> ABIOGENESIS[life coming from non life] – its ‘Impossible’.

[Qatada]

:


ABIOGENESIS[life coming from non life] �" its Impossible.


Evolutionists say that the concept of abiogenesis [life coming from non life] is a different topic and not directly related to evolution. But since many we debate with are atheists, they probably accept the concept of abiogenesis and link it to evolution.



Some brief history of abiogenesis claims in the modern era;

Just for some background info. at Darwins time, there were no electric microscopes (which can view extremely small objects in detail), so they never really knew the complexity of a living cell. All they thought back then was that a cell was a small 'blob' which had the potential of life. They imagined forming life was a simple process,


Some examples are below;

For example, the Belgian chemist Jan Baptista van Helmont (1577-1644), spread some wheat on a soiled shirt and, after a while, observed mice scurrying around the shirt. He concluded that the mice were produced from the combination of the wheat and the shirt. The German scientist Athanasius Kircher (1601-1680) did a similar experiment. He poured some honey over some dead flies and later saw other flies were zooming around the honey; he assumed that combining honey with dead flies produced living ones.

More careful scientists were able to see that all these ideas were wrong. The Italian scientist Francisco Redi (1626-1697) was the first to do controlled experiments in this regard. Using the isolation method, he discovered that maggots on meat did not come into being spontaneously, but developed from eggs deposited by flies.

Once Upon a Time There Was Darwinism - Harun Yahya [*]

The debates and experiments continued between the different groups (some arguing that life can only come from life [biogenesis] and the other arguing that life can come from non life [abiogenesis.] Most of the experiments by the abiogenesis supporters were based on superstition and not really scientific fact i.e. the following;

The scientific argument between supporters of biogenesis and abiogenesis was continued into the 18th century by John Needham (1713-1781) and Lazzaro Spallanzani (1729-1799). Each of them boiled a piece of meat, then isolated it. Needham observed that maggots appeared on the meat and took this as proof for abiogenesis.

Spallanzani repeated the same experiment, but boiled the meat for a longer time. In this way, all organic life forms on the meat were destroyed and as a result, no maggots appeared on it. So even though Spallanzani had invalidated the theory of abiogenesis, many people did not believe him; saying that Spallanzani had boiled the meat so long that he killed the "vital power" within it. *

Darwin and his crew step in


Okay now that these guys realised that life couldn't come from non life - Charles Darwin [1809-1882CE] came after them and said that the first living cell probably formed in a warm pond because there were the right ingredients there, and the force of lightning struck that place 'by chance' and these materials came to form a living cell. Keep in mind that he purely speculates this without any proof. But lets move forward.

Remember above that we've mentioned that these people weren't aware of the complexity of a cell, they thought it was merely a blob (thats how it looks like under a normal light microscope [a simple microscope used at that time]) which had the potential for causing life. He and his future supporters then argued that if the right materials are in that little warm pond, then these can form into proteins [the building blocks of cells], which would then multiply to form a living cell.

Amino acids ---[build up to make up]--> Proteins --> Cells --> Life

This is how normal cheek cells look like
under a light microscope (a small blob).
This is how simple it looked at Darwin’s time.







With the use of the electric microscope, we’ve been able to find out that there’s way more in the cell than what Darwin saw.

There’s way more in the diagram that we still aren’t seeing, such as the complexity of the DNA within the Nucleus (that holds all our body’s’ makeup information). etc. all this, Darwin and his crew were unaware of when they put forward their claims.








The Complexity of Cells

In Germany 1932, the electric microscope was invented. And it was developed for more accuracy throughout the late 20th century. This would be a breakthrough in figuring out how complex living cells really are, their not just 'blobs' that have the potential of life, but much more about the complexity of life and its makeup.


I'll just pick one example to show you the complexity of the cell, the rest you can read here insha Allah;

http://www.creationofman.net/chapter4.html


One cell holds more info. then 1 million pages of Data.

The information stored in DNA must by no means be underestimated. Though hard to believe, in a single DNA molecule of a human being, there is enough information to fill exactly one million encyclopedia pages. Do consider it; exactly 1,000,000 encyclopedia pages… This is to say that the nucleus of each cell contains so much information as to fill a one-million-page-encyclopedia, which is used to control the functions of the human body. To draw an analogy, we can state that even the 23-volume-Encyclopedia Britannica, one of the greatest encyclopedias of the world, has 25,000 pages. Therefore, before us lies an incredible picture. In a molecule found in a nucleus, which is far smaller than the microscopic cell wherein it is located, there exists a data warehouse 40 times bigger than the biggest encyclopedia of the world that includes millions of items of information (in only one of our cells!). This means a 920-volume huge encyclopedia which is unique and has no equal in the world. Research puts it that this huge encyclopedia would be estimated to contain 5 billion different pieces of information. Were one piece of information present in human genes to be read every second, non-stop, around the clock, it would take 100 years before the process was completed. If we imagine that the information in DNA were put in the form of a book, then, these books put on top of each other would reach 70 meters high.

http://www.creationofman.net/chapter4/chapter4_2.html

If people object to this - you merely reply back with the fact that there is so much that is written on the complexity of cells by scientists, their make up [including the details stored in the DNA] and how they function - that this is sufficient to show that they aren't so simple as they were portrayed to be during the explanation of Darwin and his early followers. And that it would be impossible for these to have been formed by themselves and 'chance' (as will be discussed really soon).




*Millers Study Flawed

We've slightly touched upon Miller's study in another post alhamdulillah, but here's some quotes from scientists to actually show that Miller's study (which is the most often quoted study to 'prove' abiogenesis was infact not true in its claim at all, and that the environment in which he produced amino acids was not the same setting as the 'early earth' in which they claim abiogenesis occurred;


National Geographic, another well-known scientific magazine, wrote as follows:

Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different from what Miller first supposed. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen, methane, and ammonia. That's bad news for chemists. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen, they get a paltry (hardly any) amount of organic molecules. [organic molecules are what make up life i.e. proteins, fats, carbohydrates etc.]

"The Rise of Life on Earth," National Geographic, March 1998


In 1995, Jon Cohen gave an enlightening interpretation in an historic article in Science magazine, saying that scientists researching the origins of life did not take the "Miller Experiment"' into account. He outlines the reasons for this as follows: "the [real] early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller-Urey simulation.

Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, Science or Myth, Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong, Washington, DC, Regnery Publishing, 2000, p. 21

http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/therewasdarwinism/therewasdarwinism3.php [*]

Proteins can’t be made by ‘chance’ �" its Impossible.


Milled tried to make Proteins, and proteins are made up of amino acids, and we know that Miller attempted to produce amino acids in his experiment [but it turned out that the environment he made was not the earthly environment in which he claimed that abiogenesis occurred.]*

But lets say that it was to occur, what’s the probability of it occurring?

An average-sized protein molecule composed of 288 amino acids, and contains twelve different types of amino acids can be arranged in 10300 different ways. (This is an astronomically huge number, consisting of 1 followed by 300 zeros.) Of all these possible sequences, only one forms the desired protein molecule. The rest of them are amino-acid chains that are either totally useless or else potentially harmful to living things.

In other words, the probability of the formation of only one protein molecule is "1 in 10 to the power 300" [300 zeros after it!] . The probability of this "1" to occur is practically nil. (In practice, probabilities smaller than 1 over 10 to the power of 50 [50 zeros after it] are thought of as "zero probability"). So imagine 300 zeros after it, its more impossible than impossible itself!

Furthermore, a protein molecule of 288 amino acids is a rather modest one compared with some giant protein molecules consisting of thousands of amino acids. When we apply similar probability calculations to these giant protein molecules, we see that even the word "impossible" is insufficient to describe the true situation.


When we proceed one step further in the evolutionary scheme of life, we observe that one single protein means nothing by itself. One of the smallest bacteria ever discovered, Mycoplasma hominis H39, contains 600 "types" of proteins. In this case, we would have to repeat the probability calculations we have made above for one protein for each of these 600 different types of proteins. The result beggars even the concept of impossibility.

Some people reading these lines who have so far accepted the theory of evolution as a scientific explanation may suspect that these numbers are exaggerated and do not reflect the true facts. That is not the case: these are definite and concrete facts. No evolutionist can object to these numbers. They accept that the probability of the coincidental formation of a single protein is "as unlikely as the possibility of a monkey writing the history of humanity on a typewriter without making any mistakes"107 . However, instead of accepting the other explanation, which is creation, they go on defending this impossibility.

This situation is in fact acknowledged by many evolutionists. For example, Harold F. Blum, a prominent evolutionist scientist, states that "The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability."108

Evolutionists claim that molecular evolution took place over a very long period of time and that this made the impossible possible. Nevertheless, no matter how long the given period may be, it is not possible for amino acids to form proteins by chance. William Stokes, an American geologist, admits this fact in his book Essentials of Earth History, writing that the probability is so small "that it would not occur during billions of years on billions of planets, each covered by a blanket of concentrated watery solution of the necessary amino acids."109

107 Ali Demirsoy, Kalıtım ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Ankara: Meteksan Publishing Co., 1984, p. 64.
108 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Co., 1991, p. 304
109 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Co., 1991, p. 305.



Harold Urey (an evolutionist scientist who performed the Miller Experiment together with his student Stanley Miller):

All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.

W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Co. , 1991, p. 325.

Confessions of the evolutionists:
http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/confessions_evolutionists/confessions07.php

[Assad]

JazakAllah for sharing this.

This is very useful in dealing with life coming from non life. I wonder that these people always say that life came from non life... from where did this non life object came from then? Perhaps from Life?

[salman]

As-Salamu 'Alaykum

Jazak Allah khair for sharing this bro; the interesting point is that the first 'eternal' non-living being faces multiple logical problems. bro Qatada may have followed my conversation with an atheist on this issue on islamicboard where i discussed these problems and ultimately trapped the atheists in their traps. The problem isn't what came about after the Big Bang, the problem is how it happened before. The non-living being must have brough up our universe long before it did.

I'll post it later what i said there

[salman]

:

As I promised, here are my thoughts, originally posted on islamicboard.com:

Part 1:

Simply following the logical questions presented in the Qur'aan: "Were they created of nothing, or were they themselves the creators? Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay, they have no firm belief". [52:35-36 - interpretation of the meaning]. Now, there're only two possibilities: (1) We always have been around (2) Someone which always has been around created us. There is no third possibility!

Part 2:

Let's assume the positions of the philosophers and atheists that we evolved after the Big Bang. There are two issues to consider; 1) it doesn't explain anything before Big Bang and 2) Evolution is only a process which needs things to work with. So, let's also assume there was something non-living being existed from eternity which gave rise to all the creations i.e matter. However, there're number of problems and we'll look at them one by one

Part 3:

So, in the beginning there was nothing beside alpha, and alpha doesn't have a conscious. If there was no other factor present, how did the first change come about - meaning how did it start to evolve? Without any first and subsequent changes it should be just sitting there no matter how many years pass by. For now, let's assume that 'alpha' has been evolving from eternity and then some X years ago it became/gave rise to our universe. There was nothing else beside alpha so nothing could limit its changes and nor it had a conscious. So why did it evolve into universe or gave rise to universe recently? Remember that there was nothing to limit it and there's no way it could have controlled its own changes due to absence of consciousness. So, I can conclude that alpha didn't have everything which by evolution could give rise to us. So then, where did it get it from because there was nothing beside alpha? But if you say alpha had everything then go back to original question. Now, if you say because not all the changes had taken place but then again I ask, there was nothing to limit it and it had everything then changes should took place right away. To say otherwise is saying that it was limited by certain factors but there was nothing beside alpha and so how could anything limit it! Even so, why did all the changes completed only recently took place now? Why not earlier or later? You could say they just did. So, I ask is this a valid and logical conclusion and evidence?

A best Response that I countered was following and my response is in red:

Originally Posted by Gator

OK. Just a quick thing, evolution has nothing to do with creation or giving rise to life. Its just how things changed once life began. Once again we are dealing with philosophical questions so there is no evidence and noone knows the true answers.ok,Alright, I'm going to try present a possible scenario with and unconscious cause. This is just my thoughts given your parameters.Before the universe there was unconscious "alpha". Yes, could be anythingThe basic nature of "alpha" was fluctuating? Not necessarily; depending on the option the discussion can be lengthyThen in a certain moment in these fluctuations "alpha" released energy. if alpha was fluctuating then it would have been releasing energy from eternity not at some moment in time because there was nothing to limit itThe energy turned into matter (E=mc^2) and gave rise to the universe et al.That would account for an non-conscous start to the universe and take care of the timing question.Thanks, this is fun.

Part 4:

I said, concluding from the ayaat of the Qur'aan, either we've always been around or were created by someone who has always been around. There is not third possibility.

Note: the word "we" is not referring to humans specifically; i'm referring to the whole creation.

The response was: why it has to be someone or why is it has to someone who has always been around?The answer is that there's no other possibility and you cannot explain logically why we only came recently. Gator responded: how about a natural process?I think he misunderstood my use of the word "we", he thought i was talking specifically talking about humans. For argument sake if we agree with him then according to him it only explains the life after the big bang and not before that.

So, we're stuck again and go back:
1) we've always been around
2) something/someone who has always been around gave rise to this universe

Again, there's no third possibility, unless someone can show me.

Now, if we assume that a non-conscious entity gave rise to universe then we're simply saying that there was something always existed from eternity, alpha, it could be anything i.e. matter, energy, etc. So, we can conclude that without any changes in alpha, it couldn't have give rise to universe, unless you say that the alpha was the universe but this is not correct - both logically and scientifically. Now, there're few cases to consider:

1) Alpha was always at rest
2) Something else caused its beginning to change
3) Alpha was always changing
4) Alpha caused it beginning to change

1) Alpha was always at rest
If so, then it would have simply remained what it was for eternity and none of us would be here today

2) Something else caused its beginning to change
There was nothing else existed beside Alpha so something else couldn't have done it.

The other two cases are lengthy but here is my poor attempt and I hope you enjoy it:

3) Alpha was always changing
Here, we're saying that there was no beginning of change. However, by definition, the change are successive. No change come at once, there has to be a prior change. In other words, any subsequent change requires a prior change. Even if we assume that it has been changing forever then it should have been given rise to us from eternity because there's nothing to limit it to not to do so. Have this happened? I don't think so, only X billion years ago this universe came into being. The other possibility is that it required certain things but then where did it get those things from?

4) Alpha caused it beginning to change
This possibility again have the same problem as the one at above: if alpha has been around from eternity then there was nothing beside it, nothing could limit and it was the reality. Whatever we see today or has come in the past or will come in the future must always have been the possibility of the alpha or the result of its changes. For example, let's say it requires "y" to make the universe. This "y" must always have been present in alpha because there was no other place to get it. If it was present then the changes must have occur long before it did.

anyway, for Muslims this is bunch of confusing philosophy; the Qur'aan, the Sahih Sunnah and the understanding of the Salaf and the later 'ulama is enough for us. Allah Ta'ala says that He created us and asked us to ponder on the creation and what He told us.

In conclusion, as we can see, to my knowledge there's no way to get around this problem and there's no logical conclusion which would tell us that a non-living being gave us rise. Maybe bro Abdul Fatteh can pin point the problems in my arguments if there are any.

[Assad]

^Bro Abdul Fattah is too good at pin pointing weak arguments ! but to me your argument looks convincing..

Let's wait to hear from Abdul Fattah

[Qatada]

asalaam alaikum


The DNA is so complicated that it can't have come into existence by chance (each cell contains ALL the bodies genetic makeup within its DNA, and scientists know they can't produce DNA (because its so complicated) i.e. it contains info. such as what colour hair you would have, your eye colour, your skin colour [everything about you!] its that complicated that it couldn't have come by chance!);


This is what scientists say about the DNA of a cell;


The DNA of a bacterium contains as much information as a 1000 page book [1]

There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter [2]

We do not understand even the general features of the origin of the genetic code . . . [It] is the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life and a major conceptual or experimental breakthrough may be needed before we can make any substantial progress. [3]

Evolutionist Douglas R. Hofstadter of Indiana University, states his despair in the face of this question: \"How did the Genetic Code, along with the mechanisms for its translation (ribosomes and RNA molecules), originate?\" For the moment, we will have to content ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe, rather than with an answer. [4]


1) Lee M. Spetner, Not by Chance, 1998, p. 30

2) Werner Gitt. In the Beginning Was Information. CLV, Bielefeld, Germany, p. 107, 141

3) Orgel, Leslie E, \"Darwinism at the Very Beginning of Life,\" New Scientist, vol.94 (April 15, 1982), p.151

4) Douglas R. Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, New York: Vintage Books, 1980, p. 548




{ O men! Here is a parable set forth! So Listen to it! Those on whom besides Allah ye call willnever create a fly even if they all combine together for this purpose! And if the fly should snatch away a thing from them they would have no power to release it from the fly: feeble are those who petition and those whom they petition! } (Quran Al-Hajj 73).