Can
natural processes explain the origin of life?
Can
natural processes explain the origin of life?
“…Some evolutionists, realizing the
improbability of the spontaneous generation of life, suggest that life started
somewhere else in the universe and arrived on earth somehow. The problem with
this idea is that it cannot be tested and it just pushes the problem from earth
to another planet. Experiments conducted by Stanley Miller in the early 1950s
produced some of the basic building blocks of life, but what conclusions can be
drawn from the experiments? Relying on an intelligently designed procedure and
apparatus, Miller succeeded in producing a few of the 20 amino acids found in
living things. One of the major problems for the origin of life is the presence
of oxygen. Oxygen would tend to destroy the organic compounds needed for life,
but if oxygen were absent, the atmosphere would lack an ozone layer to shield
the compounds from ultraviolet rays—a Catch-22 for evolutionists. Miller
excluded oxygen from his experiment, though today the evidence points to the
presence of oxygen in the atmosphere throughout earth’s history. Starting in
water is also a problem since water tends to break the bonds of some amino acids
and prevents them from forming chains. Miller isolated the products in order to
avoid this destructive reaction.
Another significant problem is that the amino acids in living things, 20 of the
over 2,000 types, are found in left- and right-handed forms called “enantiomers.”
Miller’s experiment produced a racemic mixture (equal left- and right-handed
forms) that is detrimental to life—proteins in living things contain only
left-handed amino acids (with few exceptions). No natural process is known that
makes only left-handed amino acids. The question now is, “Did Miller’s
experiments really produce the basic building blocks of life?” Since they
produced a mixture of a few amino acids, the answer is clearly “No.”
Can natural processes explain the origin of life?
Riddle.
Response to comment [from a Christian]: “...[S]cience only admits to evolution or half of the process...”
Since scientists accept that the environment used in the Miller experiment never existed, why is it still included in the textbooks as an explanation for how components of life may have formed?
