As much as evolutionists regularly protest that the origin of life is not a part of the evolutionary dogma, their professional scientists spend an excessive amount of time, energy, and money, usually taxpayer money, trying to uncover the mystery of life’s origin. Recently another study in this area was published, postulating that an ancient catastrophe was responsible for sparking the origin of life. Like most other evolutionary ideas, this one is strongly lacking in observational evidence. This article will break down this recent claim, and attempt to bring some sense to the absurdity that permeates evolutionary abiogenesis.
This most recent claim from the evolutionary scientists postulates that about 4.47 billion years ago, the earth was clipped by a moon-sized object, resulting in a massive meteor shower of metallic particles. This particle shower may have lasted upwards of hundreds of years. These metallic particles are purported to have stripped hydrogen molecules from oxygen molecules in water and created a dense hydrogen atmosphere. The oxygen molecules supposedly diffused in the remaining water and bound with iron that showered from the sky, creating iron oxide. Eventually, molecules were formed beneath the waves.
There is no consensus on this of course. Certain members of the scientific community are opposed for varying reasons. One researcher points out that the proposed mechanism for producing pieces of the RNA strand worked so inefficiently that the nucleotides created were likely to fall apart before forming any meaningful strand. Another researcher pointed out that these experiments do not mimic wild conditions, and in fact require a great deal of intelligence to perform. Funny that it requires intelligence to even attempt to create life.
This proposal solves several problems for the evolutionists. Metals are spread throughout the earth. How they got there is a minor headache for evolutionists so this scenario helps solve this issue. Further, this pushes the origin of life back by a significant amount, giving the evolutionists more time to explain how their theory could violate the law of biogenesis. This theory ties into the RNA world hypothesis which these evolutionists postulate was the mechanism for the origin of life. However, it is fraught with problems.
The most obvious problem is that this idea is all smoke and mirrors with no substance. There is exactly zero observational evidence that this occurred as these scientists are postulating. The article even admits to this. “No rocks or other direct evidence remain from the supposed cataclysm. Its starring role is inferred because it would solve a bevy of mysteries…” In other words, this is science fiction. The only reason this was proposed was to solve problems for evolution. There is no evidence for it. None. But that hasn’t stopped evolutionists before and it isn’t stopping them now.
Further, the RNA world hypothesis which this article leads into has multiple problems with it, which I’ve covered in previous articles, but will summarize here. RNA forms as a copy of a DNA strand and are not known to form any other way. How then did RNA assemble in the primordial soup? Further, water is the universal solvent. Any chemical bonds formed in water are also easily dissolved. Even worse, translating RNA requires a special cellular organelle called a ribosome. So for the RNA world to work, preexisting ribosomes are necessary. Yet ribosomes are formed using transcribed RNA. Thus RNA is required for the existence of a ribosome, and ribosomes are required to transcribe RNA to make ribosomes. Both must exist simultaneously or the system does not work, a problem that plagues evolutionists repeatedly.
This new idea of a cataclysmic event in the past provided the spark to push chemicals down the path to life is merely a repackaging of the old abiogenesis ideas. Also, it’s very ironic that the evolutionary solution to life on earth is basically an asteroid. It’s their standard explanation for just about everything else in the solar system so why not this too? In this instance, even the evolutionists admit there is no evidence that this occurred. The whole point of this model is to solve problems with evolutionary abiogenesis. If it were not for evolution, this model would have never been proposed. The model is not science, it’s simply a rescuing device for evolutionary dogma from it’s own failures.