What is the Origin of Life?
For a guy who named his life’s work The Origin of the Species, he sure avoided the topic of origins. Darwinism is based upon spontaneous generation—a concept that was disproved over a century ago. This refusal to look the issue in the eye is revealed by George Wald: “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet we are here as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation…Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation.” [emphasis added] He admits that the only reason he believes in spontaneous generation is because the only alternative is special creation, which he refuses to consider, data or no data. And they say that the Intellige
Colleagues from both the University of Minnesota and the University of Toronto conducted grassland experiments on 147 plots of land, each plot measuring 3 by 3 meters square. The plots of land were weeded according to the number of different plant species that were experimentally allowed to grow on each designated section. Some plots were allowed one type of plant, others two, three, and up to the count of 24. Typically such land would have 40 or 50, but this being a relatively new type of experiment the numbers were kept low. It was found that the plots which allowed for no diversity save one type of plant had less ground coverage than those with more. The percentages increased dramatically past the count of 10, after which effects were not measurable. However the researchers recognize that larger plots of land are necessary in order to understand the effects over ten, and so are now working on plots of land 13 by 13 meters square. But these preliminary results are interesting, in tha
The origin of life are thought to have occurred sometime between 4.4 billion years ago, when the oceans and continents were just starting to form, and 2.7 billion years ago, when it is widely accepted that microorganisms existed in vast numbers due to their influence over isotope ratios in the relevant strata. Where exactly in this 1.7 billion year range the true origin of life can be found is less certain. A controversial paper published in 2002 by the UCLA paleontologist William Schopf argued that wavy geological formations called stromalites in fact contain 3.5 billion year old fossilized algae microbes. Some paleontologists disagree with Schopf’s conclusions and estimate the first life at around 3.0 billion years of age instead of 3.5 billion. Evidence from the Isua supercrustal belt in Western Greenland suggests an even earlier date for the origin of life – 3.85 billion years ago. S. Mojzis makes this estimate based on isotope concentrations. Because life preferentially uptakes th
More than 100 years ago Louis Pasteur and others proved the folly of abio-genesis—the spontaneous transformation of non-living matter into living organisms. Biologists now simply say, “life comes only from life.” Nevertheless, scientists generally accept the concept that life developed abiologically on a primordial Earth. By doing so, they conveniently assert that conditions on a “primordial world” were conducive to generate life spontaneously. Others theorize that perhaps life was imported to Earth from outer space. But while Earth is covered with millions of different species of organisms, there is no evidence of life anywhere in the solar system. And beyond it, there is three and a half light years of empty space until the nearest star, the Alpha Centaury. The last logical option for the origin of life is creation by a supernatural Creator. But science, in its attempt to explain everything by natural laws, rejects the creation option as being outside the scientific realm. Life not a
