Definition:  Abiogenesis is the scientific hypothesis that life emerged from non-living matter through prebiotic chemical evolution.  It is the belief that enzymes, RNA, DNA and Cells spontaneously assembled themselves by total chance. The exact mechanism of how that might have happened remains one of science's most unfathomable mysteries... yet abiogenesis is widely presented as the way life originated.  Abiogenesis is basically "scientific atheism", a claim that life originated totally by accident without any directive force (be it God or some other intentional design).

 

Naturally this would bring one to question if the concept of abiogenesis is scientifically feasible.  It is the purpose of this article to examine if this concept is scientifically, logically, statistically and rationally possible... or not... and provide proof of the answer.

 

What does a highly-analytical Artificial Intelligence have to say about this?

 

Gemini A.I. analysis of abiogenesis:  "When calculating the combinatorial explosion of trial-and-error required to randomly sequence even a single functional protein or short replicator, the mathematical probability drops so far past zero that it enters the realm of statistical impossibility.  To date, no empirical data or observed pathway bridges the chasm between raw organic chemistry and living, self-sustaining biology."  (Exact word-for-word quote, unedited in either verbage or context.)

 

Summary:  The Gemini A.I. states directly that abogenesis is scientifically impossible.  Why does it come to this conclusion?

 

Diving into things
Abiogenesis is a dominant scientific hypothesis of how life came into existence.  Many scientists support this concept.  Many do not (the reasons for which will be discussed following).   Note that abiogenesis is not a theory supported by plausible evidence.  It is basically a conjecture,  scientific "what if?".  Many biologists, doctors, and professionals in the field consider abiogenesis to be a "pseudo-science fairy tale" far outside the realm of scientific possibility.  Why is this?

 

In the words of many professional biologists, "Life is just too complex to have happened by accident."  That is exactly what we will be discussing here today, the basic question of...

 

Is Abiogenesis logical... or even possible?

20^200 (the number 20 followed by 200 zeroes).   That is the key to discovering reality rather than fictional claims.

 

An enzyme is a basic building block of life.  20^200 are the approxmate odds against a single enzyme coming into existence by sheer chance. 

 

This may seem like an insignificant statement, but the reality is so great it is beyond the cognition and imagination of most humans.  Those odds are far beyond mind boggling.  Bear with me; this is the kind of stuff people should know, but are rarely encouraged to examine.

 

Put in basic terms, an enzyme is a basic building block that is absolutely essential for a living cell to develop.  One single enzyme consists of 200 links.  Each of those links can be one of 20 possible amino acids. 

 

Mathematically this means enzymes can have 20^200 different permutations and combinations... all of which need to exist in specific order.  In addition, the enzyme has to "fold" on itself in a very specific manner for the enzyme to work. This is conceptually "molecular orgami", and the folds have to be precise.

 

Imagine a long string of 200 beads, where each bead has a distinct chemical "personality". Some love water, some hate it.  Some magnetically attract or repel each other. The second that string is dropped into a watery cellular environment, it doesn't just lay there like a limp noodle; it instantly twists, coils, and snaps itself into a rigid, highly specific three-dimensional shape.

 

That final, complex 3D shape is the enzyme. It acts like a custom-molded lock-and-key mechanism; its shape and composition essential in catching other molecules and catalyzing chemical reactions. If even one bead in the chain is out of place, the whole structure folds incorrectly—turning what should have been a precision microscopic machine into a useless, mangled blob.  

 

Now the question here:  what are the chances / odds of this complex process happening totally by random chance / accident?   

 

The answer: approximately 1 in 20^200.   

 

What does 20^200 mean?   

It looks deceptively simple, doesn't it?  Let's explain how incredibly large this number actually is:

 

* There is nothing in our universe that even approaches 20^200 in count.  Nothing.

 

* 20^200 exceeds the grains of sand on Earth.

 

* 20^200 exceeds the number of atoms in all the grains of sand on Earth.
 

* 20^200 exceeds the total number of atoms on Earth itself.

 

* In fact, 20^200 is infinitely larger than the total number of atoms in our known universe (that number is appx 10^80. You can research this). 

Now we get to way beyond mind-blowing:

 

* If you were to take every atom in our universe and turn it into its own universe equal to ours in size and complexity, 20^200 would still be supra-astronomically larger than the total number of atoms in all of those universes combined.  

 

That is the odds against one enzyme forming by accident. 

 

Now here is the kicker:

 

A living, self-replicating cellular organism requires several hundred distinct protein/enzyme-coding genes (roughly 300 to 450 functional enzymes and structural proteins) working in an interdependent network to handle DNA replication, transcription, translation, and basic metabolism (ie, to make a cell.)

 

300 to 450 functional enzymes.   What does this mean?  The explanation is scientifically and logically very straight-forward:

 

The odds of a single enzyme forming by sheer chance is far beyond the other side of zero.  The odds of 300 to 450 functional enzymes forming all in the same place, at the same time and being compatible with one another?  The answer to that is easy:

 

Sometimes impossible is actually impossible.  

 

Life forming by total random chance is scientifically impossible.  This reality demands that we look elsewhere in examining how life came into existence.

 

To put it plainly, the concept of abiogenesis is a scientific fairy tale.  It is statistically, scientifically, logically and analytically an absolute impossiblity.  Not "unlikely"... impossible.  It is a desperate gambit to deny alternate possibilities of the origin of life. Abiogenesis is not based on scientific evidence. It is based on scientific pipe dreams, bias and ego. 

 

I realize this sounds like a harsh statement.  But it is also a scientifically accurate statement.  Abiogenesis is an impossible concept that should have long ago been discarded from the scientific community as a laughable creation of the imagination.  As Gemini states above, the concept has no basis in reality.

 

The hard truth, all kid gloves off, all cards on the table 

No scientist of integrity should consider abiogenesis as even a possibility, much less the actual origin of life.  It is a fraudulent, impossible hypothesis.  I stress this so strongly because of how strongy many people cling to this concept and even demand that it is possible-- despite all evidence to the contrary.

 

Does evidence exist supporting abiogenesis?

Some would have you believe so, but the honest, truthful answer is no.  Here is the reality of scientific "evidence" often presented to support abiogenesis:

 

Precursor Building Blocks: Laboratory experiments (like the famous Miller-Urey experiment) and analyses of meteorites show that basic organic molecules—such as simple amino acids, sugars, and nucleotide bases—can form naturally through non-living chemical processes under rigidly-controlled laboratory experiments.

 

Self-Assembling Structures: Certain molecules, like lipids (fats), naturally group together in water to form microscopic bubble-like structures called liposomes or micelles, which loosely resemble cell membranes.

 

Why These Things Fall Far Short

Simple raw material does not equal a working machine:  Finding raw amino acids in a test tube or a meteorite is equivalent to finding scattered steel, glass, and copper in a field. It proves the raw materials exist, but it does not mean they can spontaneously assemble themselves into a functional, running automobile.

 

The Sequencing Impossibility

As discussed with protein folding, getting those amino acids to link up in the exact, precise sequence required to form a functioning enzyme is scientific absurdity beyond comprehension (20^200 for just one enzyme). 

 

The Missing Engine: Simple bubbles of fat (lipids) and random organic soup cannot replicate, metabolize, or use energy. A living cell requires hundreds of interdependent enzymes, a genetic code, and a translation system working simultaneously. Chemistry alone has no functional mechanism to bridge that chasm.

 

"In short: science has plenty of evidence for prebiotic chemicals, but zero evidence for a pathway from chemistry to biology." -- Gemini 

 

Sorry to be blunt; just being honest.  But not really sorry, considering this scientific lie is taught in school textbooks to very impressionable children, pounding into  their minds that there is no advanced intellect involved in the origin of life.  It is atheism taught in school, to children.  Does this bother you?  I would hope so.  Abiogenesis is not science.  It is an imaginative fairy tale disguised as science. 

 

But... given enough time and space...

One of the oldest, most-over-used arguments is that given an eternity of time and space (or in our case approximately 13.8 billion years: the age of our universe)... "almost anything is possible".

 

The logical, scientific truth:  Anything multiplied by zero = zero.  So take an impossible premise (the odds of a single enzyme forming): an eternity of time and almost infinite space multiplied by zero still yields a result of zero.   There is no such thing as an infinite number of monkeys or an infinite number of typewriters.   Impossible in this case literally means impossible.  Zero x Anything = Zero.

 

THE FINAL CONCLUSION OF THE MATTER

Do you see the logic and common sense of this matter?  Feel free to research this further-- but beware of propaganda, as it abounds in this field. Also abundant is rationalization, circular logic (abiogenesis must be true because... here we are!), and dodging the point (we don't know how life started, but that is irrelevant).

 

How life started could be very relevant if it conceivably involves the purpose and future of humanity as a whole.  (If we have no purpose or future, then the point is moot and we can just move on.)

 

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." - Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

 

When we have discovered something is impossible, that does not mean we are forced to accept a specific creed, philosophy, faith, or belief system in how life came into existence. This information makes one simple demand:  That we do not blindly, gullibly, or arrogantly insist on abiogenesis... which we know to be logically, scientifically and statistically impossible. 

 

Abiogenesis denies all common sense and scientific reality.  It accepts a scientifically impossible premise while failing to search for or accept alternative evidence. This goes against the very fabric of scientific method... which requires that we consider all rational possibilties when examing a scientific hypothesis-- that we do not discard those possibilities due to bias, personal belief systems, bigotry or whims.  

 

That's the gist of it.  Whatever we choose to believe, we need to eliminate the impossible and move on.  That is the path to discovery and rational scientific reality.

 

-- Pathfinder

 

P.S.  As one very honest individual stated on a rather heated "discussion" forum:  "I am an evolutionist, but let's be honest.  It requires as much 'faith' to believe in abiogenic evolution-- if not more-- than any miracle stated in the Bible."