|
'The
Elusive Origin of Life' should have been the title of an article
in Scientific American for February 1991 (pp. 100-109), but
which was actually headed with the most inappropriate title,
'In the beginning ...'. Yet the article presented a good comprehensive
survey of a number of recent theories on how life on Earth
is supposed to have begun without a Creator.
'Scientists
are having a hard time agreeing on when, where and—most important—how
life first emerged on the earth', the article began. 'The
problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more
difficult than I, and most other people, envisioned', said
Stanley Miller, who was generally promoted (to laymen) as
having made life in a test tube as long ago as 1953, simply
because he had synthesized a mixture of amino acids in a controlled
laboratory experiment.
The
article looks at some of the recent theories on the origin
of life, and discards them one by one. It also points out
some problems that a theory must overcome. 'There is a hitch
... proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA
form without proteins. To those pondering the origin of life,
it is a classic chicken-and-egg problem. Which came first,
proteins or DNA?' Among very recent theories reviewed is one
by Günter Wächtershäuser, who suggested that the first cell
might have been a grain of pyrite enclosed in a membrane of
organic compounds. But he admitted that it is 'pure speculation'.
In C.R. de Duve's book, Blueprint for a Cell, the author advanced
his theory that the first cell was based on sulphur-based
compounds called thioesters in the primordial ooze.
A comment on this theory came from A.G. Cairns-Smith, who
said 'this process makes the oceans less suited for the synthesis
of organic molecules', while he preferred his own pet theory
that attributes the origin of life to supposed purposeful
activity among molecules of crystalline clay.
As
with the theory of evolution itself, the chief critics of
each theory of the origin of life are the proponents of the
latest theory, who are not slow in pointing out the errors
of earlier, often widely accepted, theories. Stanley Miller
was asked, 'Do you ever entertain the possibility that genesis
was a miracle not reproducible by mere humans?' 'Not at all',
he replied, 'I think we just haven't learned the right tricks
yet.' Surely 'learning the right tricks' would be a miracle
itself.
How
sad that so much thought, energy and expense is being wasted
on so fruitless a quest, when the answer has been known for
thousands of years from the book of Genesis. The title used
in Scientific American should have added two more words to
make good sense—'In the beginning God created.'
|
