Does the recent news by scientists of a comet containing a chemical building block of life furnish evidence that comets were responsible for life’s origin on Earth?To see important ads, turn off your ad blocker! Article continued below:
Comets may be the most dynamic, spectacular, variable, and mysterious bodies in the solar system. They even contain organic matter—including trace amounts of the amino acid glycine.
Origin, a complex building block of life on earth.
1 Early scientists concluded that the organic matter came from “decomposed organic bodies.
2 Today, a popular belief is that comets brought life to Earth. Instead, comets may have traces of life from Earth.
3 In the Earth’s past there was powerful geological activity which could have easily spewed dirt and gigantic rocks, some possibly containing microbes, into outer space.
Our meteors and comets may have actually originated from Earth. In fact NASA scientist, Dr. Kenneth Nealson, has claimed that such dirt and geological debris could have eventually reached even Mars.
A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions exactly this possibility.
“We think there’s about 7 million tons of earth soil sitting on Mars”, says (evolutionist) Kenneth Nealson. “You have to consider the possibility that if we find life on Mars, it could have come from the Earth” [Weingarten, T., Newsweek, September 21, 1998, p.12].
Dr. Walt Brown in his book “In The Beginning” points out that during the great Genesis flood, as recorded in chapter 7 of Genesis in the Bible.
The fountains of the deep (which lay under the earth) were let loose and could have easily spewed out millions of tons of rock and debris well into outer space.
Just having the building blocks of life will not result in a living cell. It would require millions of various building blocks coming together in a precise sequence, just like the letters in a sentence, to make a single cell.
In the midst of all the arguments over evolution and intelligent design, it is amazing how many in society, including the very educated, believe that scientists had already created life in the laboratory.
Origin, no such thing has ever happened.
All that scientists have done is genetically engineer already existing forms of life in the laboratory, and by doing this scientists have been able to produce new forms of life.
But they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter.
Even if scientists ever do produce life from non-living matter it will only be through intelligent design or planning so it still wouldn’t help support any theory of life originating by chance or evolution.
Even in the case involving synthetic (artificial) life, scientists don’t actually create or produce life itself from non-living matter.
What scientists do in this case is create (by intelligent design) artificial DNA (genetic instructions and code) which is then implanted into an already existing living cell and, thereby, changing that cell into a new form of life.
And, again, even if scientists ever do create a whole living cell from scratch (and not just its DNA) it still would not be by chance but by intelligent design.
Synthetic life is just another form of genetic engineering. But God was the first genetic engineer.
Remember that always!
Origin, if the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once.
A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate in the open environment, especially without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell membrane.
Although it has been shown that the basic building blocks of life, amino acids, can come into existence by chance, it has never been shown that the various amino acids can come together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules.
If the amino acids are not in the proper sequence the protein molecules will not function! Even the simplest cell is composed of millions of protein molecules.
There is no innate chemical tendency for the various amino acids to bond with one another in a sequence. Any one amino acid can just as easily bond with any other.
The only reason at all for why the various amino acids bond with one another in a precise sequence in the cells of our bodies is because they’re directed to do so by an already existing sequence of molecules found in our genetic code.
In Nature there are what scientists call right-handed and left-handed amino acids.
However, life requires that all proteins be left-handed. So, not only do millions of amino acids have to be in the correct sequence.
They also all have to be left-handed. If a right-handed amino acid gets mixed in then the protein molecules won’t function. There won’t be any life!
Similarly, the nucleic acids in DNA and RNA must be in a precise sequence. The sugar molecules that make-up the various nucleic acids in DNA and RNA must be right-handed. If a nucleic acid with a left-handed sugar molecule gets into the mix then nothing will work.
The cell seems to be irreducibly complex. For example, without DNA there can be no RNA, and without RNA there can be no DNA. And without either DNA or RNA there can be no proteins, and without proteins there can be no DNA or RNA.
Origin, they’re all mutually dependent upon each other for existence!
It could not have gradually evolved! Evolutionists generally believe that it took one billion years for the first life form or cell to have evolved.
That belief, although still taught as gospel in many elementary and secondary schools, cannot be sustained by modern science.
Of course, once there is a complete and living cell then the genetic program and biological mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells with their own genetic programs and biological mechanisms. The question is how did life come about when there was no directing mechanism.
If humans must use intelligence to perform genetic engineering.
To meaningfully manipulate the genetic code, then what does that say about the origin of the genetic code itself!
The great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle has said that the probability of the sequence of molecules in the simplest cell coming into existence by chance is equivalent.
To a tornado going through a junk yard of airplane parts and assembling a 747 Jumbo Jet!
We tend to judge something as being simple or complex by its size. So many of us assume that because the cell is microscopic in size that it must be simple.
Origin- Not so!
Size is relative, but not complexity. If you were as big as the Empire State building you would probably think that the tiny cars and automobiles on the street were simple and could easily happen by a chance combination of parts. However, we know that is not so.
Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws cannot fully explain the origin of such order.
Science cannot prove how life originated since no human observed the origin of life by either chance or design. Observation and detection by the human senses, either directly or indirectly through scientific instruments, is the basis of science and for establishing proof.
The issue is which position has better scientific support.
Both sides should have the opportunity to present their case.
If some astronauts from Earth discovered figures of persons similar to Mt. Rushmore on an uninhabited planet there would be no way to scientifically prove the carved figures originated by design or by chance processes of erosion. Neither position is science, but scientific arguments may be made to support one or the other.
Many think that natural selection in nature is proof that we had evolved. Natural selection does occur in nature. However, natural selection itself does not produce biological variations.
Natural selection can only work with biological variations that are possible and which have survival value. It is a passive process in nature.
Natural selection is simply another way of saying that if a biological variation occurs which is helpful to an animal or plant’s survival then that that variation will be preserved and be passed on. Of course, nature does not do any active or conscious selecting.
The term “natural selection” is simply a figure of speech.
Also, natural selection only applies once there is life and not before. In other words, natural selection is not involved in any pre-biotic, non-living interactions of chemicals.
Evolutionists believe that random or chance mutations in the genetic code (caused by random environmental forces such as radiation) will produce the favorable evolutionary changes necessary for natural selection to act upon.
However, there is no evidence that random or chance mutations in the genetic code are capable of producing greater biological complexity (vertical evolution) among natural species. Mutations are only capable of producing horizontal evolution (variations within natural species).
In any case, most biological variations among natural species are due to new combinations of already existing genes and not mutations.
Considering the enormous complexity of life, it is much more logical to believe that the genetic and biological similarities between all species are due to a common Designer rather than common evolutionary ancestry.
It is only logical that the great Designer would design similar functions for similar purposes and different functions for different purposes in all of the various forms of life.
All of this simply means that real science supports faith in God.
Science cannot prove that we are here by chance (evolution) or by design (creation). However, the scientific evidence can be used to support one or the other.
It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory, especially in public schools which receive funding from taxpayers who are on both sides of the issue.
Also, no one is being forced to believe in God or adopt a particular religion so there is no true violation of separation of church and state.
The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, has his bachelor’s degree with concentrations in theology and biology and has been recognized for his writings on religion and science in the 24th edition of Marquis
“Who’s Who In The East”.