactions -often in concert with that cell's other molecules and their protein (enzyme) products (Strachan & Read, 1996; Watson et al. 1992). When coupled with the complexity of DNA and given the fact that the essential ingredients for DNA construction were not available on this planet, it becomes utterly improbable that life could have arisen gradually and merely by chance, at least on Earth. The fact is, life has never been fashioned from non-life; every attempt has been a miserable failure.

THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY COMMITTED TO SCIENCE FRAUD

Unfortunately, the myth of the organic soup has been shamelessly and falsely propagated as established fact by the scientific community and the media. Some actually believe this deified myth which they've been taught should never be challenged or questioned. Others engage in these deceptions to combat what they is fear is the only alternative, religion and "creation science" when in fact, abiogenesis is creation science. Its is religion masquerading as science.

Despite hundreds of millions of dollars used to fund experiments conducted in the most scienitifically advanced laboratories in the world, every single attempt to create life from non-life, or even a fragment of DNA in a random mixture of "pre-biotic" or other organic substances, has miserably failed. Only life can produce life, and there is absolutely no evidence to support the myth of the organic soup.

In fact, there was no organic soup. The Early earth lacked all essential free ingredients for the creation of life and its DNA. In fact, the early Earth was a poisonous, toxic planet, devoid of oxygen and plagued by eupting volcanoes, which released oceans of burning lava, and highly toxic gases, incuding: Hydrogen chloride (HCl)Carbon Monoxide (CO)Carbon Dioxide (CO2)Nitrogen (N2).The entire concept of an life-generating organic soup is in fact an ignorant delusion.

THE COMPLEXITY OF DNA

Consider the incredible chemically complex comosition of a single strand of DNA, that ultimate information bearing molecule. DNA is the machinery of life, containing all the knowledge, information, and blue prints for creating, through complex chemical reactions, all the proteins which make up every unique component of every unique cell in the body. DNA is composed of hundreds of thousands of individual nucleotides which are laddered together forming base pairs alongside a backbone of complex sugars and phosphates. It is the arrangement of these nucleotides which contain the codes for creating every component of every cell of every species which has ever walked, crawled, swam, or slithered across the earth. Each strand of DNA is entwined together, forming a double helix and may consist of hundreds of thousands of base pairs. For a single cell to divide or grow requires DNA to unwind and to recreate itself and to generate the protiens that make up the cell and its inner components. DNA also manufactures different types of RNA which makes a copy of the code and snips out the silent genes, called introns. RNA tranfers this information to yet anotehr DNA constructed protein, the ribosome, which translates these codes and creates the specified protiens. The incredible molecular complexity of even a single strand of DNA, the complex chemical reactions involved in its expression, a process involving several steps and the assistance of the almost equally complex RNA, renders impossible the fantasy that these molecules, the machinery of life, were randomly assembled in an organic soup.

The myth of the organic soup is based on a theology of miracles and the magical belief that chemicals can be randomly mixed and jigsawed together to fashion a living cell or its DNA. There is absolutely no evidence which supports the theory of spontaneous generation.

Consider: even the simplest of single celled bacteria, Carsonella, requires 160,0000 base-pairs of DNA, and 182 separate genes, in order to live and function. However, this bacteria, Carsonella, cannot live indendently, and depends on a living host , a psyllid insect, to survive. Thus if there was an organic soup, it had to randomly create, assemble, organize, and then spew out over 182 genes, comprised of over 160,000 base pairs. This is the equivalent of discovering over 180 computers on Mars and claiming they were magically assembled in the Methane sea when elementary particles were randomly mixed together. However, even with 182 genes, the resulting creation could not have survived unless provided with a living host with 1,0000s of genes. The notion that the random assembly of chemicals can create life is a myth based magical thinking.

Because every attempt to fashion even the basic molecules of life from non-life has failed, and as the conditions of the early Earth would have been destructive to the creation of "pre-biotic" molecules including naked DNA, the scientific community has therefore proposed an alternative reality and an imaginary world where organic chemistry and the basic laws of genetics have been suspended. It is this imaginary world, called the "RNA World" which explains, we are told, how life began on this planet.

CONJURING UP AN ALTERNATE REALITY: THE RNA WORLD

The genetic instructions for the creation of any and all living creatures is contained within DNA. For these instructions to be acted upon, however, generally requires an RNA intermediary. Specifically, RNA consists of a single thread of thousands of nucleotides and is manufactured as a single strand which is formed by only one half of the DNA helix. One of the two DNA strands forms a complementary chain of RNA. RNA, therefore, is derived from DNA and serves as a copy of the activated (coded) DNA which contain the genetic instructions for manufacturing various proteins, but differs from DNA not only because it is single stranded but employs uracil rather than thymine and its "backbone" consists of ribose rather than deoxyribose.

Once this information is copied, thus creating mRNA (messenger RNA), tRNA (transfer RNA) molecules detach from their DNA template and are dispatched on a cytoplasmic, intracellular journey where they search out, and bind with tiny micro-molecular enzyme manufacturing proteins referred to as ribosomes. Like greedy lovers the ribosomes and tRNA molecules embrace, thus forming rRNA (ribosomal RNA) which acts to code and express the information contained in copied DNA sequence segments. Once these instructions are decoded, specific proteins and enzymes are produced in accordance with the original DNA derived sources of genetic information. RNA, therefore, transfers these DNA-based instructions to the ribosomes so that they may be acted on thus producing the proteins necessary for building any and every body part, including multiple bodies parts or extensions of body parts thus inducing growth or change.

As there is absolutely no evidence to support the notion that DNA spontaneously or gradually arose from the muck of the Earth, some of those who embrace spontaneous/gradual generation have instead theorized that RNA may have been the first information bearing molecule to arise on this planet (Gilbert, 1986; Gesteland, 1993; Woodward et al., 1998). That is, life first arose in an RNA World.

In the hypothesized RNA-world, RNA creates DNA. In the real world, however, rather than RNA producing DNA, DNA serves as the template for RNA construction, and secretes and manufactures a variety of compounds (e.g. ATP, UTP, GTP, CTP) as RNA precursors. DNA specifies and provides the instructions for the synthesis of RNA and no RNA molecule can arise without these DNA-derived protein enzymes.

Some of those who believe in an RNA-world, however, reverse this process, and in so doing have had to reverse Crick's "Central Dogma," i.e. that information flows only in one direction, from nuclei acids to proteins (reviewed in Gesteland, 1993). In some RNA-world scenarios, DNA is dispensed with altogether and information changes course and flows from proteins to nucleic acids; a hypothesized function of the unusual chemical conditions that characterized the early Earth. This latter scenario, however, is unable to account for the existence of these initial proteins.

In yet other "RNA-world" scenarios, DNA is also dispensed with (at least initially) and this initial, hypothetical RNA molecule fashions the proteins which are responsible for the creation of RNA. More specially, in an "RNA world" rather than RNA being a product of DNA, this process is reversed, and a particular kind of ribosomal RNA acquires catalytic properties and begins producing proteins, and in so doing, eventually creates the first DNA (Gilbert, 1986; reviewed in Gesteland, 1993). Because DNA is a superior catalyst, these special ribosomal RNA then became subservient to these DNA molecules, and forever after have acted to code and transcribe DNA messages. Thus all subsequent life forms owe their existence to this primeval ribosomal-like RNA molecule.

As summarized by Robertson and Ellington (1998, p. 223), "Looking backwards from a contemporary vantage point, it seems that the RNA components of modern ribosomes, the cell's protein-synthesizing machinery, may itself be a ribozyme and thus a remnant of an RNA world. Looking forwards from origins, it is plausible that chemically simple, nucleic-acid or non-nucleic acid replicators gave rise to the raw material that became the RNA world."

This interesting scenario, however, does not appear to be tenable. RNA molecules are not alive, are exceedingly unstable, and cannot catalyze their own replication. Unlike DNA which can reproduce and give birth to itself -thereby creating genetic offspring- this is not a trait associated with RNA. Viruses, whose genomes consist of RNA are completely incapable of self-replication but instead must invade the genome of a host and literally hijack its DNA in order to reproduce.

In addition, although Bartel and Unrau report that they created "artificial ribozymes" capable of manufacturing one of the RNA bases, they in fact mixed trillions of organic molecules in a chemical solution, chose promising specimens, and then repeated the process again and again before creating an "artificial" ribozyme. What this means is that although an experimenter can experimentally mix and combine and chose certain organic substances so as to arrive at a carefully planned result, that the resulting, artificial molecule, nevertheless failed to create an RNA molecule.

Moreover, RNA is not easily accessed or recognized by proteins due to the depth and configurational organization of its nucleotide framework (Draper, 1995). Hence, it does not seem likely that even in an RNA-world that RNA would be able to generate the proteins and enzymes responsible for the creation of RNA or DNA.

It is noteworthy, however, that a specific type of RNA, ribozymes of which there are several subtypes (Herschlag, 1998) can be experimentally manipulated in a test tube or petri dish in order to engage in catalytic activities (Cech, 1986; Lamond & Gibson, 1990; Unrau & Bartel, 1998), including, with a little technical assistance, self-reproduction (Joyce & Wright, 1999). Moreover, Joyce and Wright (1999) reported that following several experimentally induced replications, "mutations" began to accumulate, which improved the likelihood of additional replications.

Since ribozymes can be experimentally manipulated in a test tube in order promote their own replication, and as they can act as a catalyst and can bind other molecules, these findings have been viewed as supporting the possibility of an RNA-world (Robertson & Ellington, 1998). Hence, via the assistance of ribozymes, it is theorized that RNA fashioned the proteins which give rise the first molecules of RNA, even though, on the early Earth, there was a scarcity of the necessary nucleotides that constitute RNA.

In order to solve the problem of the missing RNA nucleotides, Unrau and Bartel (1998), have presented evidence to support the argument that "RNA-based life must therefore have acquired the ability to synthesize RNA nucleotides from simpler and more readily available precursors, such as sugars and bases." Specifically, Unrau and Bartel (1998) found that if RNA molecules are extracted and isolated, that they can be experimentally manipulated to catalyze the synthesis of a pyramidine nucleotide. According to Unrau and Bartel (1998, p. 260), "the finding that RNA can catalyze this type of reaction... supports the idea of an RNA world that included nucleotide synthesis and other metabolic pathways mediated by ribozymes."

Of course, pyramidine is only one of the building blocks of RNA, and the RNA they employed to induce these reactions was experimentally manipulated and modified. If similar events occurred early in the history of the Earth, one might have to postulate the helpful assistance of the hand of god--or perhaps a well funded and equipped experimenter with a test tube. Moreover, these and similar arguments rests upon the notion that a ribo-organism and thus RNA-based life existed on the early Earth; a proposition for which there is absolutely no evidence (Robertson & Ellington 1998).

Moreover, even assuming that there existed RNA-based life, it not only had to have acquired catalytic abilities, but had to couple the nucleotides it created with sugars and sugar-phosphates so as to create a stable RNA-molecule. Moreover, as there were apparently no free-phosphates available, this RNA-based life had to either create phosphate where there was none, or extract it from minerals. And, most importantly, the theory of an RNA-world is rather circular in its reasoning, as it presumes the existence of an RNA-based life form that creates, with the assistance of ribozymes, RNA nucleotides, which RNA with the assistance of ribozymes, catalyzes to create RNA.

On the other hand, since the Miller-Urey-Calvin (and like-minded) experiments have generated some isolated RNA elements, this has led to the argument that early in the history of the Earth, the building blocks of RNA could have been fashioned, and these may have been randomly combined with fragments of RNA which rained down from the sky, thus creating the first step toward a ribo/RNA organism which spontaneous self-assembled.

VIRUSES PROVE THERE WAS NO RNA WORLD

For example, it has been demonstrated that if RNA-viral proteins are experimentally separated and then placed in a organic and chemical bath, these individual viral protein components and elements will spontaneously aggregate, recombine and will form a complete virus with wholly intact infective properties (Fraenkel-Conrat & Williams, 1955). However, these viral-RNAs require the DNA of a host organism in order to replicate, as well as the active hand of an experimenter in order to extract, isolate, and then bathe them together in a controlled chemical environment which has been purposefully manipulated.

In fact, everything we know of viruses, whose genomes consist of RNA, completely refutes all claims about a possible RNA World creating life.

Viruses generally consist of a core of nucleic acid which is surrounded by cytoplasm containing lipids and carbohydrates, which are stabilized by a thick protein coat or lipid membrane. Almost all viruses store their genetic information in either a single or double strand of RNA with only a relatively few viral strains having acquired a single strand of DNA.

The viral genome is incredibly complex. In some cases, up to four genes are involved in regulating viral gene expression and protein synthesis. Nevertheless, although viruses have an RNA- and sometimes a DNA-genome, they share few of the metabolic and reproductive properties characteristic of animals, plants, or bacteria; and, they are unable to self-replicate.

Viruses behave more like a crystalline, or protein compound than a true living creature. That is, viruses are not really alive but instead consist of metabolically inert nucleoprotein particles that are in all respects lifeless. Viruses remain inert and lifeless until they come into contact with living cellular tissue, at which point they become mobile and invade and infect the host cell, sometimes inserting their own unique genetic messages into the DNA of their host (reviewed in Kuby, 1994).

Viruses are unique in that they require the DNA and the reproductive machinery of the host organism in order to reproduce viral DNA, and in order to replicate and to duplicate; thus, infecting the DNA of all host cells in the process. As the viral genome usually consist of only RNA (though some contain DNA), viruses are incapable of self-replication but require a living alternative.

In general, the virus will attack and attach its viral tail to the body of the host cell. This tail then secretes an enzyme which can digest part of the cell wall so that the virus can slip in and inject its own DNA or RNA into the cytoplasmic contents. The viral DNA/RNA attaches to the host chromosome, inserts itself into a gene, and then begins to direct the host cell's DNA/RNA so as to produce viral proteins and viral DNA. Viruses, therefore, are capable of inserting their RNA/DNA into the DNA of their host and altering the host's genome and sometimes splitting chromosomes in two (Berkner, 1988; Moss et al. 1990; Strachan & Read, 1996; Watson et al. 1994; Wigler, et al., 1979).

Once invasion and incorporation are accomplished viruses exert drastic influences on host cell metabolism and enzymatic machinery. Viral proteins and particles are rapidly produced, swelling the host cell until it bursts, thereby releasing its viral contents which then attack adjacent cells, exponentially multiplying, and sickening and sometimes killing the host in the process (reviewed in Kuby, 1994; Watson et al., 1992). HIV, smallpox, measles, rabies, polio, warts, fever blisters, the flu, and the common cold are all secondary to infective, invasive viral elements which take over the host cellular genetic machinery and rapidly divide.

Thus, the RNA of a virus is completely powerless unless provided with DNA; this despite the fact that the viral genome is incredibly complex. The RNA of an influenza virus may consist of over 10,000 nucleotides, the order and arrangement of which contains the code for creating over a dozen different proteins. Likewise, the DNA of a single parovirus is composed of a double strand of base pairs which is 5,081 nucleotides in length (Watson, et al. 1992). And yet, even viruses equipped with DNA are unable to reproduce unless provided with the DNA of a host.

Hence, even if a single RNA molecule did appear on Earth, for example, if it fell from the sky after being manufactured in a cosmic molecular cloud, it could not have engaged in self-replication as the necessary ingredients were nowhere to be found and as it would still require the DNA of a host organism in order to replicate.

As per the problems of self-replication and protein creation, some have argued that the first RNA molecule to appear on Earth (secondary to spontaneous/gradual generation) miraculously reproduced itself by somehow folding together in such a manner that identical base pairs became matched together (e.g. de Duve, 1995). This encircled RNA molecule then broke in half, or chopped itself into two identical copies. This self-mutilating RNA then began to replicate the severed segments thereby creating copies of itself. Of course, a process such as this requires a catalyst, a guiding hand, and DNA-based genetic instructions. In fact, RNA strands actually resist and are not amenable to becoming folded.

THE RNA WORLD IS A FRAUD

In summary, the theory of an RNA world, and the meager evidence which has been marshaled in support, fails to explain the origins of RNA, or ribozymes, or DNA, except through circular reasoning and through the creation of an alternate reality which does not obey the basic laws of genetics or thermodynamics. Everything we know about RNA and viruses refutes any possibility that this imaginary RNA world every existed. if we accept the premise of an RNA-world, it would appear that at best the end result would be the formation of an imperfectly created RNA molecule. However, these RNA-entities, like viral organisms, could not have given rise to DNA, and would have been unable to replicate without the assistance of various DNA-based life forms. Although numerous laboratories have attempted to prove otherwise, and although there has been some success in experimentally manipulating RNA and ribozymes so as to engage in catalytic and synthesizing activity, RNA cannot generate or make copies of itself (that is, without experimental assistance) and it cannot generate DNA.

Neither RNA or DNA have been created from a random mixture of chemicals. Although individual bases can be synthesized under precisely controlled laboratory conditions, the fact remains, only DNA produces DNA, and those cells which are devoid of DNA such as RNA equipped viruses are incapable of reproducing except via a DNA intermediary.

Like the organic soup, the RNA World is a fraud based on the supernatural and magical thinking.

As only life can produce life, and as the young Earth was devoid of all the essential ingredient, we must conclude that the first living creatures to appear on Earth, must have come from other planets.

Our ancestors, and their DNA, journeyed here from the stars.

Life on Earth, came from other planets.





The Origin of Life, Evolution & Metamorphosis.

Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D.

For thousands of years humans have gazed into the heavens pondering the nature of existence, asking: "How did life begin?" "Are there people on other planets?" "Are we alone in the vastness of the cosmos?" Humans have long stared into the abyss and the abyss has stared back. Answers and explanations have ranged from religious beliefs in a creator god, to the magical thinking of modern day scientists who embrace a theology of miracles: preaching that life came from non-life in a supernatural organic soup. The likelihood that life and its DNA emerged from an organic soup, or undersea thermal vent -at least on Earth- is the equivalent of discovering a computer on Jupiter and then arguing that it was randomly assembled in the Methane Sea. Only life can give rise to life. Only DNA can give rise to DNA--the machinery of life. Every attempt to prove otherwise has miserably failed. If life were to suddenly appear on a lifeless, desert island, we would not pretend it was randomly assembled in an organic soup, or created by the hand of god, but that it washed to shore or fell from the sky. The Earth too, is an island, orbiting in a sea of space, and living creatures, and their DNA, have been washing to shore and falling from the sky, since the Earth's creation. The first creatures on earth, came from other planets. For 800 million years after our planet's creation, the Earth was continually bombarded by gigantic meteors, asteroids, and mountains of frozen ice, with the first evidence of Earthly life, highly complex living creatures, appearing immediately thereafter. As only life can produce life, then the first creatures to appear on Earth must have been contained in that debris, and came from other planets. The evidence supporting this rather astounding proposition is extensive and is extensively documented and detailed in two scientific monographs reprinted by Cosmology.net:

1. Origins of Life: Life on Earth Came From other Planets

A)Our sun and solar system are the remnants of a vast star system which exploded in a huge supernova at over 5 billion years ago. Debris from the shattered remains of this star system gave birth to many new stars including our sun, the Earth, and solar system. The Earth was bombarded with debris from the ancient star for 700 million years with the first evidence of life appearing on the Earth and on Mars immediately thereafter. Some of the life from this ancient star system survived encased in planetary debris which was flung upon the surface of the new Earth.

This evidence includes fossils of past life found in A) three meteors from Mars, B) five meteors which originated outside the solar system, and C) three soil samples from the moon. In 1969, when a camera from the Surveyor 3 was retrieved from the lunar surface and returned to Earth, it was found to be coated with "organic material of unknown origin" and a single dormant microbe was discovered inside.

Life can exist in almost any environment, from the freezing to boiling, flourishing at the bottom of the frigid Antarctic ocean, or in liquid fire under 9,0000 crushing pounds of ocean pressure. When threatened with death, life becomes dormant, and may awaken even after 250 million years have passed. Since life exists everywhere on Earth, it is reasonable to assume life can exist anywhere in the cosmos.

2. The Evolution of Life From other Planets

The first creatures on Earth..(and their DNA), came from other planets. These includes archae and bacteria which transferred genes to what became the first Earthly multicellular eukaryote. Genes can also be transferred laterally and horizontally between the same and different species, so that different species can come to possess the same gene and the same trait. DNA acts on itself and modifies and alters the environment. The modified environment acts on gene selection to activate "silent" genes and "silent" genetic traits which exist a priori. These first creatures on Earth, and their DNA then labored to alter the environment so as to engineer their own evolution. Once the environment was sufficiently engineered, these silent genes and the traits they code for were expressed in distinct and separate species. As these "silent" genes/ traits are inherited and were passed down from ancestral species, then these genes and traits must have been inherited from creatures that "evolved" on other planets.

Conclusion: Life on Earth, and its DNA, originated on other planets. DNA acts to modify the environment to engineer its own evolution and the activation of traits and genes which exist a priori; i.e. "evolutionary metamorphosis."

Life on Earth came from other planets.

*****

Throughout the ages, and as is true today, some of what has passed for "scientific fact" has been based on faith and dogma; which is why the temple priests of science often protect the faith, and the status quo, by attacking and ridiculing those heretics who threaten to topple and shatter the altars of their idols. The dustbins of history are laden with discarded "scientific facts" and those who believed in them(Kuhn, 1970). Until the 16th century, it was a "fact" that the Earth was at the center of the solar system and the universe. Until the 19th century it was scientific "fact" that "rocks do not fall from the sky" and that meteors did not exist. Until the 20th century, it was scientific "fact" that interstellar space was permeated by a viscous "ether." In the 1920s, articles and editorials appeared in leading scientific journals ridiculing those rocketeers who dreamed of soaring through space, explaining that it was a scientific "fact " that rockets would be unable to propel themselves beyond the Earth because of the lack of atmosphere or air. Until the year 2000, it was a scientific fact that the speed of light was a constant and that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light.

And all these "scientific facts" have been proved false.

Now we are told that life emerged from an organic soup, and then evolved following the natural selection of "random mutations." And yet, the proverbial organic "alphabet" soup was missing all essential ingredients, including DNA. There was no organic soup, at least not on Earth.

The theory of the organic soup is a myth, based on a theology of miracles. There is absolutely no evidence in support of this theory. Rather, this myth has been repeatedly disproved. And yet, the Temple priests of science continue to bow down and worship at this altar, which is little more than a religion masquerading as science.

And yet, despite the fact there is absolutely no evidence which supports the "organic soup" the scientific establishment clings to this view, claiming they "may soon cook it up in the lab."

May? Perhaps? Hopefully? Someday soon? This isn't science. Science is based on evidence, not faith in miracles. Every attempt to create life from non-life has failed.

By contrast, there is evidence of past life on 3 meteors from Mars, 15 meteors which originated outside the solar system, and evidence of fossils and life recovered from the moon.

The Organic soup is a myth. Life on Earth originated on other planets.

Given the incredible chemical complexity of a single-celled creature, and its DNA, the magical belief that life may have been randomly created in an "organic soup" is the equivalent of discovering a computer on Mars, and claiming it was randomly assembled in the Methane sea.

Only life can give rise to life.

If life were to suddenly appear on a lifeless, desert island, we would not pretend it was randomly assembled in an organic soup, or created by the hand of god, but that it washed to shore or fell from the sky.

The Earth too, is an island, orbiting in a sea of space, and living creatures, and their DNA, have been washing to shore and falling from the sky, since the Earth's creation.

Life can exist in almost any environment, from the freezing to boiling, flourishing at the bottom of the frigid Antarctic ocean, or in liquid fire under 9,0000 crushing pounds of ocean pressure. When threatened with death, life becomes dormant, and may awaken even after 250 million years have passed. Since life exists everywhere on Earth, it is reasonable to assume life can exist anywhere in the cosmos.

The genetic seeds of life swarm throughout the cosmos, and these genetic "seeds," these living creatures, fell to Earth, encased in stellar debris which pounded the planet for 700 millions years after the creation.

Nor has life "evolved" randomly, but in a highly predictable, molecular-clock like fashion. There are in fact, genes (e.g., tim, mTim, hTIM) and proteins which perform specific "clock-like" timing functions and which interact to form regulatory feedback loops, and these are highly regulated (Clayton et al., 2001). There is nothing random about the organization or expression of DNA (Caron et al., 2001; Courseaux & Nahon, 2001), the source of all variation.

And just as DNA contains the genetic instructions for the creation of an embryo, neonate, child, and adult, and just as modern day microbes contain "human genes" which have contributed to the evolution of the human genome, these "seeds," these living creatures, contained the DNA-instructions for the metamorphosis of all life, including woman and man.

DNA acts to purposefully modify the environment, which acts on gene selection, so as to fulfill specific genetic goals: the dispersal and activation of silent DNA and the replication of life forms that long ago lived on other planets.

The history of science is a history of scientific revolutions, where established, authoritative scientific dogma finally crumbles from the weight of unwieldy, disconfirming evidence that can no longer be suppressed or ignored and which continues to grow until it completely undermines the beliefs and the authority of the ruling status quo. The history of scientific revolutions always entails a complete paradigm shift in scientific thought and belief; ushered in by those revolutionaries who dared to challenge the ruling authorities and the high priests of science.

The next revolution has begun...

Life on Earth Came From Other Planets