Origin of Life: Abiogenesis - biology from chemistry?

As mentioned in a previous article in this series on the Origin of Life, abiogenesis is defined as the origin of life from non-living matter, literally “no biological origin.” Abiogenesis supposedly occurred before biology, meaning biological “evolution” could begin. The attempts to explain abiogenesis rely purely on chemistry and physics.

On the other hand, this theory of spontaneous generation—rebranded as abiogenesis—is in direct conflict with the Law of Biogenesis, which is a scientific law that states that the development of life comes only from preexisting life. It was based on actual research and observation, both in the laboratory and in nature, and has tonnes of supporting evidence. [1] However, in reality, molecules have not been observed evolving towards life in the simplest forms. After so many years of using their latest advanced technology, attempts to create a living cell using perfect lab conditions have failed.

Let’s look at three famous hypotheses attempting to prove abiogenesis:

1. Primordial Soup:

The mixture of inorganic and organic compounds (non-living) within water on the primitive Earth is what is referred to as prebiotic or primordial soup. According to the Heterotrophic Theory set forth by biochemist Alexander Oparin in 1924, organic compounds essential for life forms were produced on the primitive Earth under prebiotic conditions. [2]

In his book entitled Origin of Life, J. B. S. Haldane wrote the following:

“When ultraviolet light acts on a mixture of water, carbon dioxide, and ammonia, a vast variety of organic substances are made, including sugars and apparently some of the materials from which proteins are built up. […] Before the origin of life, they must have accumulated till the primitive oceans reached the consistency of hot, dilute soup.” [3]

(The emphasis was added and not part of the original text.)

Did you note the words “apparently” and “must have”?

One of the problems this theory faces is the presence of oxygen. Oxygen causes oxidation, which in turn causes degradation. But our atmosphere consists of 21% oxygen. Therefore, supporters of the abiogenesis hypothesis have “concluded” that the atmosphere during the prebiotic period (approx. 3.5 billion years ago) must have had a reduced atmosphere that existed without oxygen. Today’s atmosphere consists of Nitrogen (78%), Oxygen (21%), Carbon Dioxide (0.004%), and water vapour. These scientists have suggested that the atmosphere 3.5 billion years ago contained Methane, Carbon Monoxide, Hydrogen, Ammonia, Nitrogen, and water vapour. [1]

However, geochemists who believe in the billions-of-years timeframe have not found any evidence of high levels of Ammonia or Methane. [1] What they have found are oxidised materials in samples from what they believe were 3.8 billion years ago. They have also found organisms complex enough to photosynthesise 3.7 billion years ago. [4] Also,

“Red jasper cored from layers 3.46 billion years old suggests that not only did the oceans contain abundant oxygen then, but that the atmosphere was as oxygen rich as it is today, according to geologists… There had to be as much oxygen in the atmosphere 3.46 billion years ago as there is in today’s atmosphere.” [5]

There is no evidence for this proposed “reduced atmosphere,” and it is even contrary to the scientific proof provided by other scientific disciplines.

No matter how many chemicals you throw into water and zap with lightning, no living thing will climb out of there billions of years later.

2. Deep-Sea Hydrothermal Vents:

Some researchers have proposed that life began in submarine hydrothermal vents, where superheated subterranean water pours into the sea. Deep-sea hydrothermal vents are porous geological structures produced by chemical reactions between solid rock and water [7] and are formed on the seabed, looking like slim volcanoes spouting black or white smoke under the water.

Studies suggest that in the earliest stages of life’s evolution, non-biological proton gradients (a higher concentration of protons on one side of a membrane than the other) caused chemical reactions within primitive cells. These cells then later learned how to produce their own gradients and escaped the vents to colonise the rest of the ocean and eventually the planet. [6] A good question to ask here is: “Where did the original primitive cells or membrane come from?”

A big problem with this idea is the presence of water, which prevents many of the reactions that would be needed, like getting polymers. Furthermore, the extreme heat in deep sea vents would accelerate the breakdown of any type of chemical formation.

However, experiments are already showing that deep-sea vents are just as unlikely to be “special” enough to generate the material or information required for an even marginally functional cell. Even if “primordial soup” gets replaced with a “primordial vent,” science will continue to demonstrate that a theory of life coming from non-life is improbable. [7]

3. Clay (mud)

The clay hypothesis for the origin of life suggests that clay, a seemingly infertile blend of minerals, might have been the birthplace of life on Earth as a breeding ground for chemicals that it “absorbs like a sponge.” [8] Clay was suggested by John Bernal as a means of concentrating primitive biomolecules onto their surface to be available for further reactions. [9] ‎

Following are quotes taken from Dan Luo, professor of biological and environmental engineering and a member of the Kavli Institute at Cornell for Nanoscale Science.

“In early geological history, clay hydrogel provided a confinement function for biomolecules and biochemical reactions.”
“Over billions of years, chemicals confined in those spaces could have carried out the complex reactions that formed proteins, DNA, and eventually all the machinery that makes a living cell work.”
“How these biological machines evolved remains to be explained,” Luo said. (For now, his research group is working to understand why a clay hydrogel works so well.) [8]

(The emphasis was added and not part of the original text.)

However, David Deamer, emeritus professor of chemistry at the University of California at Santa Cruz, said:

“We are now testing Darwin’s idea, but in ‘hot little puddles’ associated with the volcanic regions of Kamchatka and Mount Lassen.” He went on to say: “The results are surprising and, in some ways, disappointing. It seems that hot, acidic waters containing clay do not provide the right conditions for chemicals to assemble themselves into ‘pioneer organisms.‘” “The reason this is significant is that it has been proposed that clay promotes interesting chemical reactions relating to the origin of life,” he explained. “However,” he added, “in our experiments, the organic compounds became so strongly held to the clay particles that they could not undergo any further chemical reactions.” [10]

Conclusion:

Firstly, concerning primordial soup, geochemists and geologists have made discoveries that prove there was abundant oxygen in the atmosphere and oceans, which disproves the “reduced-atmosphere” hypothesis, thus making the formation of miraculous chemical-to-biological compounds impossible. [4] [5]

Secondly, the water and heat present in the submarine hydrothermal vents would have made the proposed chemical reactions and formations impossible.

Thirdly, clay surfaces have been studied closely as potential breeding grounds for chemicals; however, experiments have shown that the acidic waters and strong confinement function of the clay particles actually prevent the hypothetical chemical reactions from taking place. [10]

Scientists themselves have disproven these hypothetical environments that were proposed to be conducive to abiogenesis/spontaneous generation.