How Did Life Originate?
Ants danced last Summer
and flies flew through Fall:
Winter bred its berries —
but Spring made them all.
IN A SIMPLE WAY that expresses what we all have come to know about life: each year at springtime it buds anew. Indeed, life on earth is so prevalent that we encounter it no matter where we go. For example, do you remember the last time you had a picnic? If it was like mine, there was a struggle between eating the food and its being eaten by the ants and bees. The ants crawled all over the table, while the bees attacked the sweets. Then, as the sun went down, mosquitoes came in droves from nowhere. But a picnic isn't the only place where we encounter life. An annoying fly can buzz the dinner table while a spider weaves a web near the ceiling. A cricket's chirp can break the quiet of a summer night or a bug may hit the windshield while traveling down a highway. Roosters crow at dawn, cows graze at noon, and gnats swirl at dusk. But where do all of these things come from? Who or what is the real source of their life?
This planet teems with life. Trees produce countless leaves and support nests that accommodate all kinds of birds. Moreover, the birds can be found in every country and in any climate. Some hop on lawns, and others fly across oceans, which themselves contain so many life forms that we have yet to catalog them all. The variety of sea life is so enormous that it's difficult to know how to describe it. For example, not only do fish come in a large number of colors and shapes, but their sizes range from ones so small that
Page 66
they resemble paperclips, to those so large that they are longer than some driveways! The diversity is not only true of life on the land and in the sea; it is also seen in the 10 million kinds of insects and worms that live below the earth's surface.
But where did it all come from? How did these living things get here? Many believe that they came from a chemical accident.1 The idea is that billions of years ago lightning passed through different gases in the earth's early atmosphere and created a living object.2 Thereafter, that object supposedly evolved to produce all the life that has ever existed on earth, including what we see today.3
It may surprise you to learn that a number of scientists no longer believe that the occurrence of life can be explained as the result of a chemical accident on this planet.4 New evidence has been discovered which shows that sparks traveling through gases do not make life. As we shall see, the new evidence teaches that living cells appear to have been designed; and if they are designed, then a Supreme Intelligence created the blueprint.
How Many Kinds Are There?
An estimated 1 million species of animal life inhabit the earth's surface while an additional ten times this number are estimated to live in subterranean environments. These 10 million insects and worms can be thought of as having a "bashful" existence in hidden levels not directly visible to us. The 1 million that exist above the ground (plus an additional half million species of plant life), though visible, depend upon the 10 million we don't see. This is because the invisible life forms continuously perform countless thousands of subterranean chemical operations that enable the visible life forms to live.
It is easy to miss this underground activity. Although elephants are easily seen with the naked eye, tiny insects aren't so readily apparent. Yet all of them exist together on one planet and work in beautiful and astonishing harmony. One seems to offer exactly what another needs. Where did they come from? And why are their activities so perfectly correlated?
When we consider how easily this precariously balance system could become unstable, we are awe-striken with the many and varied reciprocal feedback mechanisms that sustain it. The very structure of this system is woven with safeguards that keep it from catastrophic collapse.5 What is the origin of these mechanisms? And how could they have come into being under conditions for which no one of them has any discernible survival value apart from the existence of the others?
We can pose that question from an entirely different perspective. Where did you, the reader, come from? If you say, "From my parents," then I'll ask, "Where did they come from?" We both know that your parents didn't create you any more than my parents created me. Our parents procreated us. It's like striking a match to light a candle. Once lit, we can use the candle to light another candle. In human terms, people beget people and
Page 67
we know this is how our parents brought us into the world.
Thus, when we inquire into our origin the question can be understood to ultimately trace back to the deeper question, Where did the first life come from? That doesn't necessarily mean that you or I came from that first life, but it certainly is a good place to start. If we can't uncover the origin of one living cell, how can we have any hope of discovering the origin of the 70 billion body cells that comprise each of us? In the case of a candle's flame, it's easy to state its origin. The match did it. But what "match" gave rise to the first life? Where did it originate?
We know that each generation of life grows to a peak in strength and vigor, then withers and dies. This cycle enables the next generation to be born anew. But, as a practical matter, the seed that makes it all happen doesn't change. And it seems never to tire or die. Instead, each generation creates new seed from the blueprint found in the old.6 The miracle of life is the miracle of its seed. Many people find it easy to imagine that atomic particles bounced themselves into some magic combination to make it happen. But though such imaginings are easy, recent scientific data shows that they are not sensible.7 To see why this is so, it's helpful first to look at history, and the folly of old ideas, and then at what we've discovered that shows something more than chance is at play.
The History of Life
Five thousand years ago people thought that life came from grain. They would see rats running from piles of wheat and they thought that the wheat had given rise to life. They also thought that water was the source of life. For example, when they saw toads hop out of ponds, they sincerely believed it was the spontaneous generation of life. Today this sounds very amusing; but if we had lived then, we would probably have come to the same conclusion. Of course, they changed their minds when they sat around the pond and studied it. Eventually, they realized that toads hopped in before they hopped out. The same thing occurred with the wheat; they saw rats running in before they ran out. We can learn a lesson from all of this: Generally speaking, it is easiest to believe and accept whatever we know the least about. In essence, our minds can make anything seem plausible in the absence of knowledge to contradict it. Later, when our knowledge increases, it points us away from the earlier, mistaken ideas. History recording human ideas about the origin of life8 has taught us this lesson several times over.
The idea that life comes from nonlife didn't stop with rats and toads. Afterward, it was supposed that life originated with worms, i.e., the next unseen smaller level. Each time a worm crawled out of the mud, man thought the mud had spontaneously created life. Of course, today that seems silly, but back then they believed it to be true. Eventually, they learned that mud doesn't make worms, at least not the big kind. But other, very tiny, wormlike creatures appeared which caused them to believe that the mud made insects.
Page 68
Have you ever seen the eggs of a fly? They hatch into larvae that squirm and look like tiny worms. Insects were laying eggs on the ground, and the eggs were hatching into maggots that squiggled like tiny worms. The big worms were said to have come from the small ones, and maggots were thought to be the spontaneous generation of life. Again man was sure he was right, but again, he was wrong. Yet the same thing more or less was happening in bowls of meat. When they put meat into a bowl, maggots soon crawled all over it. Thus the creation of life was again transferred to the next, unseen smaller level.
No further proof seemed necessary. Put meat into a bowl, and presto! — out comes life. That worked until someone had the good sense to cover the bowl. Then the life from the meat suddenly disappeared. What happened was simple. Flies and other insects had been laying eggs on the meat, and when the eggs hatched, life appeared. But we know that this life didn't come from the meat, but from the eggs that had been deposited onto the meat. Once again, people sincerely believed they had discovered the spontaneous generation of life, but it proved to be only a disappointment. Yet when that hope was spoiled, they repeated the error of the past. As you can probably surmise, they projected that life was spontaneously generated at the next unseen, smaller level. This time it was really small — the tiny living specks known as bacteria.
How Small Can Life Be?
Bacteria are single cells of life that are plantlike in character, and they're so small that millions of them can fit on the head of a pin! What better choice for the spontaneous generation of life? Furthermore, this idea flourished in the eighteenth century, when science was seen as an invincible ally of those who believe that bacteria were the actual beginnings of life. Several felt that definitive biological tests could be performed, and many were sure that these tests would demonstrate the spontaneous generation of life from nonlife. Furthermore, virtually all of the prominent thinkers of the day were sure that these tests would truly resolve the question. However there were dissenters, and among them, Louis Pasteur. He believed otherwise, and his scientific investigations that followed proved he was right, and that the others were wrong. Yet the proposed tests presupposed an ability to see things no one had ever seen before. But how could anyone see bacteria — especially at that time?
The microscope, invented in 1590, provided the answer. It was used to unveil plantlike bacterial specks eighty-six years later in Holland. Then, in the late 1800s, a controversy raged in Paris over broth that was spoiling. Bacteria were making it cloudy, and again people believed they were witnessing the spontaneous generation of life. Yes, we've been here before. It's the idea that life can come from nonlife. The facts again proved the experimenters wrong, and demonstrated that to get life one needs life — a lesson that persists to the present time.
Page 69
Most everyone agreed that the broth had become cloudy due to bacteria, but how had the plantlike specks spontaneously come into existence (for that was the predominant opinion)? Pasteur disagreed, and to prove his point, he put clear broth into a bottle and sealed the opening. But when his broth remained clear, his adversaries shouted, "Foul!" They claimed that life didn't appear in Pasteur's broth because he had done something improper, such as preventing the essential ingredient from reaching it, which, at that time, was thought to be air. They actually believed that air was a magic ingredient necessary to the spontaneous generation of life, and that the broth needed air for life to appear. This seemed reasonable at the time because nothing happened to the broth when the bottle was sealed, yet it had become cloudy when exposed to air. A remark typical of the thinking at that time was: "No wonder the broth is clear; the bottle has no access to a fresh air supply." But Pasteur invented a way around their objections and, by doing so, demonstrated once again that the idea that life can come from nonlife is wrong.
Pasteur was sure that broth didn't create life. He believed that life came from God. And to show others that it didn't come from broth, he invented the Pasteur flask, which looked very much like a big, hollow, glass ball. The only way into the ball was through a glass tube connected to its top. The tube went up and away from the ball, then curved back down toward the bottom of the ball, where it again reversed direction and curved back up, terminating with its end hanging open in space. Air entered the tube through this open end, and passing through the tube, eventually reached the broth in the bowl. But the dust particles on which the bacteria were riding became trapped in the lower curved neck of the tube. Thus, the tube allowed air to reach the broth, but trapped any particle that may have been suspended in the air. Therefore, even though air entered the bowl, the broth stayed clear. (It is reported that this broth remained clear for decades after Pasteur's experiment!) What was the lesson? That, like the rats, toads, and worms that had gone before, the bacteria had to go in before they could come out.
Life's Incredible Blueprint
Since man had again failed to find the source of life, the time was ripe for a new idea. But the next idea wasn't really new; it proved to be the same thing all over again. Once again the cry was: "Life comes from nonlife . . . and at the next unseen, smaller level." But this time man chose the smallest thing imaginable. The spontaneous generation of life was said to occur on the scale of the "protein molecule" — a level of structure many regarded as the basic building block of life itself. The reason is that when submerged into the same chemicals of which the protein molecule is made, they can be chemically instructed to assemble another protein molecule.
Thousands of years came and went, and yet the source of life eluded humanity. Then came the twentieth century and we were told science had the
Page 70
answer. And many believed the new story: "Life was created by a chance combination of chemicals." But was it true? Had we finally found the level at which nonlife spontaneously generated into life? As long as this level remained unseen, people could believe the answer was yes. But, with the advent of electron microscopes and information theory, the answer changed to no.
When we pause and consider the "trend line" that threads through life's history, the new answer shouldn't surprise us. Man once thought that wheat hatched rats and ponds made toads. Then he said mud bred worms. Later, he believed meat formed flies and broth spawned plants. Now the story is that slime made cells that crawled out of a bath of nutrients. What is fantastic isn't the story, but rather that so many people believe that it's true. Why do we do this? Part of the answer is that it's always easy to believe the things we know the least about.
Each time, the spontaneous generation of life from nonlife seemed assured. But when the consequences of such beliefs were actually studied, they were found wrong. Now the story is that life originated from a chemical accident. Some even believe science has already created life in a test tube, or that science has proved that life began accidentally when this planet was very young. As we shall see, none of this is true. Stories are fun and can be convincing, but facts are hard to come by.
Here, it is important to realize that the accidental explanation of life's origin is not a scientific explanation. Regardless of what you may read9 or hear, all scientific explanations are falsifiable.10 But the idea that life came from some fortunate accident millennia ago is not a falsifiable hypothesis. No one has duplicated the event in a laboratory, and all work being done to create such life must fail because modern science has declared nature to be an informational eunuch. Careful scientific calculations show that natural sources cannot produce the information we find in life's blueprint.11 The universe is simply too young and too small to have produced the information found in even a simple bacterium. Furthermore, the accidental story of life is believed, not because the facts of science have shown it to be true, but rather because no other alternative is plausible without recourse to "God."
The concept of "God" as an explanation is offensive to some people for two reasons. First, "God" is equated with religion, which many believe has no place in science. And second, "God" implies an authority under whom one must arrange his or her life. But while this latter concern is something we all may wrestle with at one time or another, the notion of "God" does not have to equate to religion. Instead, the concept is more properly identified with intelligence.
Since about 1950, scientists have been able to evaluate material structures in the physical world, using a mathematical tool called information theory.12 This tool allows us to quantify the degree to which we can specify a physical system. The unit that we use to measure these systems isn't inches or pounds
Page 71
or seconds, but rather bits of information. But information is something that ordinarily comes from intelligence, not natural processes, and the truly astonishing thing is that the latest discoveries show that the structures that make life what it is are just jammed full of this "stuff" called information.13
Since the universe is simply too young and too small, to account for its appearance, (even at 13 billion years and 30 billion light-years across) we are forced to ask, "From where did it come?" The logical answer is that it came from a Supreme Intelligence! Not only is this logical, but it's also the simplest answer. If this implies religion, then this is something the individual will have to grapple with. But the irrefutable fact is that information theory and the data from electron microscopy, when applied to living cells, force the conclusion that they have been designed. Why do they force this conclusion? Because they are jam-packed with information that cannot be logically explained as the issue of natural processes within this universe. The next chapter begins our exploration as to why this is so.
Chapter Ten || Table of Contents
1. Haldane J. Rationalist Annual (1928) 148:3. Oparin A. The Origin of Life (1957) Academic Press, NY. Calvin M. in: Evolutionary Biology Dobzhansky T. et.al. ed. (1967) V.1 Appleton Croft, NY.
2. Kaplan R. Rad. Envir. Biophys. (1974) 10:31.
3. Elsasser W. The Physical Foundation of Biology: An Analytical Study (1958) Pergamon, NY.
4. Thaxton C. et.al. The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (1984) Philosophical Library, NY. Hoyle F. & Wickramasinghe C. Evolution From Space (1982) Enslow Publishing. Crick F. Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (1981) Simon & Schuster.
5. Friday A. & Ingram D. Life Sciences (1985) ch. 5, Cambridge Univ. Press. Smith D. Earth Sciences (1981) ch. 25 Crown Publishers, NY. Friedman H. Sun and Earth (1986) ch. 4-6 Sci. Am. Lib., NY.
6. Davis B. Science (1980) 209:78 Jul 4.
7. Yockey H. Jour. Theor. Biol. (1977) 67:377.
8. Asimov I. New Guide To Science (1984) ch. 12:636 Basic books, NY.
9. Kitcher P. Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (1982) ch. 2:37 MIT Press, Cambridge.
10. Gange R. Review: Abusing Science (1985) Genesis Found. Princeton.
11. Dancoff S. & Quastler H. in: Information Theory In Biology :263 (1953) Illinois Univ. Press, Urbana
12. Shannon C. & Weaver W. The Mathematical Theory of Communication (1949) Illinois Univ. Press, Urbana.
13. Yockey H. ed. Symposium On Information Theory in Biology Gatlinburg, TN Oct. 29-31 (1956) Pergamon, NY.
