ATP synthase enzyme




The true atheist is a true Darwinist, which means he or she must define Darwinism as evolution by the natural selection of random mutations, in which there can be no guidance, purpose or meaning in the creation of life. But the true Darwinist must also believe that chemical elements randomly organize to form the biomolecules that will eventually lead to life; this is called abiogenesis and is the subject of origin of life researchers. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that abiogenesis, just like Darwinian evolution, is a failed scientific theory.


From high school through college, and probably even earlier, we have all been taught that the origin of life occurred via Darwinian type natural processes, but is this plausible? In 1953 Stanley Miller produced the first prebiotic synthesis of amino acids. The Miller-Urey experiment is cited as evidence of abiogenesis—also referred to as prebiotic synthesis or chemical evolution. But this experiment like all origin-of-life research is plagued with problems. Questioning abiogenesis is tantamount to promoting religion, which brings the ire of Darwinists who immediately overreact and claim a violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.[1] Nevertheless, I claim that abiogenesis is another failed theory that is a necessary component of Darwinism. In this essay I will discuss the state of research into the origin-of-life research, or abiogenesis, specifically its overwhelming obstacles and its failure to provide any plausibility.

Originally, Darwin was mute about the molecular origin of life, “Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.”[2] However, in 1871 Darwin does breach the subject of some “primordial soup” when he wrote, “But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes.”[3] Today we are stuck with Darwin’s concept of “primordial soup,” which we now call prebiotic soup, but with no more satisfactory scientific evidence than Darwin possessed in 1871.


In referring to experiments designed to elucidate possible pathways of prebiotic synthesis, Dean Kenyon Professor of Biology at San Francisco State University notes that, “In most cases the experimental conditions in such studies have been so artificially simplified as to have virtually no bearing on any actual processes that might have taken place on the primitive Earth.”[4] Kenyon is not alone in this observation. Some problems inherent in prebiotic synthesis research include: the primitive Earth was not free from contaminating substances, the presence of interfering cross-reactions, the presence of optical isomers (left-handed versus right-handed molecular structures), and a total lack of how biologically relevant information originated.[5] There are many more legitimate concerns, but this is enough to indicate that origin-of-life research is in a crisis and has been since the Miller-Urey experiment. Of that experiment Jonathan Wells has this to say, “According to Fox and Dose, not only did the miller-Urey experiment start with the wrong gas mixture, but also it did ‘not satisfactorily represent early geological reality because no provisions were made to remove hydrogen.’ During a Miller-Urey experiment hydrogen gas accumulates, becoming up to 76 percent of the mixture, but on the early Earth it would have escaped into space. Fox and Dose concluded: “The inference that miller’s syntheses do not have a geological relevance has become increasingly widespread.”[6]


This is bad news for prebiotic synthesis, not because it indicates a singular faulty experiment, but because it establishes a pattern of ongoing inadequate experiments. Next are some legitimate concerns plaguing chemical evolution.

Origin-of-Life research is plagued with insurmountable fundamental flaws. First and foremost, “origin science” is not operational science. Thaxton et al., note that operational science is concerned with recurring phenomena of nature, whereas “On the other hand, an understanding of the universe includes some singular events, such as origins. Unlike the recurrent operation of the universe, origins cannot be repeated for experimental test. . . In the customary language of science, theories of origins (origin science) cannot be falsified by empirical test if they are false, as can theories of operation science.”[7] Lack of falsifiability is the same insurmountable problem that plagues Darwinian evolution.

A second major defect of chemical evolution is the ever-present problem of investigator intervention that is critical for experimental success which disqualifies the experiment. Thaxton, et al., summarize abiotic experiments, “We state our view that for each of the experimental techniques (conditions) listed as being above the line of crucial but acceptable interference, the investigator had played a highly significant but illegitimate role in experimental success.”[8] As if all this were not bad enough, it remains an ugly unstated fact that for any chemical evolution to work would require some type of never-before-seen protocell.

And as you might expect, protocells have their issues which chemical evolutionists cannot avoid, “Protocells represent the link between the synthesis of macromolecules and the appearance of the first living cells. Thus, they bridge the gap between the nonliving and the living. It is usually agreed in evolutionary theory that the bridge over this gap is the least understood aspect of the origin of life.”[9] The authors go on to specifically state that, “In all cases, the protocell systems are only conglomerations of organic molecules that provide no genuine steps to bridge the gap between living and nonliving furthermore, most protocells are highly unstable and have been formed under nongeological conditions.”[10]

Lastly, Thaxton et al., provide a list of what I believe are fatal flaws within chemical evolution theory:

  1. There is accumulating evidence for an oxidizing early earth and atmosphere.
  2. Destructive processes would have predominated over synthesis in the atmosphere and ocean in the prebiotic world.
  3. There is continued shortening of the time interval (now less than 170 million years) between earth’s cooling and the first appearance of life.
  4. Geochemical analysis shows that the composition of Precambrian deposits is short of nitrogen.
  5. There is an observational limit or boundary between what has been accomplished in the laboratory by natural processes left to themselves and what is done through investigator interference.
  6. In our experience only two things, biotic processes (carried out by enzymes, DNA, etc.) and investigator interference, are able to couple energy flow to the task of constructing biospecific macromolecules.
  7. True living cells are extraordinarily complex, well-orchestrated dynamic structures containing enzymes, DNA, phospholipids, carbohydrates, etc., to which so called protocells bear only a superficial resemblance.[11]


This list is nothing less than devastating to current origin-of-life research—and frankly should be humiliating. James Tour succinctly identifies the dismal consequences of origin-of-life research, “This has affected the highest seats in the academy where even some science professors confuse origin of life with biological evolution. Like a muddy probiotic cesspool, confusion abounds in the academy.”[12] He goes on in a less generous mood to say, “Scientists have no data to support molecular ‘evolution’ leading to life. The research community remains clueless.”[13]


Change Tan and Rob Stadler provide a commonsense reality check as stated in the title of their book, The Stairway to Life: An Origin-of-Life Reality Check (Coppell, 2021). The authors describe in detail the substandard and wholly inadequate state of origin-of-life research. They also describe the ideological affiliation origin-of-life, or abiogenesis, has with malignant atheism, “Even questioning abiogenesis is tantamount to promoting religion, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.”[14] This is the crux of the problem with Darwinian abiogenesis—abiogenesis is an ideology masquerading as a legitimate science, and as we discuss the insurmountable obstacles of abiogenesis this point will become clear. If a theory is truly scientific then there is no threat from religion. Abiogenesis cannot hold its own scientifically. Tan and Stadler describe the profound implausibility that abiogenesis in a prebiotic world could have occurred. They cogently argue there are twelve steps required for abiogenesis to operate, and the likelihood for each step to succeed must be multiplied to arrive at an infinitesimally small probability of success. The twelve steps are: “formation and concentration of building blocks, homochirality of building blocks, a solution for the water paradox, consistent linkage of building blocks, biopolymer reproduction, nucleotide sequences forming useful code, means of gene regulation, means for repairing biopolymers, selectively permeable membranes, means of harnessing energy, interdependency of DNA, RNA, and proteins, and lastly coordinated cellular purpose.”[15] Let’s take them one at a time and keep in mind the complexity of each step must be multiplied by every preceding step to fully comprehend the degree of complexity (and implausibility) involved with the creation of life.


What better place to start a project than with building blocks? The production of the building blocks of life via natural processes is referred to as “prebiotic synthesis,” “abiogenesis,” or “origin of life.” In 1953 Stanley Miller produced the first prebiotic synthesis of amino acids. The Miller-Urey experiment is frequently cited as evidence of abiogenesis, which is unfortunately taught as a proven fact in our high schools and colleges. But there are inherent problems with the Miller-Urey experiment. First, nature gravitates towards a wide variety of chemicals, not isolated pockets of purified chemicals, and “published studies [of abiogenesis] start with highly purified and concentrated reactants.”[16]

Secondly, abiogenesis experimentation addresses only small portions of abiogenesis in isolation, and is riddled with many assumed conditions.[17] Although some amino acids can be produced naturally in trace amounts, these amino acids will be diluted by a large amount of interfering and unwanted products.[18] If this were not bad enough, no one knows what prebiotic conditions existed in deep geological time, “we also have many hypothesized and debated conditions for prebiotic synthesis of amino acids, with very little confidence in the actual conditions that supposedly generated the first amino acids.”[19]

A statistical problem exists due to normal chemistry, which is illustrated as we examine nucleotides. RNA and DNA consist of a nitrogenous base combined with a pentose sugar and a phosphate molecule, which makes a nucleotide. We are all familiar with adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thiamine—the canonical nucleotides. We are also familiar with just one arrangement of these nucleotides because we know what DNA and RNA look like. But “In reality, a single phosphate group, a ribose, and a nucleobase can combine in hundreds of different ways.”[20] There are 180 possible arrangements of an adenine nucleotide, but only one (the canonical nucleotide) of the 180 is observed in all of life.”[21] The other nucleotides have the same problem, therefore, the chances of connecting a chain of 40 canonical nucleotides in a soup of prebiotic nucleotides would be approximately 1090 at best! There are fewer than 1080 atoms in the universe. As Benner states, “It is impossible for any non-living chemical system to escape devolution to enter into the Darwinian world of the ‘living.’”[22]

Lastly, the Miller-Urey experiment, like current abiogenesis research suffers from numerous flaws, three of which are: 1) it avoids the natural processes of degradation, 2) it does not address how separating the desired components while filtering out the undesired components from a very complex mixture occurs, and 3) it cannot describe how the concentration of desired building blocks occurs in one location.[23] We will delve into more flawed research as we move up the stairway of life to the next level—homochirality of building blocks.


Homochirality is the handedness of a molecule. Just like you have a left hand and a right hand, so too do molecules. Chirality can have a profound effect on molecular function because life is extremely sensitive to chirality. As an example, one form of thalidomide (a nausea medication that was used in pregnancy) is a strong sedative while the other form causes severe birth defects.[24] A less dramatic example are orange and lemon smells, which are caused by the same molecule but with different chirality. Blackmon notes, “Living organisms frequently exhibit an absolute discrimination of chirality, tolerating molecules with only a single chiral form.”[25]

The importance of homochirality cannot be overstated. If only one amino acid in a chain is replaced by its chiral counterpart, the newly created protein will not function properly.[26] Unfortunately for abiogenesis research the ugly truth is that, a natural means of filtering out undesired chirality would have to proceed the formation of any amino acid, DNA or RNA.[27] And, according to Tan and Stadler, “No one has ever found a plausible abiotic explanation for how life could have become exclusively homochiral.”[28]


It is well known that water is essential for life, but what is not so well known is that water is detrimental to the start of life—thus, the paradox of water. As odd as it may seem, organic synthesis is highly constrained in the presence of water. Water discourages the polymerization of nucleotides to make DNA and RNA. Water also discourages the polymerization of amino acids to make proteins.[29] Water corrodes existing DNA and RNA which requires the creation of complex molecular mechanisms to repair or replace biopolymers.[30]

The more we learn about life, the problems for abiogenesis research become more intractable, “Those who maintain support for abiogenesis are left to choose among few options: ignoring the issue, expecting the prebiotic world to supply the type of controlled and purified conditions of an organic synthesis laboratory, proposing a hypothetical ‘proto-solvent’ for life, or hoping that someone else will solve the paradox.”[31] The next obstacle abiogenesis researchers are hoping someone else will solve is the consistent linkage of building blocks.


A common misconception that most people have, and I certainly did until delving into the subject years ago, is that the molecular structure of DNA, RNA, amino acids, and proteins is the only possible arrangement of molecules that can occur. This is a legitimately held misconception since all of life shares this common molecular linkage.[32]

As an example, biology textbooks show diagrams containing chains of amino acids joined by a-peptide bonds, which unfortunately implies that amino acids can only bond via a-peptide bonds to form proteins. But this type of bond requires living cells.[33] The lay reader legitimately cannot know enough molecular biology to identify this incorrect implication. Unfortunately for the Darwinist, a-amino acids can interact with side chains of another a-amino group or the a-carboxyl group of another amino acid side chain. This forms non-peptide bonds or non-a-peptide bonds,[34] which do not lead to proteins suitable for our anatomy and physiology.

This is not the only problem researchers are ignoring. Even with modern technology, synthesizing polypeptides without cells, DNA or enzymes is plagued with unwanted reactions. And to make matters worse, each added amino acid takes more than one minute to complete. In life, protein synthesis occurs at the rate of 1,200 amino acids per minute. And this occurs with extreme accuracy.[35]

Abiogenesis researchers who wish to avoid the reality of biochemistry use pure homochiral nucleotides and/or nucleotides that were modified to be more reactive to achieve the desired result.[36] Honest science does not work like this. As Thaxton et. al., repeatedly demonstrate, researchers must isolate, purify, and concentrate polypeptides to produce amino acids.[37]

Tan and Stadler summarize the problem, “All empirical evidence tells us that homolinkage of DNA, RNA, and proteins can only be achieved via highly specified and catalytic activity of enzymes and ribozymes or via the careful planning of intelligent agents. In short, without the intervention of intelligent agents, existing biopolymers are required for the production of biopolymers.”[38]

The next challenge is much more complex—forming useful code.


Reproduction is a fundamental characteristic of life. For abiogenesis to occur, there must be an advancement from chemistry to biology. Just as Darwin’s evolution is the natural selection of random mutations, abiogenesis is the organization of random chemical elements to produce an organism that can reproduce.

Abiogenesis researchers hope RNA can serve the same function as DNA by serving as the genotype (information storage) and the phenotype (the function) simultaneously.[39] They hypothesize some type of “RNA world” that they cannot quite explain. But an RNA world requires self-replicating RNA molecules. Unfortunately, self-replicating RNA requires pure homochiral nucleotides, and Qb enzyme that combines nucleotides into RNA molecules.[40] However, Qb consists of a combination of four protein subunits and more than 1,2000 amino acids in a specific sequence.[41] Even worse for abiogenesis supporters, a complimentary version of RNA must first be generated, but this complimentary version of RNA tends to remain bonded, which makes the molecule useless.[42]

Finally, self-replicating RNA faces several challenges. First, the rate of synthesis must exceed the rate of degradation, and RNA degrades easily. Secondly, the monomers must be concentrated and pure. Thirdly, the monomers must be in an activated form, ready to undergo reactions.[43]

These are not the only problems abiogenesis supporters face. Tragically, “Even within living organisms, no molecule can reproduce itself—this requires a suite of other molecules, typically involving proteins.”[44]


Charles Darwin developed a theory that is unable to cope with the complexity of DNA. There is no simple 1:1 relationship between DNA code and adult anatomy and physiology. The existence of embryogenesis is evidence that DNA code is at a quantum level of complexity far removed from Darwinian theory.

Current Darwinian philosophy assumes the most profoundly naïve scientific concept—DNA code directly produces a human being. But this is sophistry. Of course, without DNA there would be no adult form of human beings. However, before DNA can code for an adult human it must code for the phenomenally dynamic process of embryogenesis and growth from fetus to infant, child, adolescent and finally adult.

From the moment of conception, two cells ultimately create, not only every structure and function in the adult human body, but every molecule that is involved in all anatomy, physiology and molecular biological processes required of the embryo, fetus, and adult.

Anatomy, physiology, and molecular biology cannot occur by chance because there is no chemical or physical force that imposes a preferred sequence of nucleotides in DNA. The lack of physical forces that impose preferred sequences of nucleotides is what allows DNA to act as an unconstrained information carrier. Just as importantly, this property demonstrates that the nucleotides themselves provide no explanation for the highly specific nucleotide sequence.[45] Even the simplest life form is exceedingly complex. Craig Venter et. al., discovered that the simplest life form contains 513,000 base pairs of DNA and 473 genes.[46] In life, there is no such thing as simple.

Darwinists depend on the natural selection of random mutations, but it appears that when natural selection is left to its own devices, thermodynamics takes over and simplification rather than complexification dominates chemical evolution.[47] Abiogenesis, natural selection and chemical evolution are woefully inadequate theories, “The rich imagination of those who support abiogenesis then envisions either fortuitous random arrangements or random mutations and natural selection to produce hundreds of diverse genes living in harmony in a highly favorable and pampered ‘incubator’ environment that persisted over millions of years, giving birth to the first independent and autonomously reproducing cell. Extraordinary imagination is required to arrive at such a scenario, and extraordinary faith (in lieu of scientific evidence) coupled with the repression of rational thought is required to adopt this explanation for life.”[48]

Now that we have increased complexity by quantum levels of difficulty, let’s increase it even more. The DNA and genes that we just created now must be regulated lest chaos ensue.


Genes carry instructions, make proteins, and perform specific functions. Genes must be regulated, or we would have proteins in excess or scarcity, and functions not being performed when needed versus functions being performed when not needed. In short, genes without regulation produce disease, disability, or death. This regulation requires highly coordinated molecular activity.

Regulating a gene requires: 1) a means of sensing, 2) a means of making a decision based on what is sensed, and 3) a means of acting on the decision to affect the desired control.[49] As you can imagine the information required to obtain this control is extremely complex. And herein lies the problem. As Tan and Stadler state, “Although we can readily observe this additional layer of regulatory information at work in all known life, we have no materialistic explanation for the arrival of this information. Materialistic explanations are especially strained in cases like restriction systems which require the simultaneous arrival of multiple regulated components to produce a benefit rather than a detriment.”[50] Without supplying an answer to the problem of regulation, Darwinists must now deal with the next problem—how to repair the DNA and its information that is created.


Like everything else in life information degrades over time. Within a lifetime the information contained in DNA faces degradation from radiation, oxidation, alkylation, chemical mutagens, and biological pathogens.[51] Each day DNA must repair 2,000-10,000 depurinations (purines are the nucleotides adenine and guanine), 600 depyrimidinations (pyrimidines are the nucleotides cytosine and thymine),10,000 cases of oxidative damage, 55,000 single-strand breaks, and 10 double -strand breaks.[52] This is a daunting task, and understanding DNA repair mechanisms is a daunting undertaking.

Who better to give us a glimpse into DNA repair mechanisms than James Watson of the famed Watson and Crick duo? As Watson states, “We will see that multiple overlapping systems enable the cell to cope with a wide range of insults to DNA, underscoring the investment that living organisms make in the preservation of the genetic material.”[53] “Multiple overlapping systems” is a concept that involves great complexity.

Besides proofreading and deletion, which are complicated enough, here is an incomplete list of other repair mechanisms: 1) mismatch repair system,[54] 2) recombinational repair,[55] 3) double-strand break repair,[56] 4) translesion synthesis,[57] 5) base excision repair,[58] 6) nucleotide excision repair,[59] and 7) nonhomologous end joining.[60] Herein lies the conundrum—DNA requires complex repair mechanisms, but those repair mechanisms are encoded within the very DNA they are repairing. How could DNA evolve via random mutations without the protection of DNA repair mechanisms? This leads to what is called Eigen’s paradox, “A self-replicating molecule faces a practical size limit of about one hundred nucleotides unless there are error-correction systems, but the error-correction systems themselves must be coded in molecules that area substantially longer than the practical limit.”[61] Abiogenesis offers no solution to this problem other than wishful thinking.


Abiogenesis supporters continually simplify requirements for life claiming that “prototype structures” could suffice as components of early life. One such structure is the all-important cell membrane. As simple as the term sounds, a cell membrane is an extremely complex structure, and extremely important. The cell membrane is not just a box to keep cell stuff inside. A cell membrane has numerous functions. A living cell requires a continuous supply of building materials and energy and requires the removal of waste.[62]

A cell membrane is anything but inert. Living organisms must actively modify the phospholipid composition of their membranes in response to temperature changes to maintain stability.[63] Membranes must be tight enough to block the passage of protons, yet must allow much larger cellular building materials, sources of energy, and communications from the outside world to enter, and waste products and communications to exit.[64]

None of this is simple. In fact, C. M. Fraser et al., observed that the simplest known autonomously reproducing cell – Mycoplasma genitalium – has approximately 140 different proteins making up its cell membrane.[65] Origin of life researchers depend on the fact that most people don’t have the time or interest to read scientific journals to catch their misrepresentations and over-simplifications. Therefore, their manipulation of science to promote a philosophy goes unchallenged. But it keeps getting more complex.


Life is characterized by organized complexity which is antithetical to what we know of entropy. Life requires a constant supply of useable, directed energy. Despite what some professors tell you, the mere fact that the sun shines does not produce the kind of energy needed to create complex life.

Living organisms harness and store energy in a process known as chemiosmotic coupling. Chemiosmotic coupling starts with various energy sources such as sunlight, carbohydrates, proteins, fats, sulfur, sulfide, manganese oxide and ferrous iron, which are burned and then converted to produce a consistent form of electricity the cell can use—a proton gradient.[66] The cell uses adenosine triphosphate (ATP) as a type of battery to perform a wide variety of functions. According to Lane, “Although a human body contains only about sixty grams of ATP at any given moment, it is estimated that humans regenerate approximately their own weight in molecules of ATP every day.”[67]

The electron transport chain which is responsible for extracting energy requires proteins of extreme intricacy. ATP is produced by ATP synthase, which is an extremely complex molecular machine that must be created by DNA. (For an enlightening experience watch any one of the numerous YouTube videos showing ATP synthase animation.) The authors note that, “The simplest known form of ATP synthase (in E. coli) consists of at least twenty interconnected protein molecules (eight unique subunits).”[68] Abiogenesis supporters ignore the extreme complexity of harnessing energy while not supplying any rational theories for creation of the complex biomolecular systems which must be in place for cells to survive.


The central dogma of molecular biology is a description of how genetic information flows—DNA to RNA to proteins. Abiogenesis supporters would like you to believe the central dogma can be short circuited by an RNA world hypothesis, but this hypothesis is inadequate to the point of being magical thinking. As the heading indicates there is an inescapable interdependency of DNA, RNA, and proteins.

All life has distinct information-storage molecules (DNA) and information-processing molecules (proteins), and “there is no known means of translating an RNA function into a protein function.”[69] An insurmountable problem for abiogenesis supporters is that additional molecular machinery is required to decode and then produce proteins from the information encoded in the DNA; and the journey from information to functioning molecular machinery cannot circumvent the central dogma.

Tan and Stadler summarize this obligatory interdependency, “DNA has no value without RNA and proteins. RNA is essential to produce proteins and for reproduction of DNA. Finally, RNA is necessary to produce proteins, but proteins modify RNAs via RNA splicing, RNA editing, RNA degradation, and RNA transport.”[70] The impossible position of abiogenesis researchers is summarized perfectly by Koonin and Novozhilov, “Any scenario of the code origin and evolution will remain vacuous if not combined with understanding of the origin of the coding principle itself and the translation system that embodies it. At the heart of this problem is a dreary vicious circle: what would be the selective force behind the evolution of the extremely complex translation system before there were functional proteins? And, of course, there could be no proteins without a sufficiently effective translation system. A variety of hypotheses have been proposed in attempts to break the circle but so far none of these seems to be sufficiently coherent or enjoys sufficient support to claim the status of a real theory.”[71]


In chemistry and physics, it is common to ask how and why some physical event happens. It is only in biology that we can also ask what is the purpose? Bacteria and fungi in petri dishes or other culture media merely grow into larger clumps of bacteria and fungi, but cells consist of highly coordinated activities that are directed toward a purpose, which is the highest level of organization for an individual cell.[72]

Cells in higher life forms, including our own bodies, create daughter cells that “inherit not just DNA, RNA, proteins, energy sources, and building blocks, but they also inherit the purpose of the parent cell.”[73] Therefore, “life has an inherent purpose that coordinates all activity. . . and . . . this inborn purpose simply cannot be obtained by random arrangement and natural selection; it must be inherited from the parent cell.”[74] An ultimate purpose is the most profound characteristic of life for which abiogenesis supporters have no answer.


We have seen that abiogenesis like Darwinian evolution is a failed scientific theory. Abiogenesis researchers ignore a significant amount of physics and chemistry, inappropriately intervene in experiments, completely avoid the concept of information, hypothesize molecules or structures that have never been proven to exist, and suspend common sense in their zeal to promote atheism. Therefore, I believe a reasonable person can impute the failure of Darwinism and abiogenesis to atheism—a failed philosophy.


[1] Change L. Tan and Rob Stadler, The stairway to Life: An Origin-of-Life Reality Check, (Coppell: Tan and Stadler, 2020), 13.

[2] Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species: The Illustrated Edition, David Quammen (New York: Sterling Publishing, 2011), 504.

[3] Charles Darwin, quoted in Lucas Brouwers, “Did Life Evolve in a ‘Warm Little Pond?’” Scientific American, February 16, 2012, https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtomics/did-life-evolve-in-a-warm-little-pond/.

[4] Dean Kenyon “Forward,” In Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, Roger Olsen, James Tour, Stephen Meyer, Jonathan Wells, Guillermo Gonzalez, Brian Miller and David Klinghoffer, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: The Continuing Controversy, (Seattle: The Discovery Institute, 2020), 38.

[5] Id., 39.

[6] Thaxton, Bradley, Olsen, Tour, Meyer, Wells, Gonzalez, Miller and Klinghoffer, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: The Continuing Controversy, (Seattle: The Discovery Institute, 2020), 400.

[7] Id., 275.

[8] Id., 165.

[9] Id., 231.

[10] Id., 244.

[11] Id., 257.

[12]  Id., 324.

[13] Id., 323.

[14] Tan and Stadler, 13.

[15] Id., 67.

[16] Id., 71.

[17] Id., 81.

[18] Id., 75.

[19] Id., 76.

[20] Id., 78.

[21] Id., 80.

[22] Steven A. Benner, “Paradoxes in the origin of life.” Orig Life Evol Biosph, 2014. 44(4): 339-343.

[23] Id., 82.

[24] Id., 87.

[25] D. G. Blackmond, “The origin of biological homochirality.” Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, 2010. 2(5): 1-17.

[26] Tan and Stadler, 89.

[27] Id.

[28] Id., 90.

[29] Id., 96.

[30] Id., 97.

[31] Id., 98.

[32] Id., 100.

[33] Id., 103.

[34] Id.

[35] Id., 105.

[36] Id., 100.

[37] Thaxton, 69.

[38] Tan and Stadler, 105.

[39] Id., 109.

[40] Id., 111.

[41] Id.

[42] Id., 112.

[43] Id., 118.

[44] Id.

[45] Id., 121.

[46] C. A. Hutchison III, et. al., “Design and Synthesis of a Minimal Bacterial Genome.” Science, 2016. 351(6280): aad6253.

[47] Tan and Stadler, 124.

[48] Id., 126.

[49] Id., 128.

[50] Id., 133.

[51] Id., 136.

[52] Id.

[53] James Watson, Molecular Biology of the Gene, 6th edition (San Francisco: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 2008, 258.

[54] Id., 260.

[55] Id., 269.

[56] Id.

[57] Id., 278.

[58] Id., 270.

[59] Id.

[60] Id., 276.

[61] Tan and Stadler, 139.

[62] Id., 142.

[63] Id.

[64] Id.

[65] Fraser, C. M., et al., “The Minimal gene complement of Mycoplasma genitalium. Science, 1995. 270(5235): 397-403.

[66] Tan and Stadler, 150.

[67] Lane, N., The Vital Question. (W. W. Norton & Company, 2016), 63.

[68] Tan and Stadler, 155.

[69] Id., 162.

[70] Id., 168.

[71] Koonin, E. V. and A. S. Novozhilov, “Origin and evolution of the genetic code: the universal enigma.” IUBMB Life, 2009, 61(2): 108.

[72] Tan and Stadler, 172.

[73] Id., 174.

[74] Id.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.