Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

SORRY, DARWIN - CHEMISTRY NEVER MADE THE TRANSITION TO BIOLOGY

Expand Messages
  • Bhakti Niskama Shanta
    All Glories to Sri Guru and Sri Gauranga SORRY, DARWIN: - CHEMISTRY NEVER MADE THE TRANSITION TO BIOLOGY byBhakti Niskama Shanta Swami, Ph.D.
    Message 1 of 5 , Dec 3, 2012
      All Glories to Sri Guru and Sri Gauranga
      SORRY, DARWIN: - CHEMISTRY NEVER MADE THE TRANSITION TO BIOLOGY
      byBhakti Niskama Shanta Swami, Ph.D.
      <http://www.mahaprabhu.net/scsmath.siliguri> Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Math
      <http://www.mahaprabhu.net/scsmath.siliguri>
      <http://www.mahaprabhu.net/scsmath.siliguri>
      <http://www.mahaprabhu.net/scsmath.siliguri> [Sorry Darwin]
      Table of Contents
      1. Abstract <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnAbstract>
      2. Introduction
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnIntroduction>
      3. Primordial Bombardments Dumped in Darwin's `Warm Little
      Pond' <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnBombardments>
      4. Chemical Evolution Cannot Ride a Substantially Incredible Barbed
      Ladder <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnChemical>
      5. `Primordial Soup' with an Impossible Recipe!
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnSoup>
      5.1 Thermodynamics disagreement with Miller's trick
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnThermodynamics>
      5.2 Chemistry fails to convene the demands of biology in primordial soup
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnChemistry>
      5.3 Reducing environment fiasco
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnReducing>
      6. Polymerization Riddle
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnPolymerization>
      7. Pre-RNA World – A Jumbled and Gloomy Pathway to
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnPre-RNA>
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/Pre-RNA_World.html> RNA
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/Pre-RNA_World.html>
      8. The RNA World Reverie
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnRNA>
      9. DNA/Protein World Dilemma
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnDNA>
      10. Primitive Cell – A Miniaturized Walled City at Work
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnCell>
      10.1 Centre of unabated conflict: `metabolism first' or
      `replication first'?
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnmetabolism>
      10.2 How a primitive cell developed its skin?
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnskin>
      10.3 What collectively linked the components in the first living cell?
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnlink>
      11. Future Research Suggestions to Prevail Over the Fundamental Mistake
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnMistake>
      11.1 Biology is misconceived as an amalgamation of physics and chemistry
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnBiology>
      11.2 21st century biology – View of organism as a sentient system
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnSentience>
      12. Conclusions
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnConclusions>
      13. Acknowledgements
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnAcknowledgements>
      14. References <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnReferences>
      About the Author <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/bns.html>
      Abstract <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnrefAbstract>

      The term biology is of Greek origin meaning the study of life. On the
      other hand, chemistry is the science of matter, which deals with matter
      and its properties, structure, composition, behavior, reactions,
      interactions and the changes it undergoes. The theory of abiogenesis
      maintains that chemistry made a transition to biology in a primordial
      soup. To keep the naturalistic `inanimate molecules to human
      life' evolution ideology intact, scientists must assemble billions
      of links to bridge the gap between the inanimate chemicals that existed
      in the primordial soup and anatomically modern humans. Even though the
      proponents of a natural origin of life expressed much optimism for
      providing their theories, presently there is a detailed compilation of
      information seriously questioning this doctrine. This reductionistic
      ideology has always failed to answer two simple questions: (1) What is
      the minimum number of parts that are essential for a living organism to
      survive? (2) By what mechanism do these parts get assembled together?
      Evolutionists say a series of prebiotic processes and developments guide
      networks of dynamically linked small molecules and amphiphiles to form
      biological macromolecules, membraneous compartments, and finally
      primitive cells. However, none of these proposed pathways to life
      appears to be credible. The continuous advancement in various fields of
      science are not only providing major challenges to reductionistic
      ideology but are supplying increasing evidence for a systemic concept of
      life as an organic whole. Several leading researchers in the field of
      `origin of life' are continually concluding that there are major
      scientific problems attached with all existing naturalistic `origin
      of life' hypothesis. Only by taking into account all biological
      activities collectively as a system can a satisfactory elucidation of
      the living state be realized. In this present paper an attempt has been
      made to present a few significant challenges to the theory of
      abiogenesis based on the peer reviewed scientific literature.
      Subsequently, a non-reductionistic concept of life as a system is
      proposed as an alternative for resolving some of the problems inherent
      in origin of life research.

      Introduction
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnrefIntroduction>

      The `spontaneous generation of life' hypothesis includes a
      conspicuous history of unrelenting derision from several prominent
      personalities in science. At various times in its history,
      `spontaneous generation' has been identified by two different
      concepts. They are: (a) abiogenesis, and (b) heterogenesis. Abiogenesis
      is the field of science dedicated to study how life might have arisen
      spontaneously for the first time from inorganic chemicals. On the other
      hand, the notion that life can arise from dead organic matter, such as
      the appearance of maggots from decaying meat is known as heterogenesis.
      For a long time major western thinkers like Newton, Harvey, Descartes
      and von Helmont accepted heterogenesis with full confidence.

      Francesco Redi by his experiments demonstrated that meat placed under a
      screen of muslin never developed maggots. The works of Schulze, Schwann,
      von Dusch and Schroeder provided significant challenges to
      heterogenesis, and finally in 1864 Louis Pasteur's famous swan-neck
      flask experiment sounded the death knell for this theory. Pasteur
      famously stated that "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous
      generation recover from the mortal blow of this simple
      experiment".[1] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn1>

      However, soon after establishment of Pasteur's famous biogenesis
      theory, the reductionist school proposed an even more intricate and
      incredible form of spontaneous generation – abiogenesis. This
      hypothesis gathered its support mainly due to the collapse of the false
      dilemma of organic and inorganic matter (synthesis of urea in 1828 by
      Wohler), and the development of the concept of conservation of
      energy.[2] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn2>
      The modern form of chemical evolution theory began to develop following
      the proposal by Russian biochemist A.I. Oparin.[3]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn3> According to this
      claim, complex molecular arrangements and functions of living systems
      evolved from simpler molecules that preexisted on the lifeless,
      primitive earth. Thus, abiogenesis provided an ideal sense of balance to
      Darwinian evolution theory, requiring billions of years to go from dead
      atoms and molecules to cells, and then, via random mutation or natural
      selection, from cells to the varieties of living beings present today.

      Abiogenesis was popular for years as an explanatory theory of
      self-assembly as the starting point for chemical evolution. Recently
      however, the abiogenesis hypothesis has been experiencing critical
      shortcomings and rapid advancements in cellular biology have led
      biologists to seriously doubt the veracity of this hypothesis. The
      present article aims at summarizing a few crucial scientific facts,
      which are leading us towards a paradigm shift in our understanding of
      the ontogenesis of life.

      Primordial Bombardments Dumped in Darwin's `Warm Little
      Pond' <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnrefBombardments>

      Charles Darwin (1809 –1882) proposed an elucidation for life's
      origin that complimented his evolution theory. In a famous letter[4]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn4> to his botanist friend
      Joseph D. Hooker in 1871, he stated

      "It is often said that all the conditions for the first production
      of a living organism are now 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 such matter would be
      instantly devoured, which would not have been the case before living
      creatures were formed."

      For more than one hundred years this idea of Darwin's was accepted
      dogmatically as scientists were ignorant about the primordial
      bombardments. In recent times however, scientists have come to believe
      that the earth's first billion years witnessed murderous
      bombardments by large projectiles.[5]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn5> -[7]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn7> Many
      leading scientists in the field of `the origin of life' now feel
      that the hostile conditions of early earth warrant a total
      reconsideration of this preceding conviction. James Kasting, who chaired
      a Gordon Conference on the origin of life, and who was coauthor of one
      of the key papers dealing with the early bombardment, says that "The
      field is in ferment." An additional apparent confirmation of the
      same can be found from the first two paragraphs of the article
      `Goodbye to the Warm Little Pond?'[8]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn8> , published in Science
      magazine:



      "Ever since 1871, when Charles Darwin made his oft-quoted allusion
      to life's beginnings in a "warm little pond," scientists
      have tended to imagine the origin of life as being a rather tranquil
      affair-something like a quiet afternoon in a country kitchen, with a
      rich organic soup of complex carbon compounds simmering slowly in the
      sunlight until somehow they became living protoplasm.



      Sorry, Charles. Your Warm Little Pond was a beautiful image. It's
      been enshrined in innumerable textbooks as the scientific theory of the
      origin of life. But to hear the planetary scientists talking these days,
      you were dead wrong. The Warm Little Pond never existed."



      Consequently, numerous new speculations are attempting to provide
      different explanation for the location of the origin of life on earth.
      There are several suggestions ranging from life beginning in deep sea
      thermal vents to bacterial life arriving from other places in the
      universe (Panspermia). Some of these hypotheses may be more credible
      than others, but it is an astringent fact that scientists have no
      existent evidence about the possible location for the first life on
      earth. Science magazine also outspokenly substantiated that science has
      no concrete answer to the question of how and where did life on earth
      arise?[9] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn9>

      Chemical Evolution Cannot Ride a Substantially Incredible Barbed Ladder
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnrefChemical>

      The chemistry of prebiotic worlds is used on the opposite side of the
      defining moment for life, when Darwinian evolution theorized it first
      started functioning. It is perhaps impractical that even the simplest
      existing cells could have evolved spontaneously, even more so that
      exceptionally complex modern life forms could have done so. To keep
      chemical evolution alive, chemists and biologists are utilizing the
      early earth data provided by geologists and astronomers and are
      proposing numerous hypotheses in support of chemical evolution. Chemists
      select the likely prebiotic environment projected by geologists and
      study probable pathways for how organic molecules and biomolecules could
      be manufactured in such an environment, how they might have interacted,
      and how this might lead to more complex living systems. Biologists more
      often than not see biomolecules in a slightly different context,
      starting from the high complexity of a modern organism and searching for
      the vital biological cycles and interactions and then trying to find how
      something alike but much more simple might have evolved. The open
      literature is escalating with theories on the origin of life.[10]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn10> Different theories
      claim different starting points. For example, some propose that life
      originated with template replicating polymers,[11]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn11> pyrites,[12]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn12> thioesters,[13]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn13> clays,[14]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn14> ,[15]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn15> polypeptides,[16]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn16> -[19]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn19> and the claims are
      neither complete nor ending. Also, there is an ever increasing list of
      speculations on the site of the origin of earth's first life. For
      example, life originated in an oceanic thick soup,[16]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn16>
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn16>
      hydrothermal vents,[12]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn12>
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn12>
      microscopic confinements,[16]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn16>
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn16> -[18]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn18> , and again
      the speculations are neither complete nor ending. From the scrupulous
      reviews[20] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn20> ,[21]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn21> we can realize the
      impractical range of speculative chemical evolution theories back from
      the chemistry of the existent cellular metabolism to the chemistry of
      the prebiotic world. The sections below present the vulnerable state of
      the theory of chemical evolution and its failure in outdoing the steps:
      (1) Prebiotic synthesis – Primordial soup, (2) Polymerization, (3)
      Pre-RNA World, (4) RNA world, (5) DNA/Protein world, and (6) Primitive
      cell.

      `Primordial Soup' with an Impossible Recipe!
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnrefSoup>

      Following Oparin,[3]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn3> in 1929
      John Haldane proposed that in a reducing primitive atmosphere and with a
      suitable supply of energy, such as lightning or ultraviolet light, a
      wide range of organic compounds might be synthesized.[22]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn22> According to Haldane,
      the primordial sea was the source of a vast chemical laboratory
      motorized by solar energy. Haldane explained that, in due course of
      time, the sea turned into a `hot diluted soup' containing large
      populations of organic monomers and polymers. The term `prebiotic
      soup' was coined by Haldane, and is well-known as
      Oparin-Haldane's view of the origin of life. In 1953 Stanley
      Miller[23] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn23> offered
      experimental support for the theory of prebiotic evolution. Miller
      experimentally produced amino acids such as glycine, alanine, aspartic
      acid, and glutamic acid by passing an electric discharge through a
      gaseous mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor. Thus, he
      suggested that the implausible complexity in the molecular organization
      of living cells might someway have been produced from nothing more than
      simple chemicals interacting at random in a primordial ocean. However,
      we will see below in the light of scientific developments that, such a
      claim is far from the truth.

      Thermodynamics disagreement with Miller's trick
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnrefThermodynamics>

      Oparin, Haldane, Miller and his successors suggested unguided energy as
      the means by which simple molecules can be organized into more complex
      molecules. However, from the law of nature or from the second law of
      thermodynamics we know that order that emerges from undirected external
      forces not only has a momentary disposition, but does not get bigger,
      unless a directed external exertion is supplied. Miller's
      explanations give us the impression that he may be ignorant about this
      fact. Random flashes of electricity used by Miller can transform simple
      molecules into more complex building blocks. But the very next moment,
      new electrical flashes supplied by him may destroy these same building
      blocks. The larger the building blocks, the faster they will be damaged.
      Hence, to protect building blocks from the destruction by new flashes of
      lightning, intelligent Miller guided the building blocks towards a
      distillation flask. In this manner clever Miller cooked a more and more
      concentrated organic soup. Who had performed this inelegant job of
      Miller's in the primordial earth?

      Chemistry fails to convene the demands of biology in
      primordial soup
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnrefChemistry>

      The building blocks of life formed in primordial soup exist only in
      extremely small amounts and decompose rapidly into a tar-like
      substance.[24] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn24> We know
      that, the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere blocks harmful ultraviolet
      radiation. However, ozone is composed of oxygen and is the biggest
      obstacle for the synthesis of building blocks of the life like the ones
      obtained from Miller's experiments. The chemistry does not function
      if there is oxygen, but if there is no ozone (O3) in the primordial
      atmosphere, the amino acids would be quickly destroyed by harmful
      ultraviolet radiation.[25]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn25> ,[26]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn26> Moreover,
      `chirality' in biology demands chemistry to supply
      `left-handed' amino acids and `right-handed' genetic
      molecules. However, most of the chemical reactions in nature (except
      living organism) yield `racemic' mixtures.[27]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn27>

      Reducing environment fiasco
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnrefReducing>

      The idea of the primitive reducing atmosphere has been severely
      challenged by the available data from geology, geophysics and
      geochemistry.[28] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn28> ,[29]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn29> There is no geologic
      evidence for either a reducing primitive atmosphere or an early earth
      containing large amounts of methane gas. Moreover, a quick disappearance
      of ammonia may take place, because the effective threshold for
      degradation by ultraviolet radiation is 2,250Å.[30]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn30> Also, a quantity of
      ammonia equivalent to the present atmospheric nitrogen would be
      destroyed in approximately 30,000 years.[31]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn31> Experiments confirm
      that irradiating a highly reducing atmosphere produces hydrophobic
      organic molecules that are absorbed by sedimentary clays. This indicates
      that the earliest rocks should have contained an extraordinarily large
      amount of carbon or organic chemicals. However, this is not supported by
      the observed data. Based on observations from the stratigraphical
      record, Davidson explained that there is no evidence that a primeval
      reducing atmosphere might have persisted during much of Precambrian
      time.[32] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn32> Theoretical
      calculation also confirms that dissociation of water vapor by
      ultraviolet light must have produced enough oxygen very early in the
      history of the earth to create an oxidizing atmosphere.[33]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn33>

      Now for many decades it is well known that the primordial environment
      was most likely not composed of methane or ammonia, and thus would not
      have been favorable to Miller-Urey type chemistry. David Deamer, an
      origin of life theorist says, "This optimistic picture began to
      change in the late 1970s, when it became increasingly clear that the
      early atmosphere was probably volcanic in origin and composition,
      composed largely of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than the mixture
      of reducing gases assumed by the Miller-Urey model. Carbon dioxide does
      not support the rich array of synthetic pathways leading to possible
      monomers..."[34] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn34>
      Jeffrey Bada and his co-researchers also echoed the similar statement:
      "Geoscientists today doubt that the primitive atmosphere had the
      highly reducing composition Miller used..."[35]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn35> Interestingly, it is
      reported in Earth and Planetary Science Letters that chemical properties
      have been effectively unvarying over earth's history, and thus
      concludes that "Life may have found its origins in other
      environments or by other mechanisms."[36]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn36> In 1996
      Miller himself stated, "We really don't know what the Earth was
      like three or four billion years ago. So there are all sorts of theories
      and speculations. The major uncertainty concerns what the atmosphere was
      like. This is a major area of dispute."[37]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn37> Many prominent
      scientists in recent time have discarded the Miller-Urey experiment and
      the `primordial soup' hypothesis it claimed to support. In 1990
      the Space Studies Board of the National Research Council suggested that
      origin of life scientists should undertake a "reexamination of
      biological monomer synthesis under primitive Earthlike environments, as
      revealed in current models of the early Earth."[38]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn38> In a review, Leslie
      Orgel has expressed that, "The relevance of all of this early work
      to the origin of life has been questioned because it now seems very
      unlikely that the Earth's atmosphere was ever as strongly reducing
      as Miller and Urey assumed."[39]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn39> In a recent NPR report
      biochemist Nick Lane states that the primordial soup theory is now
      expired.[40] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn40>

      However, this does not lead to an end to speculation on the chemical
      origin of life. Many new hypothetical primitive atmospheres have been
      proposed.[41] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn41> -
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn42> [44]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn44> It is also
      speculated that organic compounds required for the origin of life may
      have come from outer space, for instance interplanetary dust particles,
      comets, asteroids and meteorites.[45]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn45> However, the major
      question will be: was extraterrestrial organic material ever efficiently
      delivered intact to the Earth?[46]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn46> Scientists may
      continually arrive at many such alternative theories about the unknown
      past. However, updated science textbooks should at least inform new
      generations about this now-outmoded recipe of `primordial soup'.

      Polymerization Riddle
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnrefPolymerization>

      Polymerization is a necessary process for synthesizing complex organic
      molecules (polymers) from simple organic molecules (monomers). Biology
      demands chemistry to supply not just any polymers, but very specific
      ones. The natural synthesis of amino acids and the development of
      peptides under the early earth atmosphere is one of the big problems in
      abiogenesis.[47] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn47> The
      February 1998 special issue of Earth magazine also states that, "And
      even if Miller's atmosphere could have existed, how do you get
      simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the necessary
      chemical changes that will convert them into more complicated compounds,
      or polymers, such as proteins. Miller himself throws up his hands at
      that part of the puzzle. "It's a problem," he sighs with
      exasperation. "How do you make polymers? That's not so
      easy.""[48] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn48>

      Polymerization yields water molecules as one of the end products along
      with polymers. Le Chatelier's Principle explains that the presence
      of a product (in present case, water) in the reaction medium will
      substantially slow the reaction. Darwinists proclaim that first life
      originated in water over a long span of time by a self-organization of
      molecules. The equilibrium concentration of biological polymers is
      sufficiently low and thus they have a propensity to break apart in
      water, not organize.[46]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn46>
      Consequently, an increase in time will only facilitate water to destroy
      the polymers. This crisis is one of the biggest headaches for the
      Darwinists.[49] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn49>

      To overcome this problem, polymerization in primordial earth requires
      dehydration synthesis. Because, the polymerization process needs an
      input of energy, some researchers proposed heating as a means to get rid
      of the water. However, many researchers including Miller himself
      reported that a hot prebiotic environment would accelerate the breakdown
      of biological polymers and hence this is not a suitable option for
      primordial biochemical synthesis.[50]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn50> ,[51]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn51>

      Scientists are not able to know how the earliest biopolymers were formed
      in the prebiotic Earth. The characteristics of such polymers are so
      distinctive that it is impossible to conjecture about their development.
      Scientists can only evidently attempt various methods to synthesize them
      under an assumed primordial-like environment. For instance chemists can
      only manufacture homopolymers or short co-oligopeptides, but not long
      co-polymeric chains.[52]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn52> -[57]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn57> The Merrifield method
      can be adopted to produce amino acid by amino acid, as identical
      co-polymers. However, this is not a prebiotic technique.[58]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn58> A range of remarkable
      reactions have been projected and considered in the prebiotic scenario.
      However, the questions, `how to produce long and chain specific
      polymers under possible prebiotic circumstances?', and `why a
      specific polymer chain was formed, and not a different one?' are
      still unanswered. Chiarabelli also confirms that, "…it is
      reasonable to agree with the statement, proposed by the editor, that we
      do not know, neither conceptually nor experimentally, how to make
      macromolecular sequences under prebiotic conditions."[59]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn59> Therefore, it appears
      to not be viable for scientists to overcome this polymerization riddle.

      Pre-RNA World – A Jumbled and Gloomy Pathway to RNA
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnrefPre-RNA>

      The primordial synthesis of self-replicating molecules is a further and
      more intricate problem than that of polymerization. In the 1980s
      Noble-prize winner Thomas R. Cech discovered self-replicating RNA
      molecules, and thus scientists started believing that RNA molecules
      could supply the satisfactory explanations for the transition of
      chemistry to biology in the primordial environments. However, soon
      researchers observed that there are too many problems with RNA for it to
      have been the molecule responsible for the transition from chemical to
      biological. As a result, scientists are now coming up with several new
      proposals for a variety of mechanisms and molecules by which the
      transition from chemical to biological can be explained in a world
      existing before RNA. In recent years the pre-RNA world concept created a
      great interest among the origin of life researchers, in spite of the
      absence of direction from known metabolic pathways in biology regarding
      the chemical nature of a predecessor to RNA.

      In 1966, Cairns-Smith came up with a drastic proposal supporting that
      the first appearance of life was not based on organic polymers at all,
      but rather on inorganic clays.[60]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn60> This model explained
      the partaking of inorganic clays in creating a replicating system
      capable of storing information. Information was represented by the
      distribution of charges or shapes along the surface of the clay. On the
      other hand, replication is meant to copy that information to newly
      formed clay layers. The role of natural selection comes into picture
      when the number of ions in a layer influences how quickly and
      efficiently the new layer can be made. Suggestions of these kinds not
      only force chemists to consider more broadly the nature of heritable
      chemical information, but challenge them to develop and provide
      experiments to investigate these proposals.

      Researchers then started the search for alternative genetic materials.
      For example, Eschenmoser has proposed a molecule called pyranosyl RNA
      (pRNA) that is very much correlated to RNA but incorporates a different
      edition of ribose.[61] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn61>
      In natural RNA, ribose contains a five member ring of four carbon atoms
      and one oxygen atom. On the other hand, Eschenmoser's ribose
      structure is rearranged to contain an additional carbon atom in the
      ring. Eschenmoser finds that complementary strands of pRNA can unite by
      typical Watson-Crick pairing to give double-strand units that allow a
      smaller amount of undesirable variations in structure than are
      achievable with normal RNA. Furthermore, the strands do not twist around
      each other, as they do in double strand RNA. In a pre-RNA world, where
      protein enzymes were absent, twisting could stop the strands from
      unraveling cleanly in replication process. Hence researchers believe
      that, pRNA appears superior and more suited for replication in a
      primordial environment than RNA itself. However, scientists have yet to
      discover an effortless means for synthesizing ribonucleotides containing
      a six-member sugar ring. Consequently, pRNA failed to gather sufficient
      experimental support to be considered a strong candidate.[62]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn62>

      In a very different approach, Nielsen and his team have used a computer
      model to design a peptide nucleic acid (PNA) that combines a
      protein-like backbone with nucleic acid bases for side chains.[63]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn63> Similar to RNA, one
      strand of PNA can combine soundly with a complementary strand. Like RNA,
      PNA may be able to act as a template for the building of its complement.
      Scientists are hopeful that perhaps PNA was involved in an early genetic
      system. Even though Aminoethylglycine has been synthesized in spark
      discharge reactions from nitrogen, ammonia, methane and water[64]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn64> , to date the prebiotic
      synthesis of an entire PNA monomer has not been achieved. Although PNA
      is non-chiral, it is vulnerable to cross-inhibition of the opposing
      enantiomers when directing the polymerization of activated
      D,L-ribonucleotide.[65] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn65>
      ,[66] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn66> In addition, PNA
      monomers can go through an intramolecular N-acyl transfer reaction that
      would stop any predictable mechanism for their polymerization.[67]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn67> Both pRNA and PNA
      dependent on Watson-Crick base pairs as the structural element that
      makes complementary pairing possible. Researchers engrossed in
      discovering simpler genetic systems are searching for complementary
      molecules that do not depend on nucleotide bases for template-directed
      copying. In reality, there is no encouraging evidence that polymers
      produced from such building blocks can replicate.

      Threose-based nucleic acid (TNA) is a recent suggestion and
      evolutionists believe that TNA might be better candidate for pre-RNA
      world, compared to other possible sugar-based nucleic acids.[68]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn68> TNA is alike to DNA
      and RNA. In addition, it contains a simpler 4-carbon sugar called
      threose in its backbone instead of deoxyribose found in DNA or ribose in
      RNA. Threose is a simpler sugar than ribose. Advantageously, TNA also
      displays superior base pairing properties. Inspired by these properties
      of TNA, some researchers projected that TNA could be a long-lost
      predecessor to RNA. However, there are several technical problems
      attached to this proposal. In 2000 Leslie Orgel listed several of them
      in his paper published in Science magazine.[69]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn69> "Nucleotides
      containing a tetrose sugar have not been considered likely components of
      an early genetic polymer because they cannot be joined together by
      phosphate groups to give a backbone with a six-atom repeat." Orgel
      further reported that, "In the alternative gradualist scenario,
      ribonucleotides were at first substituted a few at a time and at random
      in TNA sequences. The proportion of RNA components increased over time
      from almost zero to 100%. The information present originally in the TNA
      sequence was, at least in part, preserved in the final RNA sequence.
      This attractive theory suffers from one major drawback. Introduction of
      a substantial number of ribonucleotides at random might not prevent
      replication of TNA, but it would almost certainly destroy the catalytic
      function of any particular TNA sequence and thus would render evolved
      TNA sequences useless when rewritten accurately as RNA." That means
      none of the existing life forms today retain any TNA. Jeffrey Bada also
      points out, "TNA suffers from the chirality quandary associated with
      all sugar-based nucleic acid backbones. Although the presence of a
      4-carbon sugar in TNA reduces this problem to 2 sugars and 4
      stereoisomers, it remains a formidable challenge to demonstrate how
      oligonucleotides composed of only Lthreose could be preferentially
      synthesized under pre-biotic conditions .... the selection of chiral
      sugar component of TNA would have required some sort of selection
      process to be in operation."[46]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn46>

      The catalytic potential of proposed predecessor of RNA (pRNA, PNA, TNA,
      etc) has not yet been established. Hence, every rational supposition
      regarding pre-RNA life must reflect on whether that preceding genetic
      system could have facilitated the manifestation of RNA.

      The RNA World Reverie
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnrefRNA>

      The term "RNA World" was originally used by the Nobel Prize
      winner Walter Gilbert in 1986, in an interpretation on findings of the
      catalytic properties of different types of RNA.[70]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn70> However, the notion of
      RNA as a primordial molecule can be found in several old published
      literatures.[71] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn71> -[73]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn73> In the
      real RNA world observed in present available biological systems, RNA
      plays dynamic roles in catalyzing biochemical reactions, in translating
      mRNA into proteins, in regulating gene expression, and in the continuous
      scuffle between infectious agents trying to destabilize host resistance
      systems and host cells shielding themselves from infection. Even though
      scientists have no understanding about how it works, they have the tools
      to carry on their examination of this existing RNA world and distill
      their understanding. On the other hand, the primordial RNA world is a
      made-up age when RNA exhibited both information and function, both
      genotype and phenotype. Thus, verities of unending speculations are
      continually coming forward, attempting to apply the data of the present
      RNA world to understand the primordial RNA world.[74]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn74>

      Astrobiologists investigating the origin of life on Earth struggle with
      the question about the nature of the molecules that were the precursors
      for life. The molecular basis for the storage of genetic information in
      existing living organisms is deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA. The
      instructions enclosed in molecules of DNA are expressed by the organism
      with the use of RNA to make proteins that, in turn, are essential to
      mediate reactions in the cell. In the absence of RNA, DNA would not be
      translated into proteins. Similarly, without proteins, the needed
      reactions could not be catalyzed. This has been the chicken and egg
      problem of the naturalistic origin of life from chemicals –
      "which came first – DNA or protein molecule?"

      Moreover, DNA is an extremely out-sized and intricate molecule and is
      more stable when two strands come together to form the double helix. It
      cannot replicate without the help of RNA and enzymatic proteins to
      catalyze the essential reactions. DNA also seeks the help of proteins to
      unwind its two strands for replication and to keep the strands from
      getting tangled up during replication. On the other hand, RNA is often
      observed as a single strand of nucleic acids. Its backbone structure is
      produced in fewer steps than DNA. Moreover, as it is comprised of a four
      letter alphabet, it also can restrain hereditary information. In 1983,
      Cech and Altman, separately revealed that ribozymes enzymes could be
      made exclusively of RNA instead of protein. This has lent to the notion
      that RNA was the primitive information-storing molecule of preference.
      As discussed in the previous section, some researchers also consider
      that there were other molecules even prior to RNA (pre-RNA world) that
      were used by the first life forms. Those that think that RNA was the
      first molecule with this function assume that RNA, instead of proteins,
      could catalyze all of the reactions essential for replication. They
      refer to the era when RNA exhibited this task as the "RNA
      World".

      All these appear attractive possibilities, but researchers have reported
      a number of serious problems associated with RNA world. At the outset,
      the sugar molecule that is required to produce RNA molecules is ribose.
      In an attempt to find the chance development of organic molecules in the
      laboratory, scientists failed to produce a reaction that could gave rise
      to a high yield of ribose in place of a random mixture of sugars.[75]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn75> Even if they discover
      a natural reaction that can readily gives rise to ribose in large
      quantities, they would then have to face the issue of the fast rate at
      which sugars would have decomposed in primordial conditions. Stanley
      Miller and his research group have reported, "ribose and other
      sugars have surprisingly short half-lives for decomposition at neutral
      pH, making it very unlikely that sugars were available as prebiotic
      reagents."[76] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn76>
      Finally, if somehow sugars are manufactured, how would primordial life
      have selected the structure of sugar out of a mixture that was exactly
      half "right handed" and half "left handed"? There are
      many such practical problems attached with both the prebiotic synthesis
      and the stability of ribose.[77]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn77> -[81]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn81>

      One of the major assumptions of the RNA world hypothesis is that in the
      primordial conditions, ribonucleotides spontaneously condense into
      polymers to form RNA molecules. Once RNA molecules have formed, by its
      catalytic activity to replicate itself a population of such
      self-replicating molecules would arise. "It is difficult to
      believe," says RNA World research scientist Steven Benner, "that
      larger pools of random RNA emerged spontaneously without the gentle
      coaxing of a graduate student desiring a completed
      dissertation."[82] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn82>
      In addition, researchers believe that even if RNA could have formed
      spontaneously, the spontaneous hydrolysis and other destructive
      conditions operational on the early Earth would have caused it to
      decompose.[2]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn2>
      Joyce and Orgel recommend that "…myth of a self-replicating RNA
      molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not
      only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding
      of prebiotic chemistry, but it should strain the credulity of even an
      optimist's view of RNA's catalytic potential."[83]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn83>

      Francis Crick confirms that, "At present, the gap from the primal
      "soup" to the first RNA system capable of natural selection
      looks forbiddingly wide."[84]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn84>
      Furthermore, RNA fails to perform all of the functions of DNA
      sufficiently to support replication and transcription of proteins.
      Consequently, Leslie Orgel pointed out the inability of the RNA world:
      "This scenario could have occurred, we noted, if prebiotic RNA had
      two properties not evident today: A capacity to replicate without the
      help of proteins and an ability to catalyze every step of protein
      synthesis."[75]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn75> Orgel
      further acknowledged that, "The precise events giving rise to the
      RNA world remain unclear … investigators have proposed many
      hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at
      best. The full details of how the RNA world, and life, emerged may not
      be revealed in the near future." Consequently the RNA world reverie
      appears to be dreadfully hopeless.

      DNA/Protein World Dilemma
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnrefDNA>

      The RNA world notion discussed in the previous section, claims that, in
      the beginning phases of evolution, RNA behaved as both template and
      catalyst. All existing biological organisms exhibit the partition of
      tasks between template and catalyst. In existing biological systems, the
      partition of tasks is an elemental property: DNA stores genetic
      information whereas proteins function as catalysts. However, scientists
      are struggling to answer major questions such as: how did the
      DNA/Protein world come about, why would such partition of tasks evolve
      in the RNA world, and which came first, DNA or Protein? Again, we find
      the `chicken and egg' problem.

      Proteins may seem superficially better than RNA as chemical catalysts
      due to their larger range of chemical moieties and structural
      flexibility. On the contrary, due to the nonexistence of mechanisms for
      template directed replication, proteins are greatly substandard to RNA
      for the storage of genetic information. Because of the absence of the
      29-hydroxyl at its sugar moiety, as compared to RNA, DNA is usually not
      as much of a reactive molecule. Especially, DNA is significantly more
      resistant to hydrolysis than RNA[85]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn85> , particularly in the
      presence of metal ions.[86]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn86> For this reason, time
      and again it is recommended that DNA has an edge over RNA as a means of
      genetic information storage.[87]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn87> Nevertheless, Forterre
      reported that the superior stability advantage of DNA could not account
      for the origin of DNA because the benefit of using DNA for information
      storage depends on the chance of evolving a longer genome, which in
      itself would not offer any direct selective advantage to the systems
      that included DNA.[88] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn88>
      There is also no apparent experimental confirmation indicating that DNA
      is substandard to RNA as a chemical catalyst.[89]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn89> The chemical
      properties of DNA do not inevitably support the conclusion that the
      function of DNA is limited to information storage. Takeuchi and his
      research group asked the question, "Given these considerations, we
      ask: What selective advantage could there be for an RNA-based evolving
      system to evolve an entity that is solely dedicated to the storage of
      genetic information, i.e., an entity that is functionally equivalent to
      DNA?"

      The sequence of emergence of different types of biopolymers during
      primordial evolution is an extremely controversial issue.[90]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn90> ,[91]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn91> There is an impasse
      attached to both the cases: (1) proteins preceding RNA, and (2) RNA
      preceding proteins. In existing biological systems, DNA synthesis is
      fully reliant on RNA. For instance, the monomer units for DNA synthesis,
      2'-deoxyribonucleotides, are produced by the alteration of
      ribonucleotides, and the primers utilized to start DNA polymerization
      are oligoribonucleotides. It is observed that the catalytic portion of
      the ribosome, which produces proteins, is made completely of RNA. This
      is the significant reason touted for proteins preceding RNA. If one
      accepts that RNA is an inferior and less flexible catalyst than
      proteins, then the immediate question would be: what is the selective
      pressure responsible for the evolution of RNA catalysts? Transitioning
      from RNA to DNA as the hereditary molecule significantly enhanced
      genomic steadiness. This is believed to improve the possibility that a
      given organism or molecule would be around long enough to reproduce.
      Transmission of the task of primary catalyst to proteins also presents
      major advantages. Both transitions provide understandable advantages to
      a ribo-organism, nonetheless in fundamentally different ways. Hence,
      both would manifest following different evolutionary pathways. If we
      presume RNA was the first of the three macromolecules, an unsolved
      dilemma is which came next, DNA or protein?

      Primitive Cell – A Miniaturized Walled City at Work
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnrefCell>

      Darwin suggested that algae, amoebae and other such simple living beings
      were blobs of protoplasm which might have just appeared in some warm
      little pond by the chance combination of chemicals. Darwinian ideology
      imagines that a small number of relatively effortless changes in this
      protoplasm could show the way to developmental alteration. Natural
      selection would make sure that better adaptation would be preserved. On
      the other hand, changes which led to poorer adaptation would die out.
      Scientists influenced by this ideology believe that natural processes
      produce complex life forms from simple ones, which in turn came from
      dead chemicals. Based on such a foundation, abiogenesis proclaims that
      the first life had arisen by a chance accumulation of chemicals. The
      same is evident from the statement of Julian Huxley, one of the most
      influential evolutionists, "Evolution, in the extended sense, can be
      defined as a directional and essentially irreversible process occurring
      in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an
      increasingly high level of organization in its products. Our present
      knowledge indeed forces us to the view that the whole of reality is
      evolution – a single process of self transformation." However,
      the advancements of microbiology have helped the scientists to look at
      life in a better way. Darwin's portrait of organisms made of a small
      number of simple chemicals has given way to one of astounding complexity
      even in the simplest living entities. The ordinary E coli bacterium has
      not only miniature electric motors of exceptional efficiency, but also
      the equipment to fabricate, repair, maintain, operate and power them
      with an electricity generating mechanism.

      Consequently, the notion of natural origin of primitive cells in the
      primordial earth is being severely challenged by the modern explosion of
      knowledge in microbiology and cellular biology. The issues attached to
      the `natural origin of life' doctrine will not come to an end,
      even if one assumes that the necessary chemical building blocks were
      accessible in the primordial atmosphere. Any theory of `natural
      origin of life' on Earth needs the practical description of
      plausible pathways for the conversion from complex prebiotic chemistry
      to simple biology, understood by evolutionists as the appearance of
      chemical accumulation capable of Darwinian evolution. The primitive
      cellular life requires a certain minimum number of systems, like (1) the
      means to transmit heredity (RNA, DNA, or something similar), (2) a
      mechanism to obtain energy to generate work (metabolic system), (3) an
      enclosure to hold and protect these components from the environment
      (cell membrane), and finally (4) a unique principle to connect all of
      these components together (appearance of first life). It is incredulous
      for evolutionists to believe that all of these four systems appeared
      simultaneously. Hence, the majority of followers of abiogenesis
      hypothesis are debating on the sequence of appearance of these events in
      the early earth. In the light of modern scientific advancements, the
      subsequent subsections illustrate the major hurdles in the pathway
      connecting chemical building blocks and the primitive cells.

      Centre of unabated conflict: `metabolism first' or
      `replication first'?
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnrefmetabolism>

      The origin of life theory should clarify the origin of the distinctive
      phenomena which maintains life, such as reproduction, metabolism, and
      their corollaries (cell division, information carriers, genetic code,
      growth, maintenance, response to external stimuli, etc.). Reproduction
      is undoubtedly crucial for the continuation of any form of life. For
      this reason, evolutionists believe some form of molecular replication
      must have been started spontaneously in the prebiotic environment as a
      simple, entirely physicochemical form of reproduction. On the other
      hand, cellular metabolism is understood as a set of chemical reactions
      that occur in biological systems to maintain life. This vital process
      helps organisms to grow and reproduce, maintain, and respond to their
      environments. The metabolism process is classified in two different
      classes, catabolism and anabolism. Catabolism process produces useful
      energy and the anabolism process uses that energy to build components of
      cells such as proteins and nucleic acids. Through metabolic pathways, in
      a number of steps one chemical converts itself into another chemical by
      a sequence of enzymes. Enzymes are essential for the metabolic
      processes, since enzymes permit biological systems to make necessary
      reactions that require energy. Hence, some researchers believe in the
      supremacy of metabolism[12]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn12> ,[13]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn13>
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn13> ,[15]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn15> -[19]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn19>
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn19> and others
      assume the supremacy of reproduction.
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn92> [11]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn11> ,[21]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn21> ,[72]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn72> ,
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn93> [92]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn92> ,[93]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn93>
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn72> Once
      again, scientists confront the same difficulty, ``which came first,
      the chicken (metabolism) or the egg (reproduction)?''

      The contest between proponents of `metabolism first' and
      `replication first' persists unabated with both speculations
      subject to criticism. The `metabolism first' speculation has
      been criticized by some of the prominent researchers in the field based
      on the judgment that major steps in the construction of such a metabolic
      scheme are exceedingly doubtful.
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn94> [21]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn21> ,[92]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn92> ,
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn95>
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn94> [94]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn94> ,
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn21> [95]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn95> The `replication
      first' notion is also challenged, considering the observation that
      the de novo manifestation of oligonucleotides is questionable, and that
      there is no apparent pathway from an RNA world to the existing dual
      world of proteins and nucleic acids.[77]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn77> ,[96]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn96>

      How a primitive cell developed its skin?
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnrefskin>

      Abiogenesis hypothesis must also supply the means and pathways for
      primitive cell growth and division, as well as the mechanism by which
      cells could take up nutrients from their environment. All existing
      biological cells are membrane enclosed workspaces. The cell membrane is
      the container which holds a cell together. It manages to retain an
      internal milieu different from its environment within which genetic
      materials can reside and metabolic activities can take place without
      being lost to the environment. Existing cell membranes on earth are made
      of composite mixtures of amphiphilic molecules like phospholipids,
      sterols, and several other lipids, plus miscellaneous proteins that
      carry out transport and enzymatic works. Modern biological membranes are
      pretty secure under different environments and can tolerate a wide range
      of temperatures, pH, and salt concentrations. These biological membranes
      are exceptionally fine permeability barriers, so that present cells have
      comprehensive power over the intake of nutrients and the evacuation of
      wastes all the way through the dedicated channel, pump and pore proteins
      implanted in their membranes. Besides, immensely intricate biochemical
      machinery is mandatory for the growth and division of the cell membrane
      in a cell cycle. How a structurally simple primitive cell could
      accomplish all these essential membrane functions in primordial earth is
      a difficult problem to address. As compared to the research efforts on
      replications and metabolism, the starting point of primitive membranes
      is one of the most neglected fields in origin of life investigations.
      While the unrelenting disagreements in abiogenesis have been around the
      `metabolism first' versus `replication first' issue,
      there have also been competing thoughts for the origin of the cell
      membrane. We will ascertain below that the attempts to produce
      biological membranes under primordial earth are also suffering from
      multifaceted unsolved problems.

      The experiments of Oparin's[16]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn16> ,[97]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn97> and Fox[98]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn98> on coacervates and
      proteinoid respectively were accepted as a significant historical step
      in the field of prebiotic synthesis of cell membranes. However, neither
      coacervates nor proteinoid microspheres have a factual boundary membrane
      that can perform as a selective permeability barrier. Coacervates and
      proteinoid are prominently detailed in present high school biology
      textbooks, even though they are essentially unstable, lacking the
      capacity to supply a permeability barrier, and incapable of carrying
      metabolism. Consequently, the present concentration of research has
      transferred from colloid phenomena and protein chemistry to nucleic
      acids.[99] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn99> ,[100]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn100> Researchers proclaim
      that amphiphilic boundary structures contributed to the appearance of
      life on earth in primordial conditions.[101]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn101> -[103]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn103> As an expansion of
      this view, some scientists suggest a `Lipid World' situation as
      an early evolutionary step in the appearance of cellular life on Earth.
      Moreover, some researchers have proposed that lipid membranes may have a
      hereditary potential because the majority membranes are produced from
      other membranes but not created de novo.[104]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn104> ,[105]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn105> However, these
      approaches have not received much attention, most likely due to the
      comparative scarcity of experimental evidence. Studies also claim that,
      in the middle of the abundance of the molecular variety anticipated to
      be originated in prebiotic Earth, lipid-like molecules have a discrete
      property. That is: a capability to carry out spontaneous aggregation to
      form droplets, micelles, bilayers and vesicles contained by an aqueous
      phase through entropy-driven hydrophobic exchanges.[106]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn106> ,[107]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn107> However, the
      concentration of biomolecules in the aqueous primordial Earth has been
      expected to be roughly 1 micromolar,[108]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn108> essentially
      insufficient for typical covalent chemical reactions indispensable for
      formation of hydrophobic and amphiphilic molecules.

      Even if one ignores the difficulties in connection with the production
      of amphiphilic molecules in primordial earth, still we are left with
      several technical problems on the path of prebiotic synthesis of
      membranes. The physical and chemical properties of aqueous surroundings
      can considerably slow down self-assembly of amphiphilic molecules,
      perhaps significantly restricting the environments in which cellular
      life first emerged. For example, temperature significantly controls the
      stability of vesicle membranes. It has been suggested that the primitive
      life forms were hyperthermophiles that originated in geothermal regions
      such as hydrothermal vents[109]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn109> or deep subterranean
      hot aquifers.[110] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn110>
      However, under these conditions, the intermolecular forces that
      stabilize self-assembled molecular systems are relatively weak. Hence,
      such locations are not suitable for lipid bilayer membranes to assemble.
      There are also several similar restrictions attached with the ionic
      composition and pH of the environment proposed for the origin of
      life.[111] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn111> ,[112]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn112>

      To escape similar impractical situations, many researchers are
      speculating that amphiphilic compounds existed in carbonaceous
      meteorites. These compounds might have self-assembled into membranous
      vesicles under suitable circumstances and were latter delivered to the
      early Earth from outer space by meteoritic and cometary infall.[113]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn113> ,[114]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn114> Even though
      lipid-like materials were claimed to be detected in the Murchison
      meteorite,[114] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn114> ,[115]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn115> successive research
      suggested that those compounds were contaminants, rather than endogenous
      materials.[116] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn116> The
      fabrication of appropriate biomolecules in the interstellar medium is of
      no significance to the origin of life unless these biomolecules can be
      delivered unharmed to habitable planetary surfaces. The major question
      would be: can these noble biomolecules withstand the brutal, scorching
      delivery to a planetary surface? Even if in some way membrane building
      blocks landed safely through extraterrestrial resources, decomposition
      through hydrolysis, photochemical degradation, and pyrolysis would have
      drastically diminished the quantity of such materials.[34]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn34>
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn34> Hence, we
      remain with the unanswered question: how did a primitive cell develop
      its skin?

      What collectively linked the components in the first living cell?
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnreflink>

      Despite the massive advancements in the field of cellular biology, the
      changeover from microscopic chemical mechanisms to the macroscopically
      evident emergent properties that illustrate life remains unanswered.
      Even if creation of an enclosed vesicle is achieved, it does not assure
      functionality of a primitive cell. In order to be practical as a
      mechanism implicated in abiogenesis, membranes must be linked with all
      the materials indispensable to instigate life. A membrane must be
      capable of transporting material in and out of the boundary. Some type
      of transport system for nutrients and wastes would be compulsory to
      uphold the metabolism of the primitive cell. Moreover, both a primordial
      replicator and metabolic system must be interconnected in the primitive
      cell. Hence, such an arrangement would manipulate, generate and release
      the necessary chemicals during each cycle. However, it is uncertain what
      sort of equilibrium would ultimately need to be accomplished to make a
      transition from chemical system to a biological system. In a purely
      physicochemical sense, if a stable membrane is synthesized, passive
      transport systems can be easily arranged. However, such a provision
      would robotically attain equilibrium, making continuation of further
      transport impractical.[117]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn117>

      Even insignificant unicellular living entities are self-guided and are
      utilize millions of special molecules dedicated for specific
      responsibilities within a functional cell. Advanced cellular biology now
      confirms that a functional cell is made up of a sophisticated network of
      co-dependent biomolecules. Many of these biomolecules are only observed
      in biological cells and not anywhere else in nature. Robert Shapiro
      stated in one recent publication in Nature,[118]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn118> "In June 2005, a
      group of international scientists clustered around a small, near-boiling
      pool in a volcanic region of Siberia. Biochemist David Deamer took a
      sample of the waters, then added to the pool a concoction of organic
      compounds that probably existed 4 billion years ago on the early Earth.
      One was a fatty acid, a component of soap, which his laboratory studies
      suggested had a significant role in the origin of life.

      [Deamer]

      Over several days, Deamer took many more samples. He wished to see
      whether the chemical assembly process that he had observed in his
      laboratory, which eventually produced complex `protocell'
      structures, could also take place in a natural setting. The answer was a
      resounding no. The clays and metal ions present in the Siberian pool
      blocked the chemical interactions."

      Hence, those claims appear perverse which suggest a prebiotic existence
      of these biomolecules, which are only created by life. Such stubborn
      ideologists ignore the fact that biological systems display astonishing
      accomplishments not because of an exceptional form of chemistry, but
      because a conscious creature can control chemical processes and
      subordinate them to a purpose intrinsic to the self-guided living being.
      Scientists are only making futile attempts at the moment to synthesize
      separately all the essential biomolecules by purely physicochemical
      means. The further and more complicated steps towards synthesizing
      functional cells are certainly beyond their thinking. A purely
      physicochemical transition from chemistry to biology is impossible.

      Recent experiments have already revealed a biological system containing
      in excess of 7 million protein sequences and over 50,000 protein
      structures.[119] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn119>
      Rapidly advancing cellular biology, especially metagenomics, assures
      that countless further molecular components are in the pipeline to be
      revealed. Biologists must give careful thought towards the principle
      that unites these large bio-molecular networks. It is suggested by
      scientists that the potential resources of energy for primitive cells
      are heat, chemical, and light energies.[34]
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn34>
      <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn34> However,
      the major impasse is: how can unguided physical energies manufacture a
      state of such massive complexity and specificity as a living cell? Srila
      Bhaktisvarupa Damodara Maharaja (Dr. T.D. Singh) once asked molecular
      evolutionist Stanley Miller at one of his lectures on the origins of
      life at the University of California, Irvine, "Suppose you were
      give<br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
    • gluadys
      Barking up the wrong tree. Evolution is a theory of how species change over time. It is not a theory of how life originated. Currently, scientists are
      Message 2 of 5 , Dec 5, 2012
        Barking up the wrong tree. Evolution is a theory of how species change over time. It is not a theory of how life originated. Currently, scientists are researching how life originated, but don't have a complete theory yet.



        --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Bhakti Niskama Shanta" <jaga.suresh@...> wrote:
        >
        > All Glories to Sri Guru and Sri Gauranga
        > SORRY, DARWIN: - CHEMISTRY NEVER MADE THE TRANSITION TO BIOLOGY
        > byBhakti Niskama Shanta Swami, Ph.D.
        > <http://www.mahaprabhu.net/scsmath.siliguri> Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Math
        > <http://www.mahaprabhu.net/scsmath.siliguri>
        > <http://www.mahaprabhu.net/scsmath.siliguri>
        > <http://www.mahaprabhu.net/scsmath.siliguri> [Sorry Darwin]
        > Table of Contents
        > 1. Abstract <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnAbstract>
        > 2. Introduction
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnIntroduction>
        > 3. Primordial Bombardments Dumped in Darwin's `Warm Little
        > Pond' <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnBombardments>
        > 4. Chemical Evolution Cannot Ride a Substantially Incredible Barbed
        > Ladder <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnChemical>
        > 5. `Primordial Soup' with an Impossible Recipe!
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnSoup>
        > 5.1 Thermodynamics disagreement with Miller's trick
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnThermodynamics>
        > 5.2 Chemistry fails to convene the demands of biology in primordial soup
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnChemistry>
        > 5.3 Reducing environment fiasco
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnReducing>
        > 6. Polymerization Riddle
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnPolymerization>
        > 7. Pre-RNA World – A Jumbled and Gloomy Pathway to
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnPre-RNA>
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/Pre-RNA_World.html> RNA
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/Pre-RNA_World.html>
        > 8. The RNA World Reverie
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnRNA>
        > 9. DNA/Protein World Dilemma
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnDNA>
        > 10. Primitive Cell – A Miniaturized Walled City at Work
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnCell>
        > 10.1 Centre of unabated conflict: `metabolism first' or
        > `replication first'?
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnmetabolism>
        > 10.2 How a primitive cell developed its skin?
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnskin>
        > 10.3 What collectively linked the components in the first living cell?
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnlink>
        > 11. Future Research Suggestions to Prevail Over the Fundamental Mistake
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnMistake>
        > 11.1 Biology is misconceived as an amalgamation of physics and chemistry
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnBiology>
        > 11.2 21st century biology – View of organism as a sentient system
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnSentience>
        > 12. Conclusions
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnConclusions>
        > 13. Acknowledgements
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnAcknowledgements>
        > 14. References <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnReferences>
        > About the Author <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/bns.html>
        > Abstract <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnrefAbstract>
        >
        > The term biology is of Greek origin meaning the study of life. On the
        > other hand, chemistry is the science of matter, which deals with matter
        > and its properties, structure, composition, behavior, reactions,
        > interactions and the changes it undergoes. The theory of abiogenesis
        > maintains that chemistry made a transition to biology in a primordial
        > soup. To keep the naturalistic `inanimate molecules to human
        > life' evolution ideology intact, scientists must assemble billions
        > of links to bridge the gap between the inanimate chemicals that existed
        > in the primordial soup and anatomically modern humans. Even though the
        > proponents of a natural origin of life expressed much optimism for
        > providing their theories, presently there is a detailed compilation of
        > information seriously questioning this doctrine. This reductionistic
        > ideology has always failed to answer two simple questions: (1) What is
        > the minimum number of parts that are essential for a living organism to
        > survive? (2) By what mechanism do these parts get assembled together?
        > Evolutionists say a series of prebiotic processes and developments guide
        > networks of dynamically linked small molecules and amphiphiles to form
        > biological macromolecules, membraneous compartments, and finally
        > primitive cells. However, none of these proposed pathways to life
        > appears to be credible. The continuous advancement in various fields of
        > science are not only providing major challenges to reductionistic
        > ideology but are supplying increasing evidence for a systemic concept of
        > life as an organic whole. Several leading researchers in the field of
        > `origin of life' are continually concluding that there are major
        > scientific problems attached with all existing naturalistic `origin
        > of life' hypothesis. Only by taking into account all biological
        > activities collectively as a system can a satisfactory elucidation of
        > the living state be realized. In this present paper an attempt has been
        > made to present a few significant challenges to the theory of
        > abiogenesis based on the peer reviewed scientific literature.
        > Subsequently, a non-reductionistic concept of life as a system is
        > proposed as an alternative for resolving some of the problems inherent
        > in origin of life research.
        >
        > Introduction
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnrefIntroduction>
        >
        > The `spontaneous generation of life' hypothesis includes a
        > conspicuous history of unrelenting derision from several prominent
        > personalities in science. At various times in its history,
        > `spontaneous generation' has been identified by two different
        > concepts. They are: (a) abiogenesis, and (b) heterogenesis. Abiogenesis
        > is the field of science dedicated to study how life might have arisen
        > spontaneously for the first time from inorganic chemicals. On the other
        > hand, the notion that life can arise from dead organic matter, such as
        > the appearance of maggots from decaying meat is known as heterogenesis.
        > For a long time major western thinkers like Newton, Harvey, Descartes
        > and von Helmont accepted heterogenesis with full confidence.
        >
        > Francesco Redi by his experiments demonstrated that meat placed under a
        > screen of muslin never developed maggots. The works of Schulze, Schwann,
        > von Dusch and Schroeder provided significant challenges to
        > heterogenesis, and finally in 1864 Louis Pasteur's famous swan-neck
        > flask experiment sounded the death knell for this theory. Pasteur
        > famously stated that "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous
        > generation recover from the mortal blow of this simple
        > experiment".[1] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn1>
        >
        > However, soon after establishment of Pasteur's famous biogenesis
        > theory, the reductionist school proposed an even more intricate and
        > incredible form of spontaneous generation – abiogenesis. This
        > hypothesis gathered its support mainly due to the collapse of the false
        > dilemma of organic and inorganic matter (synthesis of urea in 1828 by
        > Wohler), and the development of the concept of conservation of
        > energy.[2] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn2>
        > The modern form of chemical evolution theory began to develop following
        > the proposal by Russian biochemist A.I. Oparin.[3]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn3> According to this
        > claim, complex molecular arrangements and functions of living systems
        > evolved from simpler molecules that preexisted on the lifeless,
        > primitive earth. Thus, abiogenesis provided an ideal sense of balance to
        > Darwinian evolution theory, requiring billions of years to go from dead
        > atoms and molecules to cells, and then, via random mutation or natural
        > selection, from cells to the varieties of living beings present today.
        >
        > Abiogenesis was popular for years as an explanatory theory of
        > self-assembly as the starting point for chemical evolution. Recently
        > however, the abiogenesis hypothesis has been experiencing critical
        > shortcomings and rapid advancements in cellular biology have led
        > biologists to seriously doubt the veracity of this hypothesis. The
        > present article aims at summarizing a few crucial scientific facts,
        > which are leading us towards a paradigm shift in our understanding of
        > the ontogenesis of life.
        >
        > Primordial Bombardments Dumped in Darwin's `Warm Little
        > Pond' <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnrefBombardments>
        >
        > Charles Darwin (1809 –1882) proposed an elucidation for life's
        > origin that complimented his evolution theory. In a famous letter[4]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn4> to his botanist friend
        > Joseph D. Hooker in 1871, he stated
        >
        > "It is often said that all the conditions for the first production
        > of a living organism are now 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 such matter would be
        > instantly devoured, which would not have been the case before living
        > creatures were formed."
        >
        > For more than one hundred years this idea of Darwin's was accepted
        > dogmatically as scientists were ignorant about the primordial
        > bombardments. In recent times however, scientists have come to believe
        > that the earth's first billion years witnessed murderous
        > bombardments by large projectiles.[5]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn5> -[7]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn7> Many
        > leading scientists in the field of `the origin of life' now feel
        > that the hostile conditions of early earth warrant a total
        > reconsideration of this preceding conviction. James Kasting, who chaired
        > a Gordon Conference on the origin of life, and who was coauthor of one
        > of the key papers dealing with the early bombardment, says that "The
        > field is in ferment." An additional apparent confirmation of the
        > same can be found from the first two paragraphs of the article
        > `Goodbye to the Warm Little Pond?'[8]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn8> , published in Science
        > magazine:
        >
        >
        >
        > "Ever since 1871, when Charles Darwin made his oft-quoted allusion
        > to life's beginnings in a "warm little pond," scientists
        > have tended to imagine the origin of life as being a rather tranquil
        > affair-something like a quiet afternoon in a country kitchen, with a
        > rich organic soup of complex carbon compounds simmering slowly in the
        > sunlight until somehow they became living protoplasm.
        >
        >
        >
        > Sorry, Charles. Your Warm Little Pond was a beautiful image. It's
        > been enshrined in innumerable textbooks as the scientific theory of the
        > origin of life. But to hear the planetary scientists talking these days,
        > you were dead wrong. The Warm Little Pond never existed."
        >
        >
        >
        > Consequently, numerous new speculations are attempting to provide
        > different explanation for the location of the origin of life on earth.
        > There are several suggestions ranging from life beginning in deep sea
        > thermal vents to bacterial life arriving from other places in the
        > universe (Panspermia). Some of these hypotheses may be more credible
        > than others, but it is an astringent fact that scientists have no
        > existent evidence about the possible location for the first life on
        > earth. Science magazine also outspokenly substantiated that science has
        > no concrete answer to the question of how and where did life on earth
        > arise?[9] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn9>
        >
        > Chemical Evolution Cannot Ride a Substantially Incredible Barbed Ladder
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnrefChemical>
        >
        > The chemistry of prebiotic worlds is used on the opposite side of the
        > defining moment for life, when Darwinian evolution theorized it first
        > started functioning. It is perhaps impractical that even the simplest
        > existing cells could have evolved spontaneously, even more so that
        > exceptionally complex modern life forms could have done so. To keep
        > chemical evolution alive, chemists and biologists are utilizing the
        > early earth data provided by geologists and astronomers and are
        > proposing numerous hypotheses in support of chemical evolution. Chemists
        > select the likely prebiotic environment projected by geologists and
        > study probable pathways for how organic molecules and biomolecules could
        > be manufactured in such an environment, how they might have interacted,
        > and how this might lead to more complex living systems. Biologists more
        > often than not see biomolecules in a slightly different context,
        > starting from the high complexity of a modern organism and searching for
        > the vital biological cycles and interactions and then trying to find how
        > something alike but much more simple might have evolved. The open
        > literature is escalating with theories on the origin of life.[10]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn10> Different theories
        > claim different starting points. For example, some propose that life
        > originated with template replicating polymers,[11]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn11> pyrites,[12]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn12> thioesters,[13]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn13> clays,[14]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn14> ,[15]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn15> polypeptides,[16]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn16> -[19]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn19> and the claims are
        > neither complete nor ending. Also, there is an ever increasing list of
        > speculations on the site of the origin of earth's first life. For
        > example, life originated in an oceanic thick soup,[16]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn16>
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn16>
        > hydrothermal vents,[12]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn12>
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn12>
        > microscopic confinements,[16]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn16>
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn16> -[18]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn18> , and again
        > the speculations are neither complete nor ending. From the scrupulous
        > reviews[20] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn20> ,[21]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn21> we can realize the
        > impractical range of speculative chemical evolution theories back from
        > the chemistry of the existent cellular metabolism to the chemistry of
        > the prebiotic world. The sections below present the vulnerable state of
        > the theory of chemical evolution and its failure in outdoing the steps:
        > (1) Prebiotic synthesis – Primordial soup, (2) Polymerization, (3)
        > Pre-RNA World, (4) RNA world, (5) DNA/Protein world, and (6) Primitive
        > cell.
        >
        > `Primordial Soup' with an Impossible Recipe!
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnrefSoup>
        >
        > Following Oparin,[3]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn3> in 1929
        > John Haldane proposed that in a reducing primitive atmosphere and with a
        > suitable supply of energy, such as lightning or ultraviolet light, a
        > wide range of organic compounds might be synthesized.[22]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn22> According to Haldane,
        > the primordial sea was the source of a vast chemical laboratory
        > motorized by solar energy. Haldane explained that, in due course of
        > time, the sea turned into a `hot diluted soup' containing large
        > populations of organic monomers and polymers. The term `prebiotic
        > soup' was coined by Haldane, and is well-known as
        > Oparin-Haldane's view of the origin of life. In 1953 Stanley
        > Miller[23] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn23> offered
        > experimental support for the theory of prebiotic evolution. Miller
        > experimentally produced amino acids such as glycine, alanine, aspartic
        > acid, and glutamic acid by passing an electric discharge through a
        > gaseous mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor. Thus, he
        > suggested that the implausible complexity in the molecular organization
        > of living cells might someway have been produced from nothing more than
        > simple chemicals interacting at random in a primordial ocean. However,
        > we will see below in the light of scientific developments that, such a
        > claim is far from the truth.
        >
        > Thermodynamics disagreement with Miller's trick
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnrefThermodynamics>
        >
        > Oparin, Haldane, Miller and his successors suggested unguided energy as
        > the means by which simple molecules can be organized into more complex
        > molecules. However, from the law of nature or from the second law of
        > thermodynamics we know that order that emerges from undirected external
        > forces not only has a momentary disposition, but does not get bigger,
        > unless a directed external exertion is supplied. Miller's
        > explanations give us the impression that he may be ignorant about this
        > fact. Random flashes of electricity used by Miller can transform simple
        > molecules into more complex building blocks. But the very next moment,
        > new electrical flashes supplied by him may destroy these same building
        > blocks. The larger the building blocks, the faster they will be damaged.
        > Hence, to protect building blocks from the destruction by new flashes of
        > lightning, intelligent Miller guided the building blocks towards a
        > distillation flask. In this manner clever Miller cooked a more and more
        > concentrated organic soup. Who had performed this inelegant job of
        > Miller's in the primordial earth?
        >
        > Chemistry fails to convene the demands of biology in
        > primordial soup
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnrefChemistry>
        >
        > The building blocks of life formed in primordial soup exist only in
        > extremely small amounts and decompose rapidly into a tar-like
        > substance.[24] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn24> We know
        > that, the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere blocks harmful ultraviolet
        > radiation. However, ozone is composed of oxygen and is the biggest
        > obstacle for the synthesis of building blocks of the life like the ones
        > obtained from Miller's experiments. The chemistry does not function
        > if there is oxygen, but if there is no ozone (O3) in the primordial
        > atmosphere, the amino acids would be quickly destroyed by harmful
        > ultraviolet radiation.[25]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn25> ,[26]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn26> Moreover,
        > `chirality' in biology demands chemistry to supply
        > `left-handed' amino acids and `right-handed' genetic
        > molecules. However, most of the chemical reactions in nature (except
        > living organism) yield `racemic' mixtures.[27]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn27>
        >
        > Reducing environment fiasco
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnrefReducing>
        >
        > The idea of the primitive reducing atmosphere has been severely
        > challenged by the available data from geology, geophysics and
        > geochemistry.[28] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn28> ,[29]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn29> There is no geologic
        > evidence for either a reducing primitive atmosphere or an early earth
        > containing large amounts of methane gas. Moreover, a quick disappearance
        > of ammonia may take place, because the effective threshold for
        > degradation by ultraviolet radiation is 2,250Å.[30]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn30> Also, a quantity of
        > ammonia equivalent to the present atmospheric nitrogen would be
        > destroyed in approximately 30,000 years.[31]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn31> Experiments confirm
        > that irradiating a highly reducing atmosphere produces hydrophobic
        > organic molecules that are absorbed by sedimentary clays. This indicates
        > that the earliest rocks should have contained an extraordinarily large
        > amount of carbon or organic chemicals. However, this is not supported by
        > the observed data. Based on observations from the stratigraphical
        > record, Davidson explained that there is no evidence that a primeval
        > reducing atmosphere might have persisted during much of Precambrian
        > time.[32] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn32> Theoretical
        > calculation also confirms that dissociation of water vapor by
        > ultraviolet light must have produced enough oxygen very early in the
        > history of the earth to create an oxidizing atmosphere.[33]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn33>
        >
        > Now for many decades it is well known that the primordial environment
        > was most likely not composed of methane or ammonia, and thus would not
        > have been favorable to Miller-Urey type chemistry. David Deamer, an
        > origin of life theorist says, "This optimistic picture began to
        > change in the late 1970s, when it became increasingly clear that the
        > early atmosphere was probably volcanic in origin and composition,
        > composed largely of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than the mixture
        > of reducing gases assumed by the Miller-Urey model. Carbon dioxide does
        > not support the rich array of synthetic pathways leading to possible
        > monomers..."[34] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn34>
        > Jeffrey Bada and his co-researchers also echoed the similar statement:
        > "Geoscientists today doubt that the primitive atmosphere had the
        > highly reducing composition Miller used..."[35]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn35> Interestingly, it is
        > reported in Earth and Planetary Science Letters that chemical properties
        > have been effectively unvarying over earth's history, and thus
        > concludes that "Life may have found its origins in other
        > environments or by other mechanisms."[36]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn36> In 1996
        > Miller himself stated, "We really don't know what the Earth was
        > like three or four billion years ago. So there are all sorts of theories
        > and speculations. The major uncertainty concerns what the atmosphere was
        > like. This is a major area of dispute."[37]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn37> Many prominent
        > scientists in recent time have discarded the Miller-Urey experiment and
        > the `primordial soup' hypothesis it claimed to support. In 1990
        > the Space Studies Board of the National Research Council suggested that
        > origin of life scientists should undertake a "reexamination of
        > biological monomer synthesis under primitive Earthlike environments, as
        > revealed in current models of the early Earth."[38]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn38> In a review, Leslie
        > Orgel has expressed that, "The relevance of all of this early work
        > to the origin of life has been questioned because it now seems very
        > unlikely that the Earth's atmosphere was ever as strongly reducing
        > as Miller and Urey assumed."[39]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn39> In a recent NPR report
        > biochemist Nick Lane states that the primordial soup theory is now
        > expired.[40] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn40>
        >
        > However, this does not lead to an end to speculation on the chemical
        > origin of life. Many new hypothetical primitive atmospheres have been
        > proposed.[41] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn41> -
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn42> [44]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn44> It is also
        > speculated that organic compounds required for the origin of life may
        > have come from outer space, for instance interplanetary dust particles,
        > comets, asteroids and meteorites.[45]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn45> However, the major
        > question will be: was extraterrestrial organic material ever efficiently
        > delivered intact to the Earth?[46]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn46> Scientists may
        > continually arrive at many such alternative theories about the unknown
        > past. However, updated science textbooks should at least inform new
        > generations about this now-outmoded recipe of `primordial soup'.
        >
        > Polymerization Riddle
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnrefPolymerization>
        >
        > Polymerization is a necessary process for synthesizing complex organic
        > molecules (polymers) from simple organic molecules (monomers). Biology
        > demands chemistry to supply not just any polymers, but very specific
        > ones. The natural synthesis of amino acids and the development of
        > peptides under the early earth atmosphere is one of the big problems in
        > abiogenesis.[47] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn47> The
        > February 1998 special issue of Earth magazine also states that, "And
        > even if Miller's atmosphere could have existed, how do you get
        > simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the necessary
        > chemical changes that will convert them into more complicated compounds,
        > or polymers, such as proteins. Miller himself throws up his hands at
        > that part of the puzzle. "It's a problem," he sighs with
        > exasperation. "How do you make polymers? That's not so
        > easy.""[48] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn48>
        >
        > Polymerization yields water molecules as one of the end products along
        > with polymers. Le Chatelier's Principle explains that the presence
        > of a product (in present case, water) in the reaction medium will
        > substantially slow the reaction. Darwinists proclaim that first life
        > originated in water over a long span of time by a self-organization of
        > molecules. The equilibrium concentration of biological polymers is
        > sufficiently low and thus they have a propensity to break apart in
        > water, not organize.[46]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn46>
        > Consequently, an increase in time will only facilitate water to destroy
        > the polymers. This crisis is one of the biggest headaches for the
        > Darwinists.[49] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn49>
        >
        > To overcome this problem, polymerization in primordial earth requires
        > dehydration synthesis. Because, the polymerization process needs an
        > input of energy, some researchers proposed heating as a means to get rid
        > of the water. However, many researchers including Miller himself
        > reported that a hot prebiotic environment would accelerate the breakdown
        > of biological polymers and hence this is not a suitable option for
        > primordial biochemical synthesis.[50]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn50> ,[51]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn51>
        >
        > Scientists are not able to know how the earliest biopolymers were formed
        > in the prebiotic Earth. The characteristics of such polymers are so
        > distinctive that it is impossible to conjecture about their development.
        > Scientists can only evidently attempt various methods to synthesize them
        > under an assumed primordial-like environment. For instance chemists can
        > only manufacture homopolymers or short co-oligopeptides, but not long
        > co-polymeric chains.[52]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn52> -[57]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn57> The Merrifield method
        > can be adopted to produce amino acid by amino acid, as identical
        > co-polymers. However, this is not a prebiotic technique.[58]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn58> A range of remarkable
        > reactions have been projected and considered in the prebiotic scenario.
        > However, the questions, `how to produce long and chain specific
        > polymers under possible prebiotic circumstances?', and `why a
        > specific polymer chain was formed, and not a different one?' are
        > still unanswered. Chiarabelli also confirms that, "…it is
        > reasonable to agree with the statement, proposed by the editor, that we
        > do not know, neither conceptually nor experimentally, how to make
        > macromolecular sequences under prebiotic conditions."[59]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn59> Therefore, it appears
        > to not be viable for scientists to overcome this polymerization riddle.
        >
        > Pre-RNA World – A Jumbled and Gloomy Pathway to RNA
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnrefPre-RNA>
        >
        > The primordial synthesis of self-replicating molecules is a further and
        > more intricate problem than that of polymerization. In the 1980s
        > Noble-prize winner Thomas R. Cech discovered self-replicating RNA
        > molecules, and thus scientists started believing that RNA molecules
        > could supply the satisfactory explanations for the transition of
        > chemistry to biology in the primordial environments. However, soon
        > researchers observed that there are too many problems with RNA for it to
        > have been the molecule responsible for the transition from chemical to
        > biological. As a result, scientists are now coming up with several new
        > proposals for a variety of mechanisms and molecules by which the
        > transition from chemical to biological can be explained in a world
        > existing before RNA. In recent years the pre-RNA world concept created a
        > great interest among the origin of life researchers, in spite of the
        > absence of direction from known metabolic pathways in biology regarding
        > the chemical nature of a predecessor to RNA.
        >
        > In 1966, Cairns-Smith came up with a drastic proposal supporting that
        > the first appearance of life was not based on organic polymers at all,
        > but rather on inorganic clays.[60]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn60> This model explained
        > the partaking of inorganic clays in creating a replicating system
        > capable of storing information. Information was represented by the
        > distribution of charges or shapes along the surface of the clay. On the
        > other hand, replication is meant to copy that information to newly
        > formed clay layers. The role of natural selection comes into picture
        > when the number of ions in a layer influences how quickly and
        > efficiently the new layer can be made. Suggestions of these kinds not
        > only force chemists to consider more broadly the nature of heritable
        > chemical information, but challenge them to develop and provide
        > experiments to investigate these proposals.
        >
        > Researchers then started the search for alternative genetic materials.
        > For example, Eschenmoser has proposed a molecule called pyranosyl RNA
        > (pRNA) that is very much correlated to RNA but incorporates a different
        > edition of ribose.[61] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn61>
        > In natural RNA, ribose contains a five member ring of four carbon atoms
        > and one oxygen atom. On the other hand, Eschenmoser's ribose
        > structure is rearranged to contain an additional carbon atom in the
        > ring. Eschenmoser finds that complementary strands of pRNA can unite by
        > typical Watson-Crick pairing to give double-strand units that allow a
        > smaller amount of undesirable variations in structure than are
        > achievable with normal RNA. Furthermore, the strands do not twist around
        > each other, as they do in double strand RNA. In a pre-RNA world, where
        > protein enzymes were absent, twisting could stop the strands from
        > unraveling cleanly in replication process. Hence researchers believe
        > that, pRNA appears superior and more suited for replication in a
        > primordial environment than RNA itself. However, scientists have yet to
        > discover an effortless means for synthesizing ribonucleotides containing
        > a six-member sugar ring. Consequently, pRNA failed to gather sufficient
        > experimental support to be considered a strong candidate.[62]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn62>
        >
        > In a very different approach, Nielsen and his team have used a computer
        > model to design a peptide nucleic acid (PNA) that combines a
        > protein-like backbone with nucleic acid bases for side chains.[63]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn63> Similar to RNA, one
        > strand of PNA can combine soundly with a complementary strand. Like RNA,
        > PNA may be able to act as a template for the building of its complement.
        > Scientists are hopeful that perhaps PNA was involved in an early genetic
        > system. Even though Aminoethylglycine has been synthesized in spark
        > discharge reactions from nitrogen, ammonia, methane and water[64]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn64> , to date the prebiotic
        > synthesis of an entire PNA monomer has not been achieved. Although PNA
        > is non-chiral, it is vulnerable to cross-inhibition of the opposing
        > enantiomers when directing the polymerization of activated
        > D,L-ribonucleotide.[65] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn65>
        > ,[66] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn66> In addition, PNA
        > monomers can go through an intramolecular N-acyl transfer reaction that
        > would stop any predictable mechanism for their polymerization.[67]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn67> Both pRNA and PNA
        > dependent on Watson-Crick base pairs as the structural element that
        > makes complementary pairing possible. Researchers engrossed in
        > discovering simpler genetic systems are searching for complementary
        > molecules that do not depend on nucleotide bases for template-directed
        > copying. In reality, there is no encouraging evidence that polymers
        > produced from such building blocks can replicate.
        >
        > Threose-based nucleic acid (TNA) is a recent suggestion and
        > evolutionists believe that TNA might be better candidate for pre-RNA
        > world, compared to other possible sugar-based nucleic acids.[68]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn68> TNA is alike to DNA
        > and RNA. In addition, it contains a simpler 4-carbon sugar called
        > threose in its backbone instead of deoxyribose found in DNA or ribose in
        > RNA. Threose is a simpler sugar than ribose. Advantageously, TNA also
        > displays superior base pairing properties. Inspired by these properties
        > of TNA, some researchers projected that TNA could be a long-lost
        > predecessor to RNA. However, there are several technical problems
        > attached to this proposal. In 2000 Leslie Orgel listed several of them
        > in his paper published in Science magazine.[69]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn69> "Nucleotides
        > containing a tetrose sugar have not been considered likely components of
        > an early genetic polymer because they cannot be joined together by
        > phosphate groups to give a backbone with a six-atom repeat." Orgel
        > further reported that, "In the alternative gradualist scenario,
        > ribonucleotides were at first substituted a few at a time and at random
        > in TNA sequences. The proportion of RNA components increased over time
        > from almost zero to 100%. The information present originally in the TNA
        > sequence was, at least in part, preserved in the final RNA sequence.
        > This attractive theory suffers from one major drawback. Introduction of
        > a substantial number of ribonucleotides at random might not prevent
        > replication of TNA, but it would almost certainly destroy the catalytic
        > function of any particular TNA sequence and thus would render evolved
        > TNA sequences useless when rewritten accurately as RNA." That means
        > none of the existing life forms today retain any TNA. Jeffrey Bada also
        > points out, "TNA suffers from the chirality quandary associated with
        > all sugar-based nucleic acid backbones. Although the presence of a
        > 4-carbon sugar in TNA reduces this problem to 2 sugars and 4
        > stereoisomers, it remains a formidable challenge to demonstrate how
        > oligonucleotides composed of only Lthreose could be preferentially
        > synthesized under pre-biotic conditions .... the selection of chiral
        > sugar component of TNA would have required some sort of selection
        > process to be in operation."[46]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn46>
        >
        > The catalytic potential of proposed predecessor of RNA (pRNA, PNA, TNA,
        > etc) has not yet been established. Hence, every rational supposition
        > regarding pre-RNA life must reflect on whether that preceding genetic
        > system could have facilitated the manifestation of RNA.
        >
        > The RNA World Reverie
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnrefRNA>
        >
        > The term "RNA World" was originally used by the Nobel Prize
        > winner Walter Gilbert in 1986, in an interpretation on findings of the
        > catalytic properties of different types of RNA.[70]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn70> However, the notion of
        > RNA as a primordial molecule can be found in several old published
        > literatures.[71] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn71> -[73]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn73> In the
        > real RNA world observed in present available biological systems, RNA
        > plays dynamic roles in catalyzing biochemical reactions, in translating
        > mRNA into proteins, in regulating gene expression, and in the continuous
        > scuffle between infectious agents trying to destabilize host resistance
        > systems and host cells shielding themselves from infection. Even though
        > scientists have no understanding about how it works, they have the tools
        > to carry on their examination of this existing RNA world and distill
        > their understanding. On the other hand, the primordial RNA world is a
        > made-up age when RNA exhibited both information and function, both
        > genotype and phenotype. Thus, verities of unending speculations are
        > continually coming forward, attempting to apply the data of the present
        > RNA world to understand the primordial RNA world.[74]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn74>
        >
        > Astrobiologists investigating the origin of life on Earth struggle with
        > the question about the nature of the molecules that were the precursors
        > for life. The molecular basis for the storage of genetic information in
        > existing living organisms is deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA. The
        > instructions enclosed in molecules of DNA are expressed by the organism
        > with the use of RNA to make proteins that, in turn, are essential to
        > mediate reactions in the cell. In the absence of RNA, DNA would not be
        > translated into proteins. Similarly, without proteins, the needed
        > reactions could not be catalyzed. This has been the chicken and egg
        > problem of the naturalistic origin of life from chemicals –
        > "which came first – DNA or protein molecule?"
        >
        > Moreover, DNA is an extremely out-sized and intricate molecule and is
        > more stable when two strands come together to form the double helix. It
        > cannot replicate without the help of RNA and enzymatic proteins to
        > catalyze the essential reactions. DNA also seeks the help of proteins to
        > unwind its two strands for replication and to keep the strands from
        > getting tangled up during replication. On the other hand, RNA is often
        > observed as a single strand of nucleic acids. Its backbone structure is
        > produced in fewer steps than DNA. Moreover, as it is comprised of a four
        > letter alphabet, it also can restrain hereditary information. In 1983,
        > Cech and Altman, separately revealed that ribozymes enzymes could be
        > made exclusively of RNA instead of protein. This has lent to the notion
        > that RNA was the primitive information-storing molecule of preference.
        > As discussed in the previous section, some researchers also consider
        > that there were other molecules even prior to RNA (pre-RNA world) that
        > were used by the first life forms. Those that think that RNA was the
        > first molecule with this function assume that RNA, instead of proteins,
        > could catalyze all of the reactions essential for replication. They
        > refer to the era when RNA exhibited this task as the "RNA
        > World".
        >
        > All these appear attractive possibilities, but researchers have reported
        > a number of serious problems associated with RNA world. At the outset,
        > the sugar molecule that is required to produce RNA molecules is ribose.
        > In an attempt to find the chance development of organic molecules in the
        > laboratory, scientists failed to produce a reaction that could gave rise
        > to a high yield of ribose in place of a random mixture of sugars.[75]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn75> Even if they discover
        > a natural reaction that can readily gives rise to ribose in large
        > quantities, they would then have to face the issue of the fast rate at
        > which sugars would have decomposed in primordial conditions. Stanley
        > Miller and his research group have reported, "ribose and other
        > sugars have surprisingly short half-lives for decomposition at neutral
        > pH, making it very unlikely that sugars were available as prebiotic
        > reagents."[76] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn76>
        > Finally, if somehow sugars are manufactured, how would primordial life
        > have selected the structure of sugar out of a mixture that was exactly
        > half "right handed" and half "left handed"? There are
        > many such practical problems attached with both the prebiotic synthesis
        > and the stability of ribose.[77]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn77> -[81]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn81>
        >
        > One of the major assumptions of the RNA world hypothesis is that in the
        > primordial conditions, ribonucleotides spontaneously condense into
        > polymers to form RNA molecules. Once RNA molecules have formed, by its
        > catalytic activity to replicate itself a population of such
        > self-replicating molecules would arise. "It is difficult to
        > believe," says RNA World research scientist Steven Benner, "that
        > larger pools of random RNA emerged spontaneously without the gentle
        > coaxing of a graduate student desiring a completed
        > dissertation."[82] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn82>
        > In addition, researchers believe that even if RNA could have formed
        > spontaneously, the spontaneous hydrolysis and other destructive
        > conditions operational on the early Earth would have caused it to
        > decompose.[2]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn2>
        > Joyce and Orgel recommend that "…myth of a self-replicating RNA
        > molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not
        > only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding
        > of prebiotic chemistry, but it should strain the credulity of even an
        > optimist's view of RNA's catalytic potential."[83]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn83>
        >
        > Francis Crick confirms that, "At present, the gap from the primal
        > "soup" to the first RNA system capable of natural selection
        > looks forbiddingly wide."[84]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn84>
        > Furthermore, RNA fails to perform all of the functions of DNA
        > sufficiently to support replication and transcription of proteins.
        > Consequently, Leslie Orgel pointed out the inability of the RNA world:
        > "This scenario could have occurred, we noted, if prebiotic RNA had
        > two properties not evident today: A capacity to replicate without the
        > help of proteins and an ability to catalyze every step of protein
        > synthesis."[75]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn75> Orgel
        > further acknowledged that, "The precise events giving rise to the
        > RNA world remain unclear … investigators have proposed many
        > hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at
        > best. The full details of how the RNA world, and life, emerged may not
        > be revealed in the near future." Consequently the RNA world reverie
        > appears to be dreadfully hopeless.
        >
        > DNA/Protein World Dilemma
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnrefDNA>
        >
        > The RNA world notion discussed in the previous section, claims that, in
        > the beginning phases of evolution, RNA behaved as both template and
        > catalyst. All existing biological organisms exhibit the partition of
        > tasks between template and catalyst. In existing biological systems, the
        > partition of tasks is an elemental property: DNA stores genetic
        > information whereas proteins function as catalysts. However, scientists
        > are struggling to answer major questions such as: how did the
        > DNA/Protein world come about, why would such partition of tasks evolve
        > in the RNA world, and which came first, DNA or Protein? Again, we find
        > the `chicken and egg' problem.
        >
        > Proteins may seem superficially better than RNA as chemical catalysts
        > due to their larger range of chemical moieties and structural
        > flexibility. On the contrary, due to the nonexistence of mechanisms for
        > template directed replication, proteins are greatly substandard to RNA
        > for the storage of genetic information. Because of the absence of the
        > 29-hydroxyl at its sugar moiety, as compared to RNA, DNA is usually not
        > as much of a reactive molecule. Especially, DNA is significantly more
        > resistant to hydrolysis than RNA[85]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn85> , particularly in the
        > presence of metal ions.[86]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn86> For this reason, time
        > and again it is recommended that DNA has an edge over RNA as a means of
        > genetic information storage.[87]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn87> Nevertheless, Forterre
        > reported that the superior stability advantage of DNA could not account
        > for the origin of DNA because the benefit of using DNA for information
        > storage depends on the chance of evolving a longer genome, which in
        > itself would not offer any direct selective advantage to the systems
        > that included DNA.[88] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn88>
        > There is also no apparent experimental confirmation indicating that DNA
        > is substandard to RNA as a chemical catalyst.[89]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn89> The chemical
        > properties of DNA do not inevitably support the conclusion that the
        > function of DNA is limited to information storage. Takeuchi and his
        > research group asked the question, "Given these considerations, we
        > ask: What selective advantage could there be for an RNA-based evolving
        > system to evolve an entity that is solely dedicated to the storage of
        > genetic information, i.e., an entity that is functionally equivalent to
        > DNA?"
        >
        > The sequence of emergence of different types of biopolymers during
        > primordial evolution is an extremely controversial issue.[90]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn90> ,[91]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn91> There is an impasse
        > attached to both the cases: (1) proteins preceding RNA, and (2) RNA
        > preceding proteins. In existing biological systems, DNA synthesis is
        > fully reliant on RNA. For instance, the monomer units for DNA synthesis,
        > 2'-deoxyribonucleotides, are produced by the alteration of
        > ribonucleotides, and the primers utilized to start DNA polymerization
        > are oligoribonucleotides. It is observed that the catalytic portion of
        > the ribosome, which produces proteins, is made completely of RNA. This
        > is the significant reason touted for proteins preceding RNA. If one
        > accepts that RNA is an inferior and less flexible catalyst than
        > proteins, then the immediate question would be: what is the selective
        > pressure responsible for the evolution of RNA catalysts? Transitioning
        > from RNA to DNA as the hereditary molecule significantly enhanced
        > genomic steadiness. This is believed to improve the possibility that a
        > given organism or molecule would be around long enough to reproduce.
        > Transmission of the task of primary catalyst to proteins also presents
        > major advantages. Both transitions provide understandable advantages to
        > a ribo-organism, nonetheless in fundamentally different ways. Hence,
        > both would manifest following different evolutionary pathways. If we
        > presume RNA was the first of the three macromolecules, an unsolved
        > dilemma is which came next, DNA or protein?
        >
        > Primitive Cell – A Miniaturized Walled City at Work
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnrefCell>
        >
        > Darwin suggested that algae, amoebae and other such simple living beings
        > were blobs of protoplasm which might have just appeared in some warm
        > little pond by the chance combination of chemicals. Darwinian ideology
        > imagines that a small number of relatively effortless changes in this
        > protoplasm could show the way to developmental alteration. Natural
        > selection would make sure that better adaptation would be preserved. On
        > the other hand, changes which led to poorer adaptation would die out.
        > Scientists influenced by this ideology believe that natural processes
        > produce complex life forms from simple ones, which in turn came from
        > dead chemicals. Based on such a foundation, abiogenesis proclaims that
        > the first life had arisen by a chance accumulation of chemicals. The
        > same is evident from the statement of Julian Huxley, one of the most
        > influential evolutionists, "Evolution, in the extended sense, can be
        > defined as a directional and essentially irreversible process occurring
        > in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an
        > increasingly high level of organization in its products. Our present
        > knowledge indeed forces us to the view that the whole of reality is
        > evolution – a single process of self transformation." However,
        > the advancements of microbiology have helped the scientists to look at
        > life in a better way. Darwin's portrait of organisms made of a small
        > number of simple chemicals has given way to one of astounding complexity
        > even in the simplest living entities. The ordinary E coli bacterium has
        > not only miniature electric motors of exceptional efficiency, but also
        > the equipment to fabricate, repair, maintain, operate and power them
        > with an electricity generating mechanism.
        >
        > Consequently, the notion of natural origin of primitive cells in the
        > primordial earth is being severely challenged by the modern explosion of
        > knowledge in microbiology and cellular biology. The issues attached to
        > the `natural origin of life' doctrine will not come to an end,
        > even if one assumes that the necessary chemical building blocks were
        > accessible in the primordial atmosphere. Any theory of `natural
        > origin of life' on Earth needs the practical description of
        > plausible pathways for the conversion from complex prebiotic chemistry
        > to simple biology, understood by evolutionists as the appearance of
        > chemical accumulation capable of Darwinian evolution. The primitive
        > cellular life requires a certain minimum number of systems, like (1) the
        > means to transmit heredity (RNA, DNA, or something similar), (2) a
        > mechanism to obtain energy to generate work (metabolic system), (3) an
        > enclosure to hold and protect these components from the environment
        > (cell membrane), and finally (4) a unique principle to connect all of
        > these components together (appearance of first life). It is incredulous
        > for evolutionists to believe that all of these four systems appeared
        > simultaneously. Hence, the majority of followers of abiogenesis
        > hypothesis are debating on the sequence of appearance of these events in
        > the early earth. In the light of modern scientific advancements, the
        > subsequent subsections illustrate the major hurdles in the pathway
        > connecting chemical building blocks and the primitive cells.
        >
        > Centre of unabated conflict: `metabolism first' or
        > `replication first'?
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnrefmetabolism>
        >
        > The origin of life theory should clarify the origin of the distinctive
        > phenomena which maintains life, such as reproduction, metabolism, and
        > their corollaries (cell division, information carriers, genetic code,
        > growth, maintenance, response to external stimuli, etc.). Reproduction
        > is undoubtedly crucial for the continuation of any form of life. For
        > this reason, evolutionists believe some form of molecular replication
        > must have been started spontaneously in the prebiotic environment as a
        > simple, entirely physicochemical form of reproduction. On the other
        > hand, cellular metabolism is understood as a set of chemical reactions
        > that occur in biological systems to maintain life. This vital process
        > helps organisms to grow and reproduce, maintain, and respond to their
        > environments. The metabolism process is classified in two different
        > classes, catabolism and anabolism. Catabolism process produces useful
        > energy and the anabolism process uses that energy to build components of
        > cells such as proteins and nucleic acids. Through metabolic pathways, in
        > a number of steps one chemical converts itself into another chemical by
        > a sequence of enzymes. Enzymes are essential for the metabolic
        > processes, since enzymes permit biological systems to make necessary
        > reactions that require energy. Hence, some researchers believe in the
        > supremacy of metabolism[12]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn12> ,[13]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn13>
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn13> ,[15]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn15> -[19]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn19>
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn19> and others
        > assume the supremacy of reproduction.
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn92> [11]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn11> ,[21]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn21> ,[72]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn72> ,
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn93> [92]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn92> ,[93]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn93>
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn72> Once
        > again, scientists confront the same difficulty, ``which came first,
        > the chicken (metabolism) or the egg (reproduction)?''
        >
        > The contest between proponents of `metabolism first' and
        > `replication first' persists unabated with both speculations
        > subject to criticism. The `metabolism first' speculation has
        > been criticized by some of the prominent researchers in the field based
        > on the judgment that major steps in the construction of such a metabolic
        > scheme are exceedingly doubtful.
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn94> [21]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn21> ,[92]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn92> ,
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn95>
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn94> [94]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn94> ,
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn21> [95]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn95> The `replication
        > first' notion is also challenged, considering the observation that
        > the de novo manifestation of oligonucleotides is questionable, and that
        > there is no apparent pathway from an RNA world to the existing dual
        > world of proteins and nucleic acids.[77]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn77> ,[96]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn96>
        >
        > How a primitive cell developed its skin?
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnrefskin>
        >
        > Abiogenesis hypothesis must also supply the means and pathways for
        > primitive cell growth and division, as well as the mechanism by which
        > cells could take up nutrients from their environment. All existing
        > biological cells are membrane enclosed workspaces. The cell membrane is
        > the container which holds a cell together. It manages to retain an
        > internal milieu different from its environment within which genetic
        > materials can reside and metabolic activities can take place without
        > being lost to the environment. Existing cell membranes on earth are made
        > of composite mixtures of amphiphilic molecules like phospholipids,
        > sterols, and several other lipids, plus miscellaneous proteins that
        > carry out transport and enzymatic works. Modern biological membranes are
        > pretty secure under different environments and can tolerate a wide range
        > of temperatures, pH, and salt concentrations. These biological membranes
        > are exceptionally fine permeability barriers, so that present cells have
        > comprehensive power over the intake of nutrients and the evacuation of
        > wastes all the way through the dedicated channel, pump and pore proteins
        > implanted in their membranes. Besides, immensely intricate biochemical
        > machinery is mandatory for the growth and division of the cell membrane
        > in a cell cycle. How a structurally simple primitive cell could
        > accomplish all these essential membrane functions in primordial earth is
        > a difficult problem to address. As compared to the research efforts on
        > replications and metabolism, the starting point of primitive membranes
        > is one of the most neglected fields in origin of life investigations.
        > While the unrelenting disagreements in abiogenesis have been around the
        > `metabolism first' versus `replication first' issue,
        > there have also been competing thoughts for the origin of the cell
        > membrane. We will ascertain below that the attempts to produce
        > biological membranes under primordial earth are also suffering from
        > multifaceted unsolved problems.
        >
        > The experiments of Oparin's[16]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn16> ,[97]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn97> and Fox[98]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn98> on coacervates and
        > proteinoid respectively were accepted as a significant historical step
        > in the field of prebiotic synthesis of cell membranes. However, neither
        > coacervates nor proteinoid microspheres have a factual boundary membrane
        > that can perform as a selective permeability barrier. Coacervates and
        > proteinoid are prominently detailed in present high school biology
        > textbooks, even though they are essentially unstable, lacking the
        > capacity to supply a permeability barrier, and incapable of carrying
        > metabolism. Consequently, the present concentration of research has
        > transferred from colloid phenomena and protein chemistry to nucleic
        > acids.[99] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn99> ,[100]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn100> Researchers proclaim
        > that amphiphilic boundary structures contributed to the appearance of
        > life on earth in primordial conditions.[101]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn101> -[103]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn103> As an expansion of
        > this view, some scientists suggest a `Lipid World' situation as
        > an early evolutionary step in the appearance of cellular life on Earth.
        > Moreover, some researchers have proposed that lipid membranes may have a
        > hereditary potential because the majority membranes are produced from
        > other membranes but not created de novo.[104]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn104> ,[105]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn105> However, these
        > approaches have not received much attention, most likely due to the
        > comparative scarcity of experimental evidence. Studies also claim that,
        > in the middle of the abundance of the molecular variety anticipated to
        > be originated in prebiotic Earth, lipid-like molecules have a discrete
        > property. That is: a capability to carry out spontaneous aggregation to
        > form droplets, micelles, bilayers and vesicles contained by an aqueous
        > phase through entropy-driven hydrophobic exchanges.[106]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn106> ,[107]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn107> However, the
        > concentration of biomolecules in the aqueous primordial Earth has been
        > expected to be roughly 1 micromolar,[108]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn108> essentially
        > insufficient for typical covalent chemical reactions indispensable for
        > formation of hydrophobic and amphiphilic molecules.
        >
        > Even if one ignores the difficulties in connection with the production
        > of amphiphilic molecules in primordial earth, still we are left with
        > several technical problems on the path of prebiotic synthesis of
        > membranes. The physical and chemical properties of aqueous surroundings
        > can considerably slow down self-assembly of amphiphilic molecules,
        > perhaps significantly restricting the environments in which cellular
        > life first emerged. For example, temperature significantly controls the
        > stability of vesicle membranes. It has been suggested that the primitive
        > life forms were hyperthermophiles that originated in geothermal regions
        > such as hydrothermal vents[109]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn109> or deep subterranean
        > hot aquifers.[110] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn110>
        > However, under these conditions, the intermolecular forces that
        > stabilize self-assembled molecular systems are relatively weak. Hence,
        > such locations are not suitable for lipid bilayer membranes to assemble.
        > There are also several similar restrictions attached with the ionic
        > composition and pH of the environment proposed for the origin of
        > life.[111] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn111> ,[112]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn112>
        >
        > To escape similar impractical situations, many researchers are
        > speculating that amphiphilic compounds existed in carbonaceous
        > meteorites. These compounds might have self-assembled into membranous
        > vesicles under suitable circumstances and were latter delivered to the
        > early Earth from outer space by meteoritic and cometary infall.[113]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn113> ,[114]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn114> Even though
        > lipid-like materials were claimed to be detected in the Murchison
        > meteorite,[114] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn114> ,[115]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn115> successive research
        > suggested that those compounds were contaminants, rather than endogenous
        > materials.[116] <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn116> The
        > fabrication of appropriate biomolecules in the interstellar medium is of
        > no significance to the origin of life unless these biomolecules can be
        > delivered unharmed to habitable planetary surfaces. The major question
        > would be: can these noble biomolecules withstand the brutal, scorching
        > delivery to a planetary surface? Even if in some way membrane building
        > blocks landed safely through extraterrestrial resources, decomposition
        > through hydrolysis, photochemical degradation, and pyrolysis would have
        > drastically diminished the quantity of such materials.[34]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn34>
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/biology.html#_ftn34> Hence, we
        > remain with the unanswered question: how did a primitive cell develop
        > its skin?
        >
        > What collectively linked the components in the first living cell?
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftnreflink>
        >
        > Despite the massive advancements in the field of cellular biology, the
        > changeover from microscopic chemical mechanisms to the macroscopically
        > evident emergent properties that illustrate life remains unanswered.
        > Even if creation of an enclosed vesicle is achieved, it does not assure
        > functionality of a primitive cell. In order to be practical as a
        > mechanism implicated in abiogenesis, membranes must be linked with all
        > the materials indispensable to instigate life. A membrane must be
        > capable of transporting material in and out of the boundary. Some type
        > of transport system for nutrients and wastes would be compulsory to
        > uphold the metabolism of the primitive cell. Moreover, both a primordial
        > replicator and metabolic system must be interconnected in the primitive
        > cell. Hence, such an arrangement would manipulate, generate and release
        > the necessary chemicals during each cycle. However, it is uncertain what
        > sort of equilibrium would ultimately need to be accomplished to make a
        > transition from chemical system to a biological system. In a purely
        > physicochemical sense, if a stable membrane is synthesized, passive
        > transport systems can be easily arranged. However, such a provision
        > would robotically attain equilibrium, making continuation of further
        > transport impractical.[117]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn117>
        >
        > Even insignificant unicellular living entities are self-guided and are
        > utilize millions of special molecules dedicated for specific
        > responsibilities within a functional cell. Advanced cellular biology now
        > confirms that a functional cell is made up of a sophisticated network of
        > co-dependent biomolecules. Many of these biomolecules are only observed
        > in biological cells and not anywhere else in nature. Robert Shapiro
        > stated in one recent publication in Nature,[118]
        > <http://scienceandscientist.org/biology/#_ftn118> "In June 2005, a
        > group of international scientists clustered around a small, near-boiling
        > pool in a volcanic region of Siberia. Biochemist David Deamer took a
        > sample of the waters, then added to the pool a concoction of organic
        > co<br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
      • Charles Palm
        Gluadys: Barking up the wrong tree. Evolution is a theory of how species change over time. It is not a theory of how life originated. Currently, scientists
        Message 3 of 5 , Dec 5, 2012
          Gluadys: Barking up the wrong tree. Evolution is a theory of how species
          change over time. It is not a theory of how life originated. Currently,
          scientists are researching how life originated, but don't have a complete
          theory yet.

          Evolution: Education and Outreach (October 5, 2012):
          http://ncse.com/news/2012/10/latest-issue-evolution-education-outreach-0014594
          The theme for the issue (volume 5, number 3), edited by Antonio
          Lazcano,
          is the origin and early evolution of life. Articles on the theme include
          "Darwinism and the Origin of Life"; "Prebiotic Chemistry: What We Know,
          What We Don't"; "Origins for Everyone"; "The Origin and Evolution of
          Metabolic Pathways: Why and How did Primordial Cells Construct Metabolic
          Routes?"; "Cenancestor, the Last Universal Common Ancestor"; "Viruses in
          Biology"; and "The Sorites Paradox, 'Life,' and Abiogenesis." Plus there
          are various articles on the teaching of evolution (including reports on the
          state of evolution education in Portugal and Slovenia), book reviews, and
          commentaries.

          Charles P: Barking up the correct tree. Evolution is also a theory of how
          life originated. Life preexisted natural selection.

          James A Shapiro: General discussions of evolution, especially in the
          context of the “Intelligent Design” controversy, suffer from an unfortunate
          conflation in the minds of the lay public (and also of scientists) of three
          distinct questions:

          1 The origin of life.

          2 The evidentiary basis for an evolutionary process.

          3 The nature of evolutionary change Almost universally, the term
          Darwinism is assumed to be synonymous with a scientific approach that has
          provided satisfactory answers to all three questions.


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • gluadys
          ... No, natural selection begins with the self-replicating molecule--well before there was anything most people would call life . Lynn Margulis says nothing
          Message 4 of 5 , Dec 6, 2012
            --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
            >
            > Gluadys: Barking up the wrong tree. Evolution is a theory of how species
            > change over time. It is not a theory of how life originated. Currently,
            > scientists are researching how life originated, but don't have a complete
            > theory yet.
            >
            > Evolution: Education and Outreach (October 5, 2012):
            > http://ncse.com/news/2012/10/latest-issue-evolution-education-outreach-0014594
            > The theme for the issue (volume 5, number 3), edited by Antonio
            > Lazcano,
            > is the origin and early evolution of life. Articles on the theme include
            > "Darwinism and the Origin of Life"; "Prebiotic Chemistry: What We Know,
            > What We Don't"; "Origins for Everyone"; "The Origin and Evolution of
            > Metabolic Pathways: Why and How did Primordial Cells Construct Metabolic
            > Routes?"; "Cenancestor, the Last Universal Common Ancestor"; "Viruses in
            > Biology"; and "The Sorites Paradox, 'Life,' and Abiogenesis." Plus there
            > are various articles on the teaching of evolution (including reports on the
            > state of evolution education in Portugal and Slovenia), book reviews, and
            > commentaries.
            >
            > Charles P: Barking up the correct tree. Evolution is also a theory of how
            > life originated. Life preexisted natural selection.
            >


            No, natural selection begins with the self-replicating molecule--well before there was anything most people would call "life". Lynn Margulis says nothing less complex that a cell should be defined as life and that is long after the self-replicating molecule.

            Even if one defines the self-replicating molecule as life, the theory of evolution does not address the question of its origin. And if one refrains from calling something alive until there is more to an organism than a self-replicating molecule, then we don't have a clear picture of when or how it originated. But we do have a clear picture of how it continued to evolve.


            > James A Shapiro: General discussions of evolution, especially in the
            > context of the “Intelligent Design” controversy, suffer from an unfortunate
            > conflation in the minds of the lay public (and also of scientists) of three
            > distinct questions:
            >
            > 1 The origin of life.
            >
            > 2 The evidentiary basis for an evolutionary process.
            >
            > 3 The nature of evolutionary change Almost universally, the term
            > Darwinism is assumed to be synonymous with a scientific approach that has
            > provided satisfactory answers to all three questions.
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >


            Strange. You disagree with me, then post a paragraph from your hero, Shapiro, which emphatically agrees with me. He is saying we should separate these three ideas, not put them all in the same basket as if they were synonyms--much less the same thing. 2 & 3 deal with evolution: what it is (3) and the evidence for it (2). The origin of life is a different kettle of fish.

            (It is also a good reason to dispense with the term Darwinism which has become misleading for exactly this reason.)
          • Charles Palm
            Gluadys: Even if one defines the self-replicating molecule as life, the theory of evolution does not address the question of its origin. And if one refrains
            Message 5 of 5 , Dec 6, 2012
              Gluadys: Even if one defines the self-replicating molecule as life, the
              theory of evolution does not address the question of its origin. And if one
              refrains from calling something alive until there is more to an organism
              than a self-replicating molecule, then we don't have a clear picture of
              when or how it originated. But we do have a clear picture of how it
              continued to evolve.

              http://ncse.com/news/2012/10/latest-issue-evolution-education-outreach-0014594
              The latest issue of Evolution: Education and Outreach.

              Charles P: Please write to the National Center for Science Education to
              explain why evolution does not address the question of its origin and how
              you have a clear picture of how it continued to evolve. I am sure that
              Shapiro would like to know everything that you know. It would save him and
              others a lot of time and resources.

              Charles P: http://originlife.org/ Where were you when Harry Lonsdale was
              addressing the question of its origin in 2011?

              Harry Lonsdale: My goal in supporting Origin of Life research is to help
              scientists solve one of the great remaining problems in biology. A solution
              will give every science teacher in the world, from high school to college,
              a fundamental understanding of how life probably began on the Earth. In
              time, the world will learn that the laws of chemistry and physics, and the
              principle of evolution by natural selection, are sufficient to explain
              life's origin.


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.