“Modern biologists, usually, give every honor to Pasteur and his experiments, but claim that life originated through abiogenic means. They say that Pasteur only proved that life cannot arise suddenly ‘ad hoc,’ meaning abruptly, suddenly, and under current conditions, but from his experiments it does not follow at all that life cannot arise gradually, slowly. Therefore, it cannot happen suddenly, where you have dead, then living, but rather you have dead, then organic, then living, in circumstances that were completely different from those we have now on planet Earth.
So, what is assumed? It is assumed that the conditions were different, and that life could have arisen in a relatively gradual way. And this process, of the gradual emergence of life, is called ‘biochemical evolution.’ So, just as in Darwin’s theory we have the gradual emergence of new species, in biochemical evolution, life gradually emerged from the non-living.
In the formation of the universe, atoms first formed, then molecules, then complex organic compounds, among which are the basic building blocks of life, nucleotides, which form DNA and RNA, as well as amino acids, as essential components of proteins.
The biggest proponents of this hypothesis were Alexander Oparin (the theory of coacervates) and Holdane. One is English, the other is Russian. But the main experiment cited as proof of this hypothesis was conducted by Stanley Miller in 1953.
What did he do? He constructed an apparatus.”
We have one container with water that is heating up. The water vapor evaporates, moves to the next part of the apparatus, and gases are introduced through a vent from the side: hydrogen, ammonia, and methane, they mix with the water vapor, and move to the expanded part of the apparatus. Here, electrical discharges are carried out, then the products are separated and move to the part that is filled with “cold trap” which is filled with liquid, and here the obtained organic compounds are trapped.
When Stanley Miller analyzed the obtained products, he determined that he obtained a huge amount of tar, and in traces, certain organic components were present, among which were amino acids.
In general, with this and similar experiments, 17 out of 20 essential amino acids were obtained. In addition, nucleosides were obtained (no one has yet managed to synthesize nucleotides). Nucleosides are nucleotides without the associated phosphoric acid. And this is taken as reliable evidence that life originated via abiogenesis. Uninformed people, when they hear that an amino acid was synthesized in the laboratory, think that a living system has been created and that this is proof that life on Earth originated spontaneously. (That would, approximately, be like if someone made a brick and then claimed that “Building” was formed on its own.)
Is Miller’s experiment proof of the abiogenic origin of life through biochemical evolution? If it is necessary to emphasize, and it seems that it is, that Miller’s experiments prove something, then it should be said that they prove only this: that under the specified conditions, with the help of biochemists, certain organic (non-living) molecules can be obtained.
In addition, they tell us that it is reasonable to believe, hope, and claim that under the same conditions, the obtaining will be repeated. It is not clear what real, substantial proof this holds in the sense that biogenesis really happened, that the conditions of the pre-atmosphere were as they should be, to be viewed in light of Miller’s experiments.
Therefore, Stanley Miller and other biochemists who conducted similar experiments have only proven that organic compounds are obtained in such experiments. Nothing more and nothing less. These experiments in no way prove that such a reductive atmosphere existed on planet Earth.
There was no oxygen here. All biochemists assume that there was no oxygen on planet Earth because as soon as oxygen is present, all organic compounds oxidize. Only reductive compounds can participate in chemical reactions. As soon as they oxidize, they can no longer participate.
So, what was the original atmosphere like? (First of all, we do not even know if there was such an original atmosphere, but let us agree for a moment with this hypothesis.) Well, the original atmosphere should have been of a reductive nature. And indeed, in all evolutionary journals, this requirement is presented. So, evolutionists need a reductive atmosphere, which means – it was like that. And where is the proof? Well, the fact that we are here, the fact that life exists all around us. We will later read a statement from one evolutionary expert in this field – George Wald.
What is certain is that with such experiments, it has not been proven in any way that the atmosphere was like that, and that organic compounds were formed, let alone that life originated from these organic compounds.
So, this only proves that under certain laboratory conditions, with the cooperation of chemists or biochemists who construct the apparatus and prepare the conditions, organic compounds can be formed. Nothing more.
It is most likely that the primordial atmosphere had to contain oxygen. Because, if there was water vapor, a large degree of photolysis, under the influence of UV radiation from space, must have split the water into hydrogen and oxygen. Therefore, a high degree of photolysis early on, in the assumed history of the Earth, must have created a large amount of oxygen. And thus, abiogenesis was finished. In addition, through photolysis, such an important compound as ammonia would have been broken down. Finally, we know that in the original rocks we find iron oxides, which is a geological proof that the original Earth’s crust had oxygen. Because, there are no iron oxides without oxygen.
A scientist says: “With oxygen, life cannot originate because there would be rapid oxidation of organic molecules. And if there was no oxygen, then these newly formed organic components would have been broken down by UV radiation.” Because, there is no ozone, which protects from UV radiation, without oxygen. An ozone layer cannot be imagined if there is no oxygen. Ozone is O3.
According to the evolutionary claim, ozone was formed only when autotrophic organisms, which released oxygen, appeared.
In addition, the agents that act (these electrical discharges were supposed to imitate thunderstorms and lightning) and participate in creating organic components are much more efficient in their degradation. It is easy for us to obtain organic components when we place a cold trap. However, there were no biochemists on the primordial Earth who would isolate the newly formed components.
It is easy when we make something in a laboratory, but we must not design our laboratory to the world and imagine that it was like that in the real world.
Therefore, in these experiments, the researchers set up a cold trap (a trap) by which the products formed are separated from the energy source, which is completely understandable for a “chemical” experiment, but the results should never be extrapolated to out-of-laboratory conditions, especially not to the young Earth.
Moreover, even if we accept that organic components were formed, the question is how they could not have hydrolyzed if they were in water. Indeed, if it even happened that the impossible occurred, that more complex organic compounds (polymers) were formed, they would, due to the excess water, have adopted a water molecule (for each bond) and thus been degraded, that is, hydrolyzed.
“Different views have been proposed on how the problem could be bypassed. Thus, some evolutionists have proposed that freezing occurred. This is a bit strange. Some say that the Earth was molten, others say that freezing occurred. ‘The Earth was as it needed to be.’
But, even if we accept that freezing occurred, all further processes were then blocked. Organic components were preserved, but all further processes were blocked and polymerization, complexification, and the construction of macromolecules, higher molecules, could not take place. Indeed, if the temperature was that low, how could the further reactions in the supposed abiogenesis take place? Therefore, other evolutionists suggest the opposite. It is assumed that the concentration of these organic molecules occurred in areas where there was little water – in lagoons near volcanoes. Polymers would, according to this view, form on the surface of molten lava, where there is no water, and where hydrolysis is thus prevented.
However, even this assumption does not work, for the simple reason that the newly formed products would be destroyed by heat, denatured, that is, they would be irreversibly deformed and unsuitable for life.
And this concentration would simultaneously concentrate other inorganic components, which are irrelevant for further biochemical evolution processes.
In the latest evolution textbook, it is written: “You can assume that in the original ocean, the concentration of sodium chloride was 10 times less than the current value, and all amino acids around 200 millionths of a gram per liter, then the ratio of sodium chloride to amino acid molecules would be 10,000:1.”
So, the encounter between sodium chloride molecules and some amino acid molecule is 10,000 times more frequent.” This is only sodium chloride, and what about the others?
In Miller’s experiment, a lot of tar was produced, which is completely irrelevant to the origin of life, and only minor amounts of amino acids. Only thanks to the sophisticated equipment could that minor amount of “desirable” molecules be detected. The rest were tar, resin, etc. And if the situation is like that in an experiment planned by humans, how much worse would it be in nature?
Furthermore, in such experiments, both L and D forms are produced. Only L forms of amino acids participate in further construction. There are no proteins that contain D forms of amino acids. And both types were produced here. How did selection occur? What environmental factors could have favored “L-life”? No one has given a satisfactory answer to this question, but the tautological thought is repeated once again: “Since ‘left-handed life’ is present today, it is more adaptable. Therefore, natural selection has favored this life.”
In evolutionism, there are several almost tautological explanations, and also a lot of circling in circles. For example, we refer to certain facts in favor of the evolutionary theory, and we also refer to this theory in favor of this or some other “fact.” A typical example is Haeckel’s law, rudiments, molecular fossils… etc.
And finally, this is now a vitalist objection; this hypothesis would, at best, explain how organic compounds arise. Do you know what vitalists say? “What you’re talking about has nothing to do with biology. This should be taught in the department of organic chemistry. It only explains how organic compounds can form under certain experimental conditions. And one thing is organic compounds, and another thing is living beings. We can accept how an organic compound can form under experimental conditions, but there is a big difference, a huge gap between the organic and the living.”
“So, for vitalists in all of this, there is a principled mistake. Life is, according to the ‘abiogeneticists’, understood as the result of highly organized matter. For vitalists, life is not that. Therefore, for them, these experiments do not belong to biology, they should not even be mentioned in the context of biological contents, but belong to ordinary organic chemistry. Indeed, if life is of an immaterial essence, then these experiments are logically and scientifically irrelevant for biology and the origin of life.
Why are these atheistic hypotheses accepted among evolutionists? We will see from several quotes that the reasons are not just scientific in nature.
For example, Negeli says this: ‘To deny archegonium (this is one of the abiogenetic hypotheses) means to admit a miracle.’ So, if you do not want to accept a miracle, you must accept archegonium.
Haeckel, the famous evolutionist, says this: ‘If you do not accept the theory that life originated from dead matter, then in this first point of the theory of evolution, you must resort to a miracle.’ So, in the same way.
Pay attention further to what Karl Vogt says: ‘We must allow that life originated from dead matter so that we can remove the Creator.’ Why must we? We would have to if it were a proven fact. Then it would be an intellectually honest position. However, we only have before us an arbitrary hypothesis. But, for some evolutionists, that is enough, because they must admit abiogenesis to remove the Creator. Truly academic!
Virchow says: ‘If I do not want to accept the Creator, I must say that life originated from dead matter.’
Finally, the promised George Wald: ‘Spontaneous generation of living organisms is impossible. However, we are here – I believe, as a result of spontaneous generation.’ So, being here, this is, according to George Wald, impossible, because we, according to him, originated from spontaneous generation, which is impossible. But he emphasizes this: ‘We are here,’ which seems to be meant to convince us that abiogenesis is not so impossible.
So, you see, absolutely no possibility is allowed for the existence of God. Therefore, evolution is just something that evolutionists talk about. It is an urgent necessity for atheists. And indeed, many evolutionists are explicitly first atheists, then evolutionists.”