Life from Comets?


Take the Pop Quiz
on Evolution and
the Origin of Life

Go beyond theory
to experience:

Explore the universal constant of design at
GoldenNumber

The Phi Nest

Is Atheism a Religion?


 Recommended books
In Association with Amazon.com

 

In this section:  Chance or Design?   The Scientific Method Life in a Test Tube? The Eye Irreducible Complexity Anything Can Happen? Evolution or Selection? Real Examples of Evolution "Do You Feel Lucky?" (Abio)Genesis 1:1 Life from Comets? Life on Mars? Richard Dawkins A Brief History of Slime...

"Life's A Gas!"


The July 1999 issue of Scientific American featured the cover story "Molecules from Space," which began with this statement:

Life's Far-Flung Raw Materials:

Life may owe its start to complex organic molecules manufactured in the icy heart of an interstellar cloud."
Scientific American - Molecules from Space

The article featured the illustration below to depict how this happened:

Life on Earth being seeded by comets originating in interstellar gas clouds

Image credit: Andy Cristie of slimfilms.com

It looks so easy when you explain it this way, doesn't it!  Apparently, we can't explain life originating on Earth all by itself, so now we're turning to space to bring it to us.

Why do the theories change so often?

The article explains how the "old" theories from just a few decades ago are falling out of favor:

"New evidence has drawn the components of Miller's atmosphere into question, but his primordial soup theory for how life's ingredients were spawned in a warm pond or ocean on the planet's surface still has a strong following. Some scientists have recently moved the soup pot to the seafloor, where they say murky clouds of minerals spewing from hot springs may have generated life's precursor molecules. But a growing group of other researchers are looking at an altogether different source for life-giving molecules: space."

What's wrong with Miller's theory?  The article explains:

CytosineCytosine"Amino acids exist in mirror-image pairs, a molecular quality called chirality. Just as a person's hands look alike when pressed palm to palm but different when placed palm to knuckles, individual amino acids are either left-handed or right-handed. For little-known reasons and with rare exceptions, amino acids in living organisms are left-handed. One criticism of Miller-type experiments is that they produce equal numbers of both forms. This is where extraterrestrial amino acids come out ahead. Since his first report in 1993, John R. Cronin of Arizona State University has demonstrated a slight surplus of left-handedness in several amino acids extracted from two different meteorites."

Is this theory any better?

How convincing do you find a "slight" surplus in "several" amino acids in "two" meteorites  as an explanation for the source of life?  Consider too its voyage on that meteor:

  • It took tens of thousands, if not millions, of years to get here.

  • It traveled in the absolute zero temperature and complete vacuum of space.

  • It ignited in a fiery blaze upon hitting the Earth's atmosphere, and

  • It burst in an explosion when it hit the Earth's surface.

Is surviving all that to then seed life on Earth a reasonable expectation?  While the article calls the organic molecules on meteors "complex," they're just polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.  Per NASA,

"PAHs are a class of very stable organic molecules made up of only carbon and hydrogen. These molecules are flat, with each carbon having three neighboring atoms much like graphite. At right is a space filling representation of the PAH coronene (C24H12). These molecules are highly carcinogenic but they are also very common. They are a standard product of combustion from automobiles and airplanes and some are present in charcoal broiled hamburgers."

They've also been identified by the U.S. Government as a hazardous contaminant, listed along with dioxin, paraquat and cynanide.  Most PAH's are less complex than the one shown, so they're really simpler molecules than Miller's amino acids, which in turn were nothing at all like the DNA found in life.

Question:  Does this really seem more "reasonable" than life forming here on its own or being created by God?

Pop culture TV, books and movies also tell us that life was seeded on Earth by other beings.  The movie "Mission to Mars" used this as its premise, only to have NASA show it to be wrong in the same year.  Is this really an answer at all or does it just avoid the question of life's true origin by moving it somewhere well beyond our grasp?

Why don't we consider that God created life?

Is it because
the evidence makes it so unreasonable
or is it that
the implications make it so unthinkable?

The Other Side of Common Beliefs
Common Beliefs

Seek the Truth
Seek the Truth

In this section
 Chance or Design?   The Scientific Method Life in a Test Tube? The Eye Irreducible Complexity Anything Can Happen? Evolution or Selection? Real Examples of Evolution "Do You Feel Lucky?" (Abio)Genesis 1:1 Life from Comets? Life on Mars? Richard Dawkins A Brief History of Slime...

 

 


Copyright 1997-2002, The Evolution of Truth