
Origins 10(2):90-92 (1983).
LITERATURE REVIEW
LIFE ITSELF. Francis Crick. 1981. Simon and Schuster, New York. 192 pp. EVOLUTION FROM SPACE. Fred Hoyle. 1982. University College Cardiff Press, Wales. 30 pp.
The formation of living systems on this planet has been discussed at
length from both creationist and evolutionary perspectives. To the creationist, God is
plainly and simply the source of life. To the evolutionist who excludes the supernatural
from his world view, the explanation of the origin of life in all its complexity must be
described in terms of natural forces at work today. Early in this century A. I. Oparin
performed experiments in which two or more polymers (proteins, lipids or carbohydrates)
were shaken in water. When the resulting solution was examined under the microscope, small
spherical droplets called coacervates were seen. When viewed more closely, these droplets
seemed to have a membrane structure similar to that found in living cells. Oparin proposed
that coacervates could have been the beginning structures of early life forms.
Since Oparin started with proteins in his experiments, it was important
to determine how proteins could have formed. In the 1960s Fox simulated supposed prebiotic
conditions by heating amino acids on hot rocks. Protein-like compounds were made, and when
these were added to water, microspheres sometimes formed. When this information was
coupled with the experiments of Miller and Urey in which amino acids, nucleic acids and
sugars were formed from simple compounds such as ammonia, water, methane, hydrogen, etc.,
in the presence of electrical discharge, it seemed that the mechanics describing the
formation of life would soon be known. The literature of the 60s and 70s dripped with this
optimism.
Recently, new voices have been heard in the evolutionary scenario which
strangely echo the creationist call that life is just too complex to have been formed by
random interactions of chemicals in some primordial organic swamp. Interestingly, these
new voices do not come from the lunatic fringe within the scientific community, but rather
from authorities of the stature of Nobel Laureate Francis Crick and Sir Fred Hoyle. Hoyle
has used the metaphor of an explosion in a junk yard producing a Boeing 747 to show how
improbable is the spontaneous generation of living from non-living material. These men are
suggesting that life is just too complicated to have formed within the limited portion
(2-3 billion years) of earth history in which temperatures and conditions would permit
life to exist.
In his recent book, Life Itself, Crick devotes the first half
convincing his audience that the probability of life forming spontaneously on this earth
is vanishingly small. He notes, for instance, that the probability of a protein randomly
forming in the proper sequence is about 1 chance in 10260. When one considers
that the total number of elementary particles in the universe is about 1080,
one can see that such probabilities are impossibly small. Using metaphors seemingly
directly out of the creationist literature, Crick says, "There is, in fact, a
vanishingly small hope of even a billion monkeys, on a billion typewriters, ever typing
correctly even one sonnet of Shakespeare's during the present lifetime of the
universe." He then attempts to inject hope into the situation by saying that some of
the paragraphs typed would contain meaningful statements and that these are the stuff for
the initial stages of the formation of life. He then proceeds to define the requirements
of a living system: replication, energy, information transfer from one generation to
another, etc., and discusses the difficulties these requirements present in the formation
of life.
Other problems also surface. Did the primitive atmosphere of the earth
contain oxygen? In order for the Miller/Urey experiment to work, none must be present. Yet
much data suggest that oxygen was present. Crick discusses the difficulty of identifying
the first replicating molecule and chooses RNA as his favorite. He then builds a living
system upon its foundation. Still, the chances of life starting spontaneously on earth are
considered to be vanishingly small. So small, in fact, that he is convinced it did not
happen here. But if not on earth, then where? On some other planet?! Yes, life evolved on
some faraway planet. He argues that since the earth has too short a history for life to
develop, it must have developed on some planet in a solar system which was formed several
billion years earlier than ours. If, he reasons, numerous planets in the universe have
conditions favorable to the formation of life, then, given enough time somewhere
out there the formation of a living system almost becomes inevitable.
But if life started on some other planet, how did it arrive here? With
this question Crick rises to his speculative best. He proposed that life began somewhere
else in the universe and evolved to a much higher technical level than is now present on
earth. He next suggests these life forms are now sending rockets containing primitive life
forms (perhaps bacteria or blue-green algae) throughout the universe, spreading the seeds
of life hither and yon. Crick even describes the rocket's design and postulates the
conditions necessary for successful re-entry into our atmosphere.
In a lecture given at the Royal Institution, Fred Hoyle also postulates
that life came from elsewhere. In fact, he thinks that life-forms are still raining down
upon earth and contaminating it. He proposes that certain structures in meteorites might
be the fossils of bacteria, and perhaps the sudden spread of virus diseases may be the
result of a massive contagion influx from space.
Other authors have looked at stromatolites, life-like structures in
Precambrian rocks, and have concluded that their date of origin postulated by radiometric
dating to be one and a half billion to two billion years ago precludes the possibility of
their development on this earth.
Have the suggestions of Crick and Hoyle helped creationists win the war
over the origin of life? Although there are allusions to metaphysical ideas in the
professional literature that deal with the origin of life, the concept of a Creator-God as
described in Genesis is not included among the possibilities. But it is interesting to
note that the song sung by creationists about the complexity of life on earth is being
chorused by others, admitted in piano tones. Although the rhythm, harmony and
melody certainly are different, the careful listener will recognize that the words are
remarkably similar.
All contents copyright
Geoscience Research Institute. All rights reserved.
| Home
| About Us
| Contact Us
|
Send comments and questions to
webmaster@grisda.org
| What's New
| Resources
| Search
| Links
|