Origin of Life - Part 2
All the discussions of any subject on Earth is based on resolving the biggest and most critical question surrounding the origin of life, mainly due to the impact of the answer on every other discussion. In the simplest terms, there are three options for the origin of life on Earth, one of these options needs to be determined as the likely truth while the others can be disregarded as the likely fiction that they are. The first option is the most popular mainly because of the pressure from the academic community to push this option on the students because it fits in the agenda of science, this will be the Science Origin of Life option. The second option is the most fun because of the images it generates and will be the Alien Origin of Life option. The third option is the most disagreeable to the science community because it rejects the proposals of the science community and this will be referred to as the Deity Origin of Life option. The next sections will attempt to summarize each option, do not get the impression that these comments perfectly reflect the details of each option and may try to have a little fun. While there is no way to know for sure which option is the truth, the goal of this discussion is to review the viability of each option.
The science origin of life option is, perhaps, the most well known because it is the option that has been pushed on the public-school systems and was the subject of a court case long ago. In the years past, schools taught the origin of life as detailed in the Bible since this was as close to a first hand account as ever existed, however, science had a desire to replace religion as the final word on every topic and opposed the use of the Biblical version in the early part of the 20th century. This attitude towards religion goes back hundreds of years to when the scholar Galileo documented the theory of the solar system and the placement of Earth in space. Prior to the work of Galileo, the church had taught that man was the greatest creation of God and that man was the center of the universe, believing that the universe revolved around man and Earth. The theory of Galileo contradicted this claim and undermined the authority of the church, which at the time was considered a sin. The church gave Galileo an option to retract his theory or face excommunication from the church. Galileo relented and held his theory in reserve until his death. The theory was released and received wide acceptance by the academic community, forcing the church to re-evaluate their claims and they finally relented to admit the structure of the solar system in the universe but still declaring that man was God’s greatest creation.
To eliminate this claim by the church, science developed the Science Origin of Life theory. This theory is based on the first life form being the result of a random interaction of amino acids, randomly connecting and forming the first DNA strand, the beginning of the life form. The life form wrapped itself in protein wrap to form a cell. From this first life form, all the creatures on Earth are the result. The entire theory of evolution explains how this is possible. The only questions that should be asked are more in line with the viability of this theory. Consider, above everything else the concept of entropy in nature, this is one of the traits of nature, which breaks down anything complex as compared to building it up. There are wonderful examples of nature sculptures, but these are not built up but instead the remnant of something larger that has been worn down with wind and rain. Entropy is the simple process of destruction by nature of everything. Every living being exists in a constant battle of falling apart and the biological life force repairing and rebuilding. The problem of entropy would eliminate the possibility of any randomly built collection of anything to form the first life form.
There are a few variations in the story based on the challenges that have been expressed. One is that the life form was not a carbon based metabolism (which means using oxygen and carbon for energy) but instead was a metabolism that utilized the chemical compounds that existed at the time to provide the needed energy. The problem with this approach is more in terms of the viability of this life form converting to a carbon-based metabolism and leaving no traces or descendants to validate this claim.
Part of the problem with science is the inability to stay in the same reality over time. Science gave us the Big Bang Theory, explaining the source of all matter in the universe. Let’s make one assumption: nothing was living in the big ball of matter at the heart of the Big Bang Theory so that means nothing was living in the universe during the first minute, year, or million years after the Big Bang Theory. On top of this, the theory is that Earth was formed in the solar system with the Sun at the center and during this period of formation and adjustment, Earth was bombarded by various debris from space – asteroids, comets, etc. Each of these impacts caused the core of the Earth to super heat the surface of the Earth so there is no basis for a Big Bang bacteria to survive to the moment that the first life form began. In other words, Earth was basically sterile of life, along with the rest of the Universe.
The science origin of life theory stipulates that amino acids came together by accident, implemented links, and formed the DNA strand and this simple step formed the first life form. The problem is that this theory is not viable due to a number of problems in relationship to time and other disciplines. On top of everything else is the violation of the medical laws regarding the ability of any combination of non-living matter to come to life either with help or spontaneously. It is almost as if the science origin of life theory is a retelling of the Mary Shelley novel Frankenstein. Medical science has proven that any collection of non-living matter cannot be brought to life, even though Frankenstein used lightning to bring the monster to life. In the case of Frankenstein, all of the parts used in the monster had been alive at one point in time and when the people died, their contributions were harvested and integrated into a new being so we know that all of the minerals and structures were alive at one time but had died. In the case of science origin of life theory, various non-living matter and ‘organic matter’ came together and spontaneously came to life. The inclusion of the ‘organic matter’ is a new classification used by science to plug the gaps in the theory. Life, in every form, is the result of life being passed on from another life form but the claim is that a quirk of nature brought this first DNA strand to life, however, this has never happened since or been repeated in experiments. Perhaps Frankenstein is nothing more than a parody of the science origin of life theory.
If we look closely at the functions in nature and life forms, what can be identified is that life forms build complex structures and maintain those structures as well as they can while, on the flip side, nature breaks down the complex into the simple. This is the explanation for the existing source of amino acids in nature, the break down of organic matter into simple structures so the cell is broken down into the DNA strand and this is broken down further into amino acids but, an important but, amino acids are the results of organic matter so there are none prior to the first life form and, if you use the fake organic matter theory, then there still are no amino acids, which leads into the next problem.
The next problem with the science origin of life theory is the random linking of amino acids. The problem is that there were no amino acids around at the time, amino acids are the result of organic life forms and without any previously living organic life forms, there cannot be any amino acids. The fact is that amino acids are not randomly generated by nature, they are generated by organic life forms and exist because of organic life forms dying. On top of the amino acids, the protein is also a result of an organic life form so there was no protein available to form the cell wall. It is almost as if science included the concept of time travel in their claim to allow for the placement of the amino acids at the time and place to plant them where they could have their meet and greet to form a DNA strand. This is the problem with this theory, the components required did not exist at the time because amino acids are not a product of nature, the only source is organic life forms.
Even if it was possible, through the use of a miracle, to create a life form, the environment is not capable of supporting life due to atmosphere and food sources. At this time, the atmosphere is comprised of carbon dioxide so there is no means for an organic life form to use oxygen for metabolism. On top of the lack of oxygen, is the lack of any food sources. Since this is the first life form then there are no food sources available, the supermarket won’t be available for years. Now spend a moment considering the genetic structure of a DNA string made up of randomly linked amino acids. The most important function of any life form is reproduction and there probably is not a genetic sequence for duplication and reproduction. It is understandable why science felt the need to propose a theory to explain the origin of life but the utter failure to think through the process is a concern. Overall, not only is this theory not viable, it is not possible. Any scientist supporting this theory is placing the party line claim in front of truth.
The second option for the origin of life is the introduction of life from life forms transplanted by space debris. This would require that the space debris land on Earth with the life form included in the debris. There are two problems with this approach, and they are also reflective of the problems from the science origin of life theory, the problems are related to oxygen in the atmosphere and a food source. Even if a germ or bacteria came to Earth from outer space, the problems of the oxygen for metabolism oxidation and the barren Earth without any food sources continues to be a problem. The only approach that can be used with this option is the inclusion of an ark as compared to simply bacteria on space debris.
The problem with life from space is essentially the same as the problems on Earth for the origin of life, where did the life come from and how did the life start wherever it came from? Essentially, the Big Bang does not provide any life in the ball of matter, placing every planet in space with the same problems as Earth for creating life from nothing. Perhaps the life from space was essentially in the form of a Deity.
This option is not discussed by science because it returns science to a position of lower superiority than religion, in that perhaps the stories in the Bible have credence. This version eliminates the science fairy tales of evolution and many other science theories that are based on the inclusion of a miracle in the process. This option is often referred to as Intelligent Design because it is apparent there was more intelligence in the sequence of events for the development of Earth beyond the simple random selection of nature. This approach presents the inclusion of a Deity to manage the introduction of all life forms.
At this time (based on the previous discussions), Earth has an atmosphere (carbon dioxide and nitrogen) and water with a moon orbiting Earth on a schedule that is constant. This discussion also assumes that the superheated core of Earth is encased in a shell due to the impact of the water which reduces the surface temperature to acceptable ranges with only the occasional eruption breaking this shell. To prepare Earth for habitation the atmosphere must be corrected, and food sources must be implemented before non-plant life forms are included. It is critical to recognize that all life on Earth is broken into two primary groups: those that create food sources and those that consume. On a very simple basis, most plants fall into the group that create food sources because of the use of photosynthesis and the inclusion of chlorophyll, however there are exceptions like mushrooms. Everything else falls into the group that consumes food that they did not produce, this includes all microorganisms, insects and other critters including man.
To resolve the atmosphere problem, the first need is to eliminate the carbon dioxide. The easiest solution is the creation and introduction of simple plant life (algae and lichen) which are intended to simply convert the carbon dioxide to carbon based food starches. The process of photosynthesis is extremely complicated and has not been duplicated in the laboratory but is well documented. Thanks to the inclusion of chlorophyll in the plants they have the ability to capture sunlight (energized photons) and perform the same service as a solar cell capturing the energy in the photon and applying the energy to water, splitting the water into hydrogen and oxygen which, like an assembly line, is passed to the next step. The carbon dioxide is brought into the process and is combined with the hydrogen and oxygen from the water resulting in a new compound – the food starch. The food starch is comprised of carbon, oxygen and hydrogen with leftover oxygen which is released back into the atmosphere. Using this process, the plant life, over the next thousand or million years, converted all of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (45%) leaving an oxygen content of 23% - remember that half of the oxygen is locked in the starches generated by the photosynthesis. All the food starches accumulated over this period and settled providing the beginning of the hydrocarbons currently in pools underground.
Once the atmosphere had been fixed and the food source was available, the next introductions were required to start the life process on Earth. These introductions included all varieties of plants including grasses, flowers, vines, trees, bushes and weeds along with all of the microorganisms that we love and the insects including the famous cockroach along with bees, ants, butterflies, on and on. Once the insects become established and the plants have taken hold, the next round of critters starting with the underwater critters from plankton to jelly fish to shell fish, lobsters, crabs to squid and octopus to every variety of fish and sharks. On land, the amphibians and reptiles were introduced, everything from the smallest lizard to the T-Rex and Brontosaurus. This discussion assumes that this introduction was more about trial and error, testing for size. It is assumed that the Deity did not know specifically what critters would work best and together so some trial runs and testing were needed because there was time. One important note is that everything in this introduction is cold blooded which provided specific design shortcuts, adding to the trial and error conclusion.
This first introduction provided the basis for so many of the fossils that exist today, however, since this was a trial run, another cycle of introductions was planned. There is evidence that an asteroid impacted Earth and threw enough debris into the atmosphere to block out the sun resulting in most of the critters dying off because of the cold and the food sources disappeared. Over time, the environmental functions of Earth cleared the atmosphere providing for the sun to come back and all the seeds left over from the previous cycle began growing again. Eventually, the second cycle of critters was introduced which reduced the overall size of the critters but, most important, provided a couple of examples of warm blooded critters like the wholly mammoth and the saber tooth tiger where the most important adaptations was the change in the skin from scales to blood warmed skin with a covering of fur. This discussion assumes that the second cycle of animal form revision introductions was the end of the testing. At some point in time later, a volcanic eruption filled the sky with debris again, killing all of the plant life and most of the critters, once again, dying off. This is proposed based on the potential volcanic site under Yellowstone Park where the pool of volcanic activity is larger than anywhere else on the America continent. There is no way to know when and if something will happen, but it is unlikely that we will have any means to control the event.
The third introduction brought into the process everything that had been learned previously with all the trials and tests. The size of the critters was brought more into line with the size of man but, most important, the lessons learned with the land-based animals and warm-blooded options were implemented across almost all critters. The smaller amphibians and reptiles were maintained but the size was much smaller with only rare exceptions of lizards in some areas that are large. The snakes in some areas are also large and these should be avoided, however, the inclusion of the venom in the snake may have always been a defensive function. The majority of snakes are not poisonous, but each serves a purpose. On the flip side of snakes is the lizard and they come in all sizes, normally with lots of speed. The normal size of lizards is more built for speed as compared to fighting options but one interesting option is the Gila Monster in southwestern United States where the combination is of venom and a body that was designed to roll around while biting prey. Bear in mind that these critters are all cold blooded.
With the introduction of warm blooded, the attribute was applied to almost every critter from mice to elephants to birds and bats to animals designed to survive in the cold and those designed to survive in the heat. On top of land based critters, warm blooded ocean based animals were included which requires the use of lungs as compared to gills and the supportive nature of water provides for one of the largest animals on Earth, an ocean based whale. The shift from previous versions of cold-blooded animals to warm blooded illustrated a dramatic shift in the design and function of the animal. One critical point in in the introduction of warm blooded is the complete shift in design and application from the cold blooded. In theory, the development of warm blooded, in its simple form in the second introduction, was an act of nature and random selection, in reality, this theory is nonsense because of the lack of foundation for the jump in nature’s technology. One critical point was the introduction of warm blooded across the board from the small to the largest, evolution may be claimed but the issue is more a matter the volume of critters changed in a single pass, sorry, this was a design decision and almost every model shares the same features. This discussion assumes that the shift to warm blooded was also in line with smarter animals for survival and defense, partly against man. This phase of introductions was laying the groundwork for the introduction of man.
Man is a warm-blooded mammal that is different from all other animals. One of the concepts introduced in this discussion is the concept of the soul in man, a simple difference that provides man a link to the Deity. Science has never been able to identify the soul in the body of man, causing them to deny the existence, but at the same time science has never been able to create life and they are unable to identify exactly what causes life and what happens to the cell structure when the cell dies. Just to present the concept, there is another dimension, a dimension that man does not have access to but is the home of the Deity and all of the souls that have come before or are waiting for the turn. It is proposed that the soul is a grouping of massless particles that come together and provide the means for the soul to grow. Of course, this concept will be dismissed immediately by many, but this is just an option.
While the topic is up for discussion, man also has a higher intelligence level than all other animals and there are various reasons why based on the shape of the brain. Once again, many would point to random selection by nature, however, like warm blooded there is no conceptual growth pattern for one species to have the ability to communicate to future generations. Some animals can build weapons but these seldom show any growth, whereas man takes any weapon and finds ways to make it more effective. Much of this growth comes from man’s imagination, so the question is whether animals have an imagination or simply memory.