Action of Sunlight

Popular Culture and Science Presentation

As the facts stand, spontaneous generation of life, to quote Pasteur, “is a dream”. Yet, somehow a major online encyclopedia describes abiogenesis thus:

Abiogenesis (/ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ ay-by-oh-jen-ə-siss[1]) or biopoiesis is the natural process by which life arises from inorganic matter.

Perhaps we did not get the memo? Surveying the evidence we just established there is no observable process by which inorganic chemicals comes to life. For some reason, however, the term abiogenesis is defined “the natural process which creates life from inorganic matter.” This phrasing suggests there IS such a process. Curious.

This type of wording elucidates a larger, systemic, problem… as we discussed regarding institutions earlier, deception is a conspiracy of many and none. Perhaps this is lazy journalism, or perhaps it is misstatement, but the point remains this statement, and the countless expressed in equally haphazard fashion, drastically misrepresents the truth in a way that is subtle..

If there was any actual process such as described, it would be the biggest news in history. Back in the real world, there is no known process capable of reversing universal law which trends toward disorder such to create order from disorder. Whatever processes generate life, they are certainly not “natural” in the strict conventional sense. Further, we fail to create the most basic components every time we try –intelligently-- to achieve this!

The question is, why is this information being presented this way? Is it an accident? Ignorance?
The sentence should read:

Abiogenesis is the disproved notion* that life can spontaneously occur from inorganic, strictly chemical systems. A hypothesis with no evidence for, and much against.

The way it is depicted above certainly makes it seem as if such a process is known to exist. From the same article that provides this definition:

Scientific hypotheses about the origins of life may be divided into several categories. Most approaches investigate how self-replicating molecules or their components came into existence. For example, the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments demonstrated that most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can be synthesized in conditions thought to be similar to those of the early Earth…

Forty years had passed in between Oparin’s claims (above) and Miller-Urey’s experiments… and we’re still trying to make BUILDING BLOCKS! What is with these building blocks!

…Several mechanisms have been investigated, including lightning and radiation.

What!? Since when is ‘lightning’ a mechanism? Ironically, not a single person knows how lightning is generated!2 And, is the theory that perhaps lightning strikes inorganic molecules and creates life? IN what way precisely is this not magic?

Or perhaps it is the case that radiation assembles nanotechnology? (Gamma)
Other approaches such as "metabolism first" focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems in the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication. There is no "standard model" of the origin of life. Most currently accepted models draw at least some elements from the framework laid out by the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis.
(See also, ‘recognized theories’ in section IV) Let’s look at the above more closely – what we can learn is not so much anything about the chemical origin of life (as it happens to be a fabrication, by definition), but something about how language is used (or misused) when presenting conjecture under the mask of legitimate science.
It states that the “focus” is how “chemical systems in the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for [life].” The word ‘might’ is not especially scientific… there are countless things that may or may not have happened. Imagine a witness in a court of law saying “I might have witnessed the crime” “the defendant “might” be the person I saw… yes, and they might not have!

Next, to make matters worse, we are told the early earth might have provided precursors… Precursor simply means the material substance of a thing necessary before that thing can be made or assembled. In other words, trees, or even a stack of neatly cut wood is a “precursor” to a house; yet neither the trees nor neatly cut wood say anything about how houses are built!! This language is disingenuous because it implies that once the “precursors” are present (precursors which might have been present mind you) that the rest of the process is more or less inevitable. When in fact, this is extremely far from the truth.
This is the fallacy of the organic molecule.

When we hear of “organic molecules” it feels as if there is something “organic-y” about them, as if some qualities these molecules possess are part of a logical sequence from molecule, to organic molecules, to organism. This is not the case. If we didn’t know these molecules were present in living things, there would be nothing upon inspection making these molecules “organic”.

It gets worse: the explanation goes on to say, “there is no standard model” which essentially means, there is not a single satisfactory account. Yet, the following sentence refers to “currently accepted models”. What? How can a model be accepted if it cannot demonstrate the outcome – i.e. be shown to produce life? There is no condition we cannot simulate or recreate; so if any model were correct (i.e. to be accepted in the first place), we should expect it to be demonstrated. And obviously, it is not.
Chicken or the Egg?

The article continues: These discoveries led to the classic conundrum: DNA is composed of two intertwining strands and four molecular base pairs that look like ladder rungs.
These base pairs are adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), and thymine (T). A always bonds to T, and C always bonds to G. Every three base pairs is called a triplet, which codes for any one of 20 amino acids. When these amino acids are ushered into sequence and bonded together, they form complex proteins. The problem, however, is that proteins facilitate the functions of the cell, so in modern life both DNA and proteins must exist simultaneously.

It would take some unconventional ideas to obviate this issue.
I laugh at this particular euphemism. “It would take some ‘unconventional ideas’ to ‘obviate’ this issue. Translation: You’d have to make up some pretty exotic ‘stories’ to reconcile this fiction with fact. And, of course you would have to – because truths are not meant to be reconciled with falsehoods. The chicken or the egg conundrum pertains to those systems which are and MUST be created deliberately, selectively, and spontaneously (as a logical, self-contained, and complete unit, just like vehicles, computers, etc.).