I'm going to discuss some parts of brother steve/Abdul Fattah's article on abiogenesis [life coming from non life] so its easier to understand the weaknesses in the study, which is used by many to support the claim that life can come from non life.
Its already self explanatory, but it can get abit complicated for someone who doesn't know too much about the topic. So its aimed at people who don't have much knowledge on science (and might fear to get in debate). Insha Allah it'll help you on replying to people who might themselves not know the weaknesses in their own arguments.
the full article can be accessed here;
http://seemyparadigm.webs.com/evolution.htmLets StartFirst of all - abiogenesis is more closer to hypothesis than real scientific proof.
Hypothesis is;
- a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in ...
- guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
So this theory is not really scientific FACT. It's a concept which scientists are
trying to prove, but it isn't yet proven [as we will see below insha Allah.]
Intro to Miller's StudyThe famous study which is always stated to prove that life can come from non life is Miller's Study, the brother summarises the study in three sentences;
In 1953 the Miller-Urey experiment was conducted that attempted to mimic the conditions on earth during the time life originated. They mixed water and hydrogen as well as methane and ammonia. Then they used electrodes to emit electrical charges into the mixture. After several days of continuously charging the mixture with sparks, they managed to get about 2% of amino acids.
Miller tried to imitate the early earths atmosphere, and like he said - a small amount [2%] of amino acids (which are building blocks for proteins, which are building blocks for life) were produced. But
harmful substances were also produced in the experiment; tar and carboxylic acids.
Tar is harmful to organic matter [amino acids are organic] because; Tar contains hosts of poly nuclear aromatics, toxic heavy metals, naphthenic acids, benzene and fused benzenoid type materials which are declared toxic by EPA-USA(Google it). Tar is a carcinogen which can damage genes (and therefore could destroy any DNA produced.) Also Tar can coat organic matter stopping light and water getting to the organic matter..as the carboxy groups above - therefore stopping life.
Harmful carboxylic acids are dangerous for amino acids because they react with the amino groups on the amino acids. So amino acids react with the Carboxylic acids, forming it into amides and amino carboxylates. So in this case, the amino acids can't be used to form into proteins, since they've reacted and become amides and amino carboxylates.
But since a small amount of amino acids were produced in the experiment, lets say for arguments sake that they survived the harmful substances, and lets move forward.
Amino acids are the building blocks of life - but the experiment doesn't show how they formed into ProteinsWhat are amino acids? Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins , which if formed together in the right way - will form proteins, and proteins form into tissues, and tissues can become muscles, muscles wrap around bone and nerves to become organs (i.e. an arm, heart etc.), and lots of functioning/working organs become an organism (a being i.e. an animal.)
So one question which we already get in our mind is that if amino acids do form through the experiment, how do they later on form in the correct way to become useful proteins? The experiment doesn't answer that question. So already, this experiment does not explain how life originates. You are justified to deny abiogenesis and are not going against science if you do so, because science has not proved its reality yet.
DNA & Proteins need each other for reproduction, so which one came first?First, for a 'living' cell to exist, or pass its genes on to future generations - it needs DNA. Without DNA, it can't pass on its 'genes' to the future generation. Your DNA contains ALL your body information, such as your physical attributes (i.e. hair colour, eye colour etc. to how tall you would be.) That's why you share your DNA to your parents, since its their genes which pass onto you - which make up your DNA. If they never had DNA, they wouldn't exist, therefore they wouldn't be able to pass any genes onto you - so you wouldn't exist.
RNA is similar to DNA, except that its one strand (of nucleotides) instead of two strands (of nucleotides) coiled together (which is DNA).
[DNA is usually in animals, and RNA is usually in viruses etc.]
Anyway;
The biggest challenge to the [abiogenesis] theory is DNA or RNA. And without it, there can be no evolution, without it no progress of previous life can be past down. And without passing down information, you cannot build up something, you cannot have an evolution. Since all living things have RNA or DNA, abiogenesists would expect the very first alive being to have it as well..Those molecules however are immensely complex. So the biggest challenge to abiogenesis is explaining how it could have formed spontaneously out of lifeless matter.
Organisms carry genetic information in these nucleic acids; in their RNA or DNA. This information is then used to specify the composition of the amino acid sequences of all the proteins each cell needs to make. The cell also relies on organelles built out of proteins to replicate DNA or RNA during cell-division. So these proteins are required for self-perpetuation. So the question is: How did such a circular system come to existence? This is a real paradox.
So the brother is explaining that;
DNA cannot come into existence by itself because it's made up of nucleic acids (which are made with the help of proteins). But proteins can't be made except with the DNA telling the amino acids to be in the correct sequence to form into useful proteins.
DNA cannot be reproduced unless it has a cell membrane that it can reside in and other organelles [which are made of proteins] enter this cell, which aid it in reproducing itself [like a factory holding together the workers and the boss (DNA) telling the cell what to do]. The cell relies on organelles built out of proteins to replicate DNA or RNA during cell-division. The problem is though, that proteins can only be made with DNA.
So what came first? DNA or Proteins? Since the proteins [organelles] are required to reproduce the DNA in a cell, and DNA is required to produce proteins.
That's a Paradox, one cannot be produced without the other. So this is a BIG question mark on the study of abiogenesis, since both DNA and Proteins are extremely complex to have formed by themselves.
If someone was to argue that they did form together or independently, then they need to provide scientific studies to show that this is possible. As of now, there has been no scientific studies or results to prove this to be a reality (with Miller only showing that a small amount of amino acids can be made).
Life 'could' have originated through abiogenesis, but its too complicated to be a certainty.
In the near past people would argue against abiogenesis by saying that cells are way too complicated (with small organelles within it and a nucleus - like a working factory which allows the cell to function in its role well and make copies of itself). So scientists put forward the idea that the first cell probably never had organelles with it, but rather - organelles formed on the planet [through abiogenesis] and moved into a cell membrane, the DNA also got into the cell - and the cell was able to make copies of itself and evolve into more advanced organisms over time.
Note: Scientists have been able to produce Cell Membranes lately (cell membranes are made up of fat/lipids) and the procedure isn't too complicated, and is scientifically possible [this is what you usually see in the big science headlines when they argue they're getting closer to making 'life'.]. But the production of cell membranes isn't the biggest problem for them, since the complexity of Design is in support of a believer in God more than an atheist.
Due to this, some atheists have explained that we cannot be certain of how life really originated, but they are trying to find out how it could have possibly originated. But can't a theist then argue that life could originate the way their scripture states? i.e. both depend on faith since both are events which science has not proved yet.
Left Handed Isomers are only useful in biology There are two types of amino acids, left handed and right handed (isomers) [Imagine your left hand and right hand - they're the same - but the total mirror opposite of each other]. In biology, only left handed ones are present from the most simple of biological organisms to the most complex [for plants and animals]. There are no right handed amino acids which can be used, and if they were to get involved - they wouldn't just be unuseful, but they would destroy the organism itself. [img]http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh162/speed2kx/199-1.jpg[/img] http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh162/speed2kx/199-1.jpg So since amino acids are required to produce proteins, and atheists say they formed coincidentally into the correct sequences and formed into useful proteins (for life), that 'coincidence' isn't enough, but there cannot even be ONE right handed amino acid which gets involved in this sequencing - otherwise the whole organism will be destroyed. But someone can argue that yes, left handed ones were only present and this is why there was no harm in amino acids coming together to form into the correct proteins. The problem is though that in Millers Study, there were BOTH left handed AND right handed (amino acids/isomers) produced equally. (Search Racemic mixture) So the 'coincidence' of the amino acids being left handed only, without allowing even one right handed amino acid [isomer] to get involved in its sequencing is impossible. There is not even one natural selection mechanism which will allow any right handed amino acids to be removed - if it was to find any in its sequencing - instead it would be totally destroyed and the whole process of abiogenesis would have to start all over again to 'create' life, but again - the same problems would arise on this issue.. In other words, its like tossing a coin thousands of times and only getting heads (or left handed isomers only.) It's simply impossible unless someone was to control it purposelly this way. Nucleotides of DNA can only be right handed isomers If you're surprised about this, then you should also know that the nucleotides which make up the DNA can only be made up of right handed isomers, and no left handed isomers. Otherwise, if a left handed isomer nucleotide got involved in the make up of DNA, it would be destroyed altogether in a similar way. http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_04.htmlOrganelles Entering a 'Closed' cell?But lets say that cell membranes could form in the early earth atmosphere - as science has shown. And lets - for arguments sake - accept that the complex protein organelles are formed on the planet [although the first point about DNA & Proteins complexity and its paradox refutes this claim]. The question still comes up; how did this cell membrane open up to allow DNA, and even the organelles to enter it? Remember that the cell membrane is just made up of fat/lipids. It doesn't have anything extra special about it to know what to do. It can't say to itself 'open up' because it doesn't have anything to tell it to do that.
So how did these organelles or even the DNA enter into this cell membrane? The cell membrane is required because this is the location where the DNA, and the organelles work together to allow the cell to function. The cell membrane is what protects all these organelles and DNA together and keeps them in place so they don't spill or move away somewhere else outside the cell.
The only way the cell could allow other things to enter it is if it had 'receptors' - which could recognise to accept good things to enter it [i.e. organelles] and to leave the harmful things out (which could potentially destroy the cell). But scientists have not produced any cells which have receptors [they've only made cells which are closed and don't let anything to go in/out of them.] The cell membrane wouldn't even have anything to tell it to open or close since fats by themselves cannot do such a thing. The only reasons cells can do this today is because they have organelles within them which do allow this to occur. A fatty/lipid membrane by itself can't do such a thing.
So how was the first cell able to reproduce itself when all the different required components (cell membrane, organelles & DNA) were separate from each other? And furthermore, they couldn't enter a cell membrane - which is required for the cell to function & make copies of itself [cell division.]
People sometimes argue that earlier cells were much more simple and less complicated than the cells today, but even then - that does not answer how DNA and organelles entered into the cell membrane in the first place to allow it to make copies of itself and advance onto a more advanced organism.
Lightning strikes the same spot continuously for a whole week?This is what happened in Miller's study, he placed electrodes in his mixture to charge up the mixture for a few days to a week. These electrodes were taking the place of lightning in the early earth atmosphere, with the lightning striking the location where the abiogenesis would be occurring.
So the question is; is this is really possible? Can lightning really hit the same spot continuously for days upon days? I believe its impossible. There's a famous saying that 'lightning doesn't hit the same spot twice'. But for a whole week continuously?
Another angle to looking at it
-panspermia-* is even more far fetched. Rather then only suggesting lightning struck at the exact same spot for a whole week, it also suggest that a meteor carrying amino acids also hit the very same spot. Now it is true that some meteors carry amino acids and that under unique circumstances the impact could cause peptides. But these peptides are short chains of amino acids, not the long proteins necessary for life. Furthermore it's even more unlikely considering not just any meteor would fit the bill. It has to be exactly the right size. Not to small so it doesn't burn up in the atmosphere destroying the amino acids, and not to big so the impact isn't to destructive either. At the same time delivering enough energy for the chemical process to take place. Also note, that this shifts part of the problem. It's true that some meteors carry amino acids, but how did those amino acids form in the meteor in the first place? This simply avoids the problem of having to explain how these molecules were formed trough natural processes.
*The hypothesis that "seeds" of life exist already all over the Universe, that life on Earth may have originated through these "seeds", and that they may deliver or have delivered life to other habitable bodies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
Time doesn't matter if the right components (and conditions) are met for it to take place
Now, often people reply that this experiment only lasted a couple of days or a week, whereas the earth existed millions of years for this process to take place. But how does this change anything? The experiment was a controlled structured environment, whereas earth was an open unstructured chaotic environment, if anything the experiment should bring forth life a lot faster then the earth did, that is off course, if abiogenesis would be true.
But let me expose the flaw in this counterargument by making a comparison. Lets say mankind cannot run 100m in 3.2 sec. We are simply unable to do so. Now if a track would run a stretch of 100m on a track of 200m or 300m or even 1000m; that would still not enable anyone to run those 100m of that track in 3.2 sec. In other words the length of the track -as long as it is longer then 100 meter- hardly affects the possibility of the performance because the additional length has no bearing on the likeliness of the performance. Likewise; the many years that the universe existed, and the many planets that were suitable for this process to occur does not influence the likeliness of such a process to be possible. If a process that should take 5 minutes cannot occur in a week, it cannot occur in a million years either. The amount of time available, as long as it is enough, doesn't make the chemically impossible into probable. Just putting ingredients together and stirring it up doesn’t suffice. That’s as ludicrous as saying that if you shake a box of Lego blocks long enough, eventually the building blocks in the box will spontaneously construct the house that is displayed on the front of the box.
The last two sentences also clarify that even if small amounts of amino acids are produced, it doesn't explain how they would form into proteins and more advanced organisms. Then he gives the example of shaking a Lego box and expecting pieces to join together to make a working model. i.e. in this case of an organism.
Summary Conclusion So Miller's study, nor science answer some BIG questions on how life really originated. Yes, it explains that an extremely small amount of amino acids could have formed in the early atmosphere, but that isn't enough. Why?
Amino Acids:
- Because Amino Acids being produced in a small quantity (2%), by themselves are not sufficient to prove that life actually came from them. Furthermore, they were surrounded by harmful substances (tar and harmful carboxylic acids) which could actually destroy the amino acids produced and prevent them from advancing on to become proteins. And one step further, how did these amino acids become proteins? There is no answer for this in science, nor in the study, so its hypothesis only - therefore not fact, and therefore not proved science.
DNA, Proteins & the Cell Membrane;
- DNA and Proteins can't form without the aid of the other. So which one came first? Proteins can't be made without DNA, and DNA can't be copied without proteins [organelles within a cell to allow it to reproduce itself]. If someone was to argue that they were made independently, thats even more exaggerated and even more unlikely because of their extreme complexity - even on the smallest scale.
- Even if the DNA, organelles [which have not been produced by scientists], and cell membrane (which has been made by scientists) were produced for the sake of argument - how would they [the DNA, organelles] enter the cell which has no receptors to allow anything good (i.e. organelles, DNA) or even anything harmful to enter it?
Left Handed Isomers are only common in biologyRight handed isomers/amino acids can't get involved in the makeup of the proteins, otherwise the whole organism will be destroyed. Since Stanley Miller produced both right and left handed isomers in his early environment, and only left handed isomers are used in biology for living beings, the probability of only left handed beings being produced is extremely low, since right amino acids will always get involved - and therefore destroy anything which could potentially be produced.
Electrodes & Lightning;Electrodes were placed in the original mixture to take the place of lightning which would charge the mixture for some days continuously. But the reality is that lightning doesn't hit the same spot continuously for a whole week. So this questions the experiments validity, since real life is not really like this.
Time doesn't matter if the right conditions are met for it to take place;If abiogenesis can occur within a certain environment with the right conditions, but it doesn't - the amount of time doesn't matter. The fact that it doesn't happen - when it can - questions its validity.
There are much more valid points and questions raised within the original article
But the above is sufficient insha Allah.
PDF
