Wikipedia - Abiogenesis Abiogenesis or the origin of life is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities on Earth was not a single event, but a process of increasing complexity involving the formation of a habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emergence of cell membranes. The transition from non-life to life has not been observed experimentally, but many proposals have been made for different stages of the process.*

The reality is that nobody ever observed life arising from non-life. All we observe is life arising from pre-existing life or life becoming non-life. Wikipedia calls this incredible miracle a "natural process" but there's nothing natural about it. Even all the experiments which didn't produce any life from non-life were not "natural", but were done by means of intelligent design in labs. So here starts another evolutionary fairy tale...

Charles Darwin - Letter to J. D. Hooker (1 February 1871) It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (& oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia & phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etcetera present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.*

Mary Shelley - Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus Many and long were the conversations between Lord Byron and Shelley, to which I was a devout but nearly silent listener. During one of these, various philosophical doctrines were discussed, and among others the nature of the principle of life, and whether there was any probability of its ever being discovered and communicated. They talked of the experiments of Dr. Darwin, ... who preserved a piece of vermicelli in a glass case, till by some extraordinary means it began to move with voluntary motion. Not thus, after all, would life be given. Perhaps a corpse would be re-animated; galvanism had given token of such things: perhaps the component parts of a creature might be manufactured, brought together, and endured with vital warmth.**

Frankenstein was published in 1818 by Mary Shelley. In its preface Percy Bysshe Shelley wrote: The event on which this fiction is founded has been supposed, by Dr. Darwin, and some of the physiological writers of Germany, as not of impossible occurrence.* In its introduction and preface is direct mention of Erasmus Darwin who believed in spontaneous generation, the incredible and erroneous belief in ongoing spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter. There is a link between the rise of Darwinism in the 19th century and the birth of modern-day science fiction. And so these naturalistic philosophers keep on searching for their philosopher's stone...


In 1924 Alexander Oparin invented a so-called primordial soup and added some sunlight and lightning to the fantastic recipe. Many evolutionists cried hosanna, but while nourishment and sunlight are necessary for life, neither soup, nor sunlight, nor lightning, can create life, on the contrary. In 1952 the Miller and Urey experiment simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present in the atmosphere of the early, prebiotic earth, and mixed all the necessary ingredients in it. Although evolutionists like to boast about it, the result of that experiment were some amino acids. Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins, and proteins are long chains of amino acids, hundreds, in a specific order, created with the instructions in DNA or RNA in the cell machinery. Amino acids are not even close to the complex machinery of a living cell, let alone the information contained in DNA or RNA. In the 21st century nothing changed in this regard...

Antonio Lazcano - What is life? A brief historical overview (2008) Research in the origin and nature of life is doomed to remain, at the best, as work in progress. ... there is no evidence indicating how a system of large or small molecules can spontaneously arise, and evolve into non-genetic catalytic networks. ... In spite of many published speculations, life cannot be understood in the absence of genetic material and Darwinian evolution.

Franklin M. Harold - In Search of Cell History: The Evolution of Life's Building Blocks (2014) Over the past sixty years, dedicated and skillful scientists have devoted much effort and ink to the origin of life, with remarkably little to show for it. Judging by the volume of literature, both experimental and theoretical, the inquiry has thrived prodigiously. But unlike more conventional fields of biological research, the study of life's origins has failed to generate a coherent and persuasive framework that gives meaning to the growing heap of data and speculation; and this suggests that we may still be missing some essential insight.

In 2012 origin of life researcher Jack Szostak said: We assume we have the chemical building blocks of life: the question we're looking at is what do we need to do to make these chemicals get together and work like a cell?** Nobody has ever synthesized a protocell using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life. The many different and often contradicting origin of life hypotheses show that scientists have no clue. All experiments concerning "spontaneous" generation required massive input of intelligence, and failed nonetheless. If all the intelligent scientists were not able to create life from non-life in their labs, then how would mindless and unintelligent nature do it?

Britannica - Biogenesis Biogenesis is the principle that living organisms develop only from preexisting life. This concept directly refutes the older, disproven theory of spontaneous generation, which suggested that life could arise from nonliving matter. For example, spontaneous generation was once thought to explain how mice could appear from rags or maggots from decaying meat. ... It was Louis Pasteur's conclusive experiments in the 19th century that definitively proved that microorganisms also reproduce from existing life, solidifying the principle of biogenesis.*

In 1859 Louis Pasteur scientifically proved that life only comes from life, and thus abiogenesis is no longer widely supported to this day. ... the notion of spontaneous generation became obsolete.** But until this day hardcore science has never kept hardnosed evolutionists from their fantastic belief in their scientifically impossible fantasies. Pasteur once said that posterity will one day laugh at the foolishness of modern materialistic philosophers.*

According to cell theory all living organisms are composed of one or more cells, the cell is the most basic unit of life, and all cells arise only from pre-existing cells.* Just like life only comes from pre-existing life, as was proved by Pasteur. We can't blame Darwin and his contemporary naturalist friends for their ignorance of the incredible complexity of the cell as we now understand it thanks to the true science of genetics. Already in 1924 origin of life researcher Alexander Oparin noted...

Alexander Oparin - Antonio Lazcano: What is life? A brief historical overview The specific peculiarity of living organisms is only that in them there have been collected and integrated an extremely complicated combination of a large number of properties and characteristics which are present in isolation in various dead, inorganic bodies ... Life is not characterized by any special properties but by a definite, specific combination of these properties.

The cell is a prime example of specified complexity, like an incredibly small but complex factory which contains biological nanomachines,* biomolecules like proteins, and incredibly complex genetic code like RNA and DNA. In 1998 Bruce Alberts said: We have always underestimated cells. Undoubtedly we still do today. ... the entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.**

Michael Denton - Evolution: A Theory In Crisis Molecular biology has shown that even the simplest of all living systems on the earth today, bacterial cells, are exceedingly complex objects. Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 gms, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the nonliving world.

Paul Davies said: Living organisms are mysterious not for their complexity per se, but for their tightly specified complexity,* even the simplest bacterium is incomparably more complicated than any chemical brew ever studied.** Werner Arber said: The most primitive cells may require at least several hundred different specific biological macromolecules. How such already quite complex structures may have come together, remains a mystery to me.*

Stephen C. Meyer - Signature in the Cell Of course building a functioning cell - at least one that in some way resembles the cells we actually observe today - would have required more than just the genetic information that directs protein synthesis. It would have also required, at very least, a suite of preexisting proteins and RNA molecules - polymerases, transfer RNA's, ribosomal RNA's, synthetases, and ribosomal proteins, for example - to process and express the information stored in DNA. In fact, there are over 100 specific proteins involved in a simple bacterial translation system; roughly 20 more are involved in transcription and over 30 in DNA replication. ... Beyond that, the first cell would have required some kind of semipermeable membrane and a cell wall to protect itself and the chemical reactions taking place inside it. ... The integrated complexity of even a "minimally complex cell" has made it difficult to calculate the odds of all the necessary components of such a system arising in close association with one another by chance alone. ... To say that scientific laws generate complex informational patterns is essentially a contradiction in terms.

Even a small step in the process towards a cell, like for example the 20 amino acids in exactly the right order, is called one of the mysteries surrounding the evolution of life.** A cell is a good example of irreducible complexity,** it won't function if any of its many complex subparts is not present or in its proper specific organization.*

Stephen C. Meyer - Signature in the Cell At the close of the nineteenth century, most biologists thought life consisted solely of matter and energy. But after Watson and Crick, biologists came to recognize the importance of a third fundamental entity in living things: information. And this discovery would redefine, from that point forward, what theories about the origin of life would need to explain.

Abel, Trevors - Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information No matter how many "bits" of possible combinations it has, there is no reason to call it "information" if it doesn't at least have the potential of producing something useful. What kind of information produces function? In computer science, we call it a "program." Another name for computer software is an "algorithm." No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed?*

The sequences of nucleotide bases (ATGC) inscribed along the spine of a DNA molecule convey a precise set of instructions for building proteins within the cell.** On top of that, the message or the meaning of specified information is not materially based. See semiotics.* Where does this specified information in DNA come from? This has even led people to search for intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, a theory called panspermia. Scientists like Steven A. Benner said: we went looking on Mars because the origins-of-life options on earth just aren't looking very good.**

The latest and "greatest" attempt by fanatic evolutionists, to make what is scientifically impossible seemingly possible somehow, is the so-called RNA world hypothesis.* But of course the problem remains the same...

Harold S. Bernhardt - The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory... The problems associated with the RNA world hypothesis are well known. In the following I discuss some of these difficulties, some of the alternative hypotheses that have been proposed, and some of the problems with these alternative models. From a biosynthetic — as well as, arguably, evolutionary — perspective, DNA is a modified RNA, and so the chicken-and-egg dilemma of "which came first?" boils down to a choice between RNA and protein. This is not just a question of cause and effect, but also one of statistical likelihood, as the chance of two such different types of macromolecule arising simultaneously would appear unlikely.*

Jordana Cepelewicz - Life’s First Molecule Was Protein, Not RNA For scientists studying the origin of life, one of the greatest chicken-or-the-egg questions is: Which came first — proteins or nucleic acids like DNA and RNA? ... DNA and RNA carry the instructions for making proteins, and proteins extract and copy those instructions as DNA or RNA. Which one could have originally handled both jobs on its own?*

It's the chicken or the egg dilemma* which merely underscores the fact that life is irreducibly complex.

Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion It may be that the origin of life is not the only major gap in the evolutionary story that is bridged by sheer luck... the origin of the eucaryotic cell ... was an even more momentous, difficult and statistically improbable step than the origin of life. The origin of consciousness might be another major gap...

Carl Sagan - Wonder and Skepticism the truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true.

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began.** The universe is ruled by entropy, and so is genetics. Lord Kelvin said: I need scarcely say that the beginning and maintenance of life on earth is absolutely and infinitely beyond the range of sound speculation in dynamical science.* According to science we should follow the evidence where it leads.

Arthur V. Chadwick - Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis James Tour - Animadversions of a Synthetic Chemist Dean Kenyon - The RNA World: A Critique James Gunn - The Worldview of Science Fiction (From The Science of Science-Fiction Writing) Sean D. Pitman - The Chicken or the Egg, DNA or Protein?