Mar.2016.1-19

Transcription

Mar.2016.1-19

http://martinia.com
MARTINIA
© 2014, World of Researches Publication
Ac.
J. Psy. Stud.
ISSN:
0297-0902
Academic Journal of
Psychological Studies
www.worldofresearches.com
Vol. 3, Issue 1, 80-86, 2014
VOL. 7 NO. 4 Page: 1-19
Invalid Oparin-Haldane’s theory (the soup theory) and all other theories about the origin
of life and useless Miller’s experiments, Oparin’s theory may be a theory of prebiotic
chemistry: fathers of modern evolutionary theories–Buffon, Lamarck and Darwin believed
that life is created by a Creator
Md. Abdul Ahad*1 and A. S. M. Anas Ferdous2
1. Department of Entomology, Faculty of Agriculture, Hajee Mohammad Danesh Science & Technology 1
University, Dinajpur-5200, Bangladesh
2. Department of Entomology, Faculty of Agriculture, Hajee Mohammad Danesh Science & Technology
University, Dinajpur-5200, Bangladesh
*Corresponding author: maahad@hstu.ac.bd, maahadhstu@gmail.com
Abstract: The entire article is based on the diverse current literatures of various world famous scientists. Both
Oparin and Haldane assumed that the primitive earth-atmosphere had huge methane, ammonia and also oxygenless;
life was formed in ocean and the ocean was hot, which helped to produce huge amino acids and consequently huge
“Chicken soup” and later the life. But literatures confirmed that those conditions were absent in the prebiotic
earth/ocean. Moreover, both hot and water strongly inhibits the protein formation of life. Miller completed his
experiments by fulfilling those conditions. Thus, Miller’s experiment is completely useless to support that
theory. Moreover, in nature, equal amounts of left-handed and right-handed amino acids are found. Therefore, if
the life had arisen from the amino acids naturally; then equal amounts of left-handed and right-handed amino acids
could also be found in all living organisms. But that had not happened. A cell is composed of numerous chemicals,
compounds, parts and those are extremely irreducibly complex. So, spontaneously origin of life means just like
coming out huge dictionary from a press. In addition, Darwin applied natural selection to the living organisms, but
Oparin applied that idea to nonliving things. Even, that theory violated law of thermodynamics, biogenesis, cell
theory, anthropic principle, teleology and all other natural laws too. Oppositely, the laws of nature are
unchangeable. Even, that theory is a political ideology. Moreover, injection of life-force to the body is a serious
problem for the origin of life. Hence, Francis Crick, Stephen Hawking and also NASA officially rejected that
theory. Thus, Aristotle, Buffon, Lamarck and Darwin had to believe that life is created by a Creator. Consequently,
Oparin-Haldane’s theory is invalid useless Miller’s experiment to support this theory and life is created by a
Creator. Scientist Md. Abdul Ahad also proved the same thing. Thus, like Oparin’s theory, all other
abiogenesis/spontaneous theories about the origin of life at any other place is also invalid and in future no new
theory is possible to develop about origin of life. However, Oparin-Haldane’s theory may be a theory of
“Prebiotic chemistry”.
Key words: Oparin, Haldane, Miller, origin of life, Ancient ocean, amino acids, Creator.
1. INTRODUCTION
The ex-Soviet biochemist A.I. Oparin (Fig.1) wrote a book entitled the ‘Origin of Life’ (Oparin,
March, 2016
1
Ahad & Ferdous, 2016
1938), which is basically based on a pamphlet that was published in 1924 (Oparin, 1924).
Oparin’s volume ‘‘is probably the most significant book ever published on the origin of life
(Miller, 1997) and Oparin is known as the Darwin of the 20th century (Ahad,
2011;physicsoftheuniverse.com/scientists_oparin.html). However, five years later (in 1929)
J.B.S.Haldane (Fig.3) also appeared with the same conclusions (Haldane, 1929). So, Oparin’s
theory is also known as Oparin-Haldane’s theory. This theory is the most modern and
naturalistic theory of origin of life (Ahad, 2011). Both Oparin and Haldane assumed life
originated in Ocean (i.e in water) and the primitive earth-atmosphere had huge methane,
ammonia and also lack of oxygen; even the ocean was hot (100oC), which helped to produce
huge amino acids (the vital building block of life) and consequently huge primordial soup (the
ocean was full of hot brown coloured that soup) and later the life. The UV radiation from the
sun (Fig.3) provided the energy needed to form life (Oparin, 1938; Haldane, 1929). Stanley
Miller (Fig.19) in 1953 produced amino acids through his experiments (Fig.18) following those
assumptions. It is the only evidence of Oparin’s theory (Bergman, 2002).
Fig.1 A.I.Oparin (from
Google)
Fig.2 J.B.S.Haldane (from
Google)
Fig.3 UV radiation from the sun (from
Google)
However, organic evolution began with the evolution of the Oparin’s first life (Mader, 2000) in
the following way: Organic matter→one-celled organism/bacterium→
invertebrate→lungfish→amphibian→reptile→placental-mammal→higher
(Ahad, 2014, Ahad,2014a, 2015a, 2015b, 2015b; Fig.4) .
mammal→human
Fig.4. Origin of all living organisms (from Purves and Orians, 1987)
March, 2016
2
Invalid Oparin-Haldane’s theory (the soup theory) and all other theories…
Oppositely, it is claimed that the origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the
conditions which are to be satisfied to get it going is impossible (Peet, 2015). Wallace (1990)
stated that scientists still cannot opine exactly what life is and how it is began. Additionally,
Crick and Orgel (1973); Crick (1981) and Hawking (2009) rejected this theory by proposing that
DNA is the vital building block of life and life comes from the space. NASA officially also
opined the same (Young, 2005).
. Moreover, Christian (1977) and Ahad (2011) drew attention that there is no experimental
evidences to support Oparin-Haldane’s theory. Similarly, it is criticized that Miller’s
experimental result was either very badly informed or very dishonestly published (Batten,
2013). Such types of criticisms are scattered. There is no a full article that published in scientific
journals about the criticisms of the origin of life. However, many articles are found in Google
and Yahoo.com, which are not published in a scientific journal. However, Ahad (2011)
published an article in a scientific journal and concluded that life is created by a Creator, which
does not fulfill the actual needs.
Therefore, it is necessary to remove those contradictions for doing better for the biological
science. In addition, it is necessary to give a clear and elaborate idea about Oparin’s theory, its
weakness as well as optimistic site, and would come to a conclusion whether life has arisen
according to Oparin’s assumptions or not, and also life is created by a Creator or not.
2. The main assumptions of Oparin’s theory are not real
Oparin, Haldane, Miller and their followers assumed that the primitive earth-atmosphere had
huge methane, ammonia and oxygenless; even the ocean was hot (100oC), which helped to
produce huge amino acids and consequently huge primordial soup (the ocean was full of that
brown coloured soup) and later the life. But recent researches confirmed that those were absent
at the primitive earth and are placed here conciselya) Primitive earth-atmosphere was devoid of oxygen (reducing)
The primitive earth was reducing; devoid of oxygen helped for the formation of “Dilute soup” as
well as the life (Haldane, 1929; Oparin, 1938; Miller, 1953).
Oppositely, the geochemical evidences collected in the last 30 years indicated that the
primitive earth was not reducing. But for the success of the laboratory experiments for the
production of amino acids, it is only recommended (Valiant, 2007). Schaefer (2004)
acknowledged (based on literature of geoscientists of Lindsey, 2006; Prothero and Buell, 2007;
Lawrence, 2008 and many others) that the primordial earth was highly reducing. Additionally,
Walker (1977) stated that the ancient earth had free oxygen, perhaps at the levels similar to the
present earth. Ohmoto et al. (2006) showed that the ancient earth was oxygenated as early as
3.8by years ago. But according to Oparin’s theory life arose around 3.5by years ago (Wallace,
1990).
b) Primitive ocean had no “Hot dilute chicken soup" of amino acids
According to Oparin, the prebiotic ocean had full of brown coloured “Hot dilute chicken soup"
of amino acid that produced from methane, ammonia and water (Haldane, 1929; Oparin, 1938).
Oppositely, Chadwick (2005) based on literature of numerous authors (such as Woese, 1979;
Hulett, 1969; Cairns-Smith, 1982; Day, 1984; Pflug, 1984; Shapiro, 1986; Delbruck; 1986)
showed that there is no evidences of “Dilute soup" in the ancient ocean. Moreover, Valiant
(2007) declared that if there was a primitive soup in the ancient earth, then one would expect to
find at least somewhere on this planet. In fact, still no such materials are found nowhere on the
earth. Even, Miller and others confirmed that there is no geological evidence for the existence of
Oparin’s postulated ‘prebiotic hot soup’ at the earliest earth/ocean (Miller et al, 1997). Starkey
(2011) and Valiant (2007) stated that since 1953, scientists had concluded that the atmosphere of
the early earth had water-vapour (H2O), CO2, N2 and H2; instead of methane, ammonia and
water.
c) Both hot and water strongly inhibit the protein formation of Life
The origin of life was in the hot ocean/water (Oparin, 1924; Oparin, 1938). Miller (1953&1955)
also completed his experiment at boiling (100oC) water. In addition, many scientists affirmed
that life was originated in warm volcanic ridges, warm pond and in deep sea hydrothermal (hot)
vents (Lane et al., 2010; Luskin, 2013). So, heat and water played an important role for the
formation of polymerization/peptide from amino acids.
In contrast, when meat/proteins are heated/cooked in water or at the dry condition, it
becomes soft, as both heat and water breakdown the peptide bonds of proteins. So, recent
diverse literature showed that both heat and water inhibited the protein formation for life and a
very few of those are placed here:
It is confirmed that amino acids are known for a long time to undergo tar formation,
deamination and decarboxylation, when it is heated (Katchaiski, 1951). Even, when amino acids
are heated at the dry conditions or in the water, the tar is also formed (Flory, 1953).
Furthermore, the polymerization of amino acids to form peptide/protein is favored only at the
absence of water. The presence of water helped the depolymerization of precursors of life
(Chadwik, 2005). Moreover, the ocean would had formed so rapidly, the early earth's pH and
temperature of the ocean would always had approximately same, as at the present time (Dane,
1976). Besides, the heat in the deep sea vents would speed up the breakdown of any lucky
chemical and formation for the life as the hydrothermal vents are hot (Batten, 2013). So, those
literature signified that both heat and water helped depolymerization of amino acids and never
helped to form any peptide/life.
3. Amino acids had never formed life
The oceanic amino acid is the vital building blocks of life (Oparin, 1938; Miller, 1953a;
Bergman, 2002). On the other hand, natural/ oceanic amino acids never formed any life and its
documents are placed hereIn the nature, equal amounts of left-handed and right-handed amino acids are formed (Vuletic,
2003; Ahad, 2011). So, if the life had arisen in sea through Oparin’s or any other theory
abiognesis of origin of life; then equal amounts of left-handed and right-handed amino acids
(Fig.5) are also found in the all living organisms. But it is surprising that all the twenty one
March, 2016
4
amino acids in the living organisms (with rare exceptions such as bacterial cell walls) are lefthanded and it is known as homochirality rule (Sarafati, 2000; Butten, 2013).
Fig. 5. left-handed and right-handed amino acids
(from Sarafati, 2000)
Once more, in the nature, peptide bonds are beta bonds, whereas all peptide bonds in living
organisms are alpha bond (Chadwick, 2005). So, if the life had formed by the process of
Oparin’s theory, even through any other theory of abiognesis; equal amounts of left-handed and
right-handed amino acids with beta bond could also be found in all the living organisms as those
found in the nature but no such event happen there.
4. DNA is the vital building block of life (but not amino acids) and can synthesis proteins
but DNA cannot be synthesized through abiogenesis
Natural oceanic amino acids were the vital building blocks of life (Oparin, 1938; Miller, 1953a).
Alternatively, modern literature indicates that amino acid is not a building block of life, it cannot
synthesize protein but DNA can and a few literatures about it are stated here: a) DNA is the
vital building block of life
It is announced that the nucleic acid (DNA, Fig.6) is the key material and vital building block
of life (Müller, 1961; Crick and Orgel, 1973; Crick, 1981). Hawking (2009) also confirmed that
DNA is the vital building block of life.
Fig. 6. DNA double helix and its chemical components (from
Purves and Orians, 1987)
b) DNA can synthesize protein/amino acid
Crick (1956) summarized the current path of protein synthesis: DNA synthesized RNA and
RNA synthesized proteins (Crick,1956; Starr and Taggart, 1989) (Fig. 7a, b, c).
Fig.7a (From Starr and Taggart, 1989).
Purves and Orians (1987) stated that the “Central dogma” of molecular biology is one of most
important concepts
have
in understanding how DNAs make polypeptide
chain
Fig. 7c (from Mader,
2000) of
Fig.7 b to
(from
Purvesemerged
and Orians, 1987)
amino acid and make protein (Fig.7a, b, c). It is, simply, the DNA codes for the productions of
RNA, RNA codes the production of protein, and protein does not code for the production of
protein, or DNA. In addition, Tamarin (2002) affirmed that the genetic codes give the
relationship of DNA bases to the amino acids in protein and determine the final structure of
enzyme/protein with the proper sequences of amino acids. Thus, genes (DNA) are transcribed
into RNA, which is the most part, is then translated into protein. Hartle and Jones (1999)
informed that the control mechanisms are exercised along the way. Even, the developmental fate
of a cell is often under DNA control.
c) DNA cannot be synthesized through abiogenesis
Crick (1981) declared that it is quite impossible that the complexity of DNA cannot allow
evolving of organism through abiogenesis. Moreover, DNA molecules generally have numerous
precisely ordered subunits, which could not be synthesized spontaneously except in a living cell
(Dane, 1976). Even, cells are closest to the minimal requirements for life that possesses
somewhere between 1300 to 2300 DNAs (Rana, 2008). So, spontaneously arose of a one-celled
life means suddenly arising of 1300 to 2300 DNAs, which is quite absurd.
5. Evolution of life means coming out of huge complete dictionary automatically from an
explosion in a printing press
Fig.8. A prokaryote (bacterium)
Fig.9. Summary of main biological molecules of a cell (From Starr and
Taggert, 1989)
March, 2016
6
Fig.10. A protein, secondary structure)
Fig.11.Lipid/ fat (from Mader, 2000)
(from Mader,
2000)
Prokaryote (bacterium,fig.8)
is the
Oparin’s first life (Pretorius, 2013) and it is composed of four
organic elements (www.textbookofbacteriology.net) and twenty three inorganic elements (Rouf,
1964). So, for the formation of any life, those 27 elements have to come in contact at a
microscopic place simultaneously.
Fig.12. Cholesterol /lipid (from Mader, 2000)
Fig.13. Glycogen (from Mader, 2000)
Next the elements have to make some classes of organic compounds such as amino acid, fatty
acid etc. with their specific bond and structures, also have to form the main biological
compound (Fig.9) such as protein (Fig.10), carbohydrate ( Fig.13), lipid (Fig.11&12), nucleic
acid (Fig.6) and various enzymes etc. and have to make various cell components of prokaryote.
Besides, those compounds are to start various functions properly and quickly as well glycolysis
(Fig14), Creb cycle (Fig15), etc. for energy production (ATP, fig16), NADH .(Fig.17)
Fig14. Glycolysis (from Purves and Orians, 1987)
Fig.15. Creb cycle (from Purves and Orians, 1987)
Fig.17. Structure of NADH (from Purves and
In supporting, it is noticed that bacterial cells are composed of numerous
compound,
Orians, chemical
1987)
Fig.16. Structure of ATP (from Purves and Orians, 1987)
parts and are extremely irreducibly complex; comparable in complexity to a city full of
machinery; comparable in complexity to a city full of machinery (Denton, 1985; Behe, 1996).
So, automatically to start and to complete those processes are quite impossible and means it
automatically coming out a complete huge dictionary from an explosion in a printing press.
About more-or-less similar judgment was also provided by Ahad (2011).
6. Oparin applied natural selection on non-living thing
Darwin and his supporters applied natural selection in case of living organisms; where
competitions for food, sex, shelter etc. are found. Conversely, Oparin (1924) applied the idea of
natural selection for competition among the organic matters/gels (non-living things) and also
geometric increase of gel (Origin of life, p.26). So, naturally a question arises about the using of
natural selection on non-living materials like a gel and also geometric increasing of gels
spontaneously. It could be concluded that Oparin desired to exploit the support of Darwin’s
followers to his very week assumption.
7. Useless Miller’s experiments to support Oparin’s theory
Miller (1953) had synthesized three amino acids (glycine, α-alanine and β-alanine), the vital
building block of life. So, Miller's experimental work is now routinely presented in biology
textbooks as the evidence of the origin of life (Meyer, 1996).
On the contrary: i) It is previously noted that Oparin and Haldane assumed that the primitive
earth had huge methane, ammonia (which made the soup with water) and also reducing, even
the ocean was hot. Miller completed his experiment by fulfilling those conditions. But it is
formerly stated that those conditions were absent at the primitive earth. So, his experiment is
completely in vain to support Oparin’s theory. Moreover, Miller produced both left and
right-handedness amino acids but living organisms posses the unique left-handedness amino
acids only (Sarafati, 2000; Rouillard, 2013). Moreover, Miller prepared beta bonds amino acids
whereas all bonds of amino acids in living organism are alpha bond (Chadwick, 2005).
ii) It is claimed that Miller’s experiment (Fig18) itself was rigged for the production of organic
molecules and his published results were skewed by omitting some of the results (Valiant,
March, 2016
8
2007); as Miller’s self-styled experiments are completed since then; those experiments actually
showed the opposite results of Miller’s experiments (Bergman, 2002).
Fig.18. Miller’s apparatus (from Starr and Taggart,
1989)
Fig.19. Stanley Miller (from
Google (2015)
Miller (1955) produced 25 amino acids and also HCN by changing designs of his
apparatus. But HCN hinder the life. Its mere presence would be fatal to any precursor of life
(Valiant, 2007). Even, Miller also produced such compounds that would have prohibited the
formation of any polymers in high concentrations and would have undergone a cross reaction
with the amino acids that were already produced even terminate the peptide chain (Wikipedia,
2015). Additionally, Miller (1955) produced metals but there is no known reference in the
chemical world that production of metals is possible from the mixture of non-metal material like
CH4, NH3 and H2O.
8. Why the Oparin’s first prokaryote such as bacterium is still unchanged
It is declared that 3.20 billion years-old a bacterium (Eubacterium isolatum) fossil (Fig.21) was
discovered from South Africa (Birdsell, 1975) and another one was of 3.5 billion years old from
Australia (Wallace, 1990) (Fig.1), which indicated that a bacterium is Oparin’s first organism
and it was evolved around 3.5 billion years ago.
Fig.20. A bacterium (from Google)
Fig.21. A bacterial fossil (from
Wallace,1990)
Conversely, based on diverse literature, Ahad (2015a) declared that invertebrates have no hard
parts; so, those rarely form fossils. The vertebrate fossils are also rare and fragmentary bones
only. A bacterium (Fig.8 & 21) is one-celled, microscopic and soft-bodied organism. So, how
did that bacterium fossil (Fig.1) is formed and discovered? Additionally, if it is true, why is the
bacterium still remain unmodified and does not evolve into another organism during the last 3.5
billion years (Ahad, 2011a, 2015a)?
9. Injection of life force in to the body is serious problem of origin of life
If one believes that a one-celled organism was evolved via Oparin’s theory; then the injection of
life force/life-spirit in to the body is a serious problem for the origin of life. Because, a question
might arise that from where did the life force come, how and who injected the ‘life-force’ in to
the body? It is well known that when an organism dies, whether it is a one-celled or a
muticellular one, though there are present all essential things to live at, but due to the absence of
life-force, it is dead. So, without life force, the whole body becomes valueless and it rots within
a few days. Therefore, “according to the life principle, the life force must be injected into the
organic matter before the life process could begin” (Christian, 1977).
10. Teleology opposed Oparin’s idea
Teleology is a form of reasoning that finds a purpose, a design in nature
and all the known natural laws/processes obey it (Laetsch, 1979). But it could not
be fulfilled by Oparin’s the “Origin of life”. Because, why did the first life has been formed?
What was its importance it to the nature? What is its goal? Those questions have no answer
about the spontaneously origin of life. Hence, Ahad (2006) and Pretorius (2013) declared that
teleology does not agree with the Oparin’s thought at all.
11. Aristotle, Buffon, Lamarck and Darwin had to believe in a Creator, even Stephen
Hawking also obey the same
As, spontaneously the origin of life is impossible; hence, Aristotle (father of biology), Buffon,
Lamarck and Darwin (fathers of modern evolutionary theories) had to believe that life was
created by a Creator:
i) Aristotle believed in the fixity in living organisms (Birdsell, 1975, p.28) and opined that all
organisms are divine creations (Curtis, 1980, p.1); a species is fixed, and not evolved to another
organism (Campbell, 1996, p.400).
ii) Buffon originally believed that all organisms have been especially created for different ways
of life (Purves and Orians, 1987).
iii) Lamarck also believed the same and declared that life was created in the past in a simple
state (Starr and Taggart, 1989).
March, 2016
10
iv) Darwin (1859) believed that life is created and declares: a) “I should infer from analogy that
probably all the organic beings, which have ever lived on the earth, have descended from some
primordial form, into which life was breathed by the creator” (Origin of Species, p.391). b)
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed
by the Creator into a few forms or into one” (Origin of Species, p.396). c) “We know how
imperfect the geological record is, grave these several difficulties are, in my judgment they do
not over through the theory of descent from a few created forms with subsequent modification
(Origin of Species,p.376). In addition, Stephen Hawking (1988) also obey the Creator and said:
“It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way,
except as the act of God who intended to create beings like us (p. 131)” and he opposed
Oparin’s theory by declaring that DNA is the vital building block of life but not amino acid
(Hawking, 2009). Moreover, one may be astonished to know that the “Life was
breathed by the Creator” and “A few created forms” are removed from the “Origin of
Species”, which are found on one-line (Darwin, 1859a)!
12. Oparin’s theory violate the universally accepted law of biogenesis and cell theory and
law of thermodynamics
a) Violation of the law of biogenesis and the cell theory of biology
Oparin’s theory violates the universally accepted law of biogenesis, cell theory of biology.
There is countless literature but few are specified here shortlyDutch scientist Leeuwenhoek, Italian biologist Spallazani and French scientist Pasteur (father of
microbiology) proved by different experiments that life never comes from organic matter or any
other sources spontaneously and a life comes from a life. This is so true; it gets as the status of
“Law of biogenesis” (Purves and Orians, 1987; Ahad, 2011). Geneticist Brewer and Sing
(1983), Strickberger (1996) and Ahad (2011a) conformed that life comes only from preexisting life; even, every living thing comes from another living thing.
Again, a cell only comes from the pre-existing cell, it is so universally accepted, it gains as the
status as “Cell theory” (Watson, 1987).
b) Violation of the law of thermodynamics
The law of thermodynamics is regarded as a law, as all attempts to disprove it have been failed.
The law is fully appreciated by all branches of sciences, even from material to the spiritual
world (Pitzer and Brewberk, 1961). Nonetheless, Oparin’s theory violates this law. There are
numerous literatures but a few are placed here:
Fitch and Upper (1988) pointed out that the origin of life violates the law of thermodynamics.
The law of thermodynamics is that the universe is running down, becoming more random, less
complex, less ordered, more disorganized, increasing in entropy; but life is very complex, very
ordered, non-random, neg-entropy such asatoms→molecules(monomers)→polymers;cells→tissues→organs→Organisms→;nocell→unicellular→multicellular; and this last example answers that old challenge, which came
first, the chicken or the egg? So, Oparin’s theory as well as evolutionary theory seemingly
creates a problem of second law of thermodynamics. How one could creates order in a universe
that moves unavoidably toward disorder? Consequently, Ahad (2006) and (Morris, 1967) also
declared that Oparin’s theory violates the law of thermodynamics. Lane et al., (2010) also
declared that Oparin theory failings of thermodynamic, bioenergetic and phylogenetic success.
13. Oparin’s theory is a political ideology
The following documents indicate that both Oparin and Haldane was strong Marxist and their
theory was a political ideology:
i) At the 20th century, an assumption must be published in a well recognized journal such as
‘Thomson Reuter’; afterward it gains scientific value. So, Darwin-Wallace theory and Mendel’s
theory were published in a well recognized journal. But being a professor of the past ex-Soviet
Union, Oparin published his “Origin of life” in a political pamphlet in 1923 that was circulated
on the streets of Moscow (Rouillard, 2013), which clearly indicated that his theory is a political
ideology. Additionally, Marxism and abiogenesis are blood brothers. According to Marxism
there is no fundamental difference between a living organism and a lifeless matter
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Oparin]. As Oparin was a ‘Marxist, therefore, to fulfill
the need to the Marxism, he developed such type of materialism theory. As a result, Oparin was
nominated as a ‘Hero of Socialist (Communist/Marxist)’ Labour in 1969. He received the Lenin
Prize in 1974 and the Lomonosov Gold Medal in 1979 for his origin of life.
[www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/scientists_oparin.html].Those statements strongly supported
that Oparin’s theory is a political ideology.
ii) Based on diverse literatures, Gouz (2001) declared that Haldane was a strong Marxist, when
he produced his theory and his theory is a political ideology. Moreover, he served as chairman
of the editorial board of ‘Daily Worker’, a Communist news paper between 1940 and 1949 in
London [Wikipedia www.en.wikipedia.or/../J.B.S.Ha]. Even he wrote ‘Human biology and
politics’ (1934) ‘Marxist Philosophy and the Sciences’ (Haldane, 1938) and ‘Biology and
Marxism’ (Haldane, 1948) and many others, in those books he strongly supported Marxist
ideology and influenced the biologists to Marxist philosophy. Those literatures specified that
Haldane (1929) developed a theory that fulfilled the required of political ideology of Marxism.
In addition, Marx and Engels held their firm belief in spontaneous generation, when
other scientists were in doubt. So, modern Marxist textbooks also embrace Oparin’s theory.
[www.allaboutworldview.org/marxism-and-science-and].The Communist Party's official
understanding of Marxism, dialectical materialism fit Oparin's speculation on the “Origin of
life” [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Oparin].
14. Cause of success and widespread of Oparin’s theory
It confirmed that various authors of different countries included this theory (even Miller’s
experiment) to their biology books consciously and consciously (Batten, 2013). Biologists
studied it and assume that it is scientifically verified. So, Biologists are convinced to it; though it
is not scientifically verified as invalid. It is a cause of widespread and success of this theory.
Another cause of widespread and success of this theory is that it a political ideology and it
influences it to the “Marxism/Communism/Materialism” ideology.
March, 2016
12
15. Anthropic Principle, Crick and Stephen Hawking opposed Oparin’s idea
An organism required a suitable environments/place to survive. So, the spontaneous arising of
the first life from non-living matter required more suitable environment/place. But Oparin’s
theory violated it. As, “Anthropic Principle” of physics and cosmology have calculated that
physical life is impossible unless the universe is exceptionally uniform and homogenous
(Hawking, 1988; Pretorius, 2013). Ross (2009) concluded that a stable planetary system with
the right chemical and physical conditions needs to form a life and it takes at least 9 billion
years. But according to Oparin’s theory the origin of life is around 3.5 million years ago only
(Wallace, 1990), when the primitive earth was not fit for life at all. Crick (1981) and Hawking
(1988) opined that evolution of first life required more and more time than 3.5 million years.
Fitch and Upper (1988) noticed that physics deal with repeatable material causes in natures,
whereas history is a sequence of unrepeatable events. So, the origin of life is a problem both for
physics and history.
16. Oparin-Haldane’s theory may be a theory of prebiotic chemistry
It is logical that there is no evidence in favour of Oparin’s idea, except Miller’s experiments.
But it is proved that his experiments are useless to support Oparin’s theory. However, diverse
literature advised that Oparin’s theory could be a theory of ‘Prebiotic chemistry’ and a few
arguments of its favour are placed herei) Oparin’s was a biochemist and the entire mechanism for formation of life was based on the
chemical processes. Subsequently, this hypothesis is well-known as a theory of chemical
evolution and it also informed that the methods of analytical chemistry developed rapidly since
1935-1953, well after Oparin's initial work. Even the experimental support of Oparin’s idea
came from the Harold Urey’s chemical laboratory (Miller et al., 1997). The experiment was
Miller (PhD) research, Miller was a chemist and his PhD supervisor Urey was also a chemist.
iii) Due to searching of the trueness of Oparin’s theory, a new branch of chemistry is developed
and designated as the “Prebiotic chemistry” and Miller become as the father of this chemistry
(Wikipedia, 2015; Miller, 1953a). But neither Oparin nor Haldane became the father of this
chemistry; even neither Oparin nor Haldane became the father of the origin of life. So, this
statement very strongly justifies that Oparin-Haldane’s theory is a theory of the “Prebiotic
chemistry”.
17. DISCUSSION AND CONDCLUSIONS
Science cannot deal with anything that cannot be observed. When an issue is
repeatedly tested but not disprove, then it become a theory. Otherwise, it has no
scientific value (Starr and Taggart, 1989). Mader (2000) declared that a hypothesis must
have experimental data, observations and at least one example, then it become a theory. So, the
word theory is supported by a large number of observations but not lacking. But Oparin’s
dogma is quite unable to fulfill those criteria to be a theory/hypothesis:
It is comprehensible that both Oparin and Haldane assumed that the primitive earthatmosphere had huge methane, ammonia and oxygenless (lack of oxygen); even the ocean was
hot, which helped to produce huge amino acids and consequently huge primordial soup (the
ocean was full of that brown coloured soup) and later the life. But numerous chemical,
geochemical, cosmological and astrological researches (which published in the renowned
journals Nature, Science etc.) confirmed that those conditions were absent in the prebiotic earth.
So, numerous experiments confirmed that Oparin-Haldane theory is invalid. Moreover, Miller’s
experiments are only evidence of this theory. He completed his experiments by fulfilling those
conditions. So, Miller’s experiment is completely useless to support Oparin’s theory.
Additionally, Bergman (2002) declared on the basis of 74 (seventy four) research articles of
various authours that the Miller’s experiments are failed to support Oparin’s theory; instead his
experiments go against Oparin’s theory. Moreover, Oparin-Haldane had never
observed the process of origin of life. Even nobody had ever observed the arisen
of a one-celled organism/species spontaneously. “Scientists have brought the world in
the clutches of their hands (Ahad, 2015b)”. But sthey are unable to create a one-celled
organism, it’s any part or simply a biomolecule too (except amino acid). Again,
biologists have failed to develop a single species through artificial selection/hybridization by
their hard labor, intelligence, sharp brain and sophisticated technology; all their plans and
programs are going in vain (Ahad, 2006; Ahad, 2015b). So, it again confirms that there is no
evidence, observation, example of Oparin theory as well as experimental support about the
validity of Oparin-Haldane theory. Ahad (2011) and Pretorius (2013) also affirmed that neither
the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis nor Miller-Urey experiment proved anything about the origin of
life. Besides this, it is declared that a living individual always arises from another individual of
the same species and never from other species or lifeless matter (Sinnott et al., 1998). Even,
Oparin’s idea breaks the law of thermodynamics (heart of physics), law of biogenesis and the
cell theory (heart of biology), anthropic principle, teleology and all natural laws. Whereas,
Fitch and Upper (1988) stated that laws of nature are unchangeable. Even, it is also
established that this doctrine is a political doctrine. Therefore, a question generally arises: how
could an assumption is succeeded to a theory by violating such type of laws, theories and being
an established political ideology?
Moreover, DNA is the vital building block of life but it cannot be synthesized through
abiogenesis. Again, a cell is composed of numerous elements, bonds and irrucidible compound
and complex like big a machine/city that cannot formed abiogenesis and injection of ‘life-force’
in to the substance is essential; but it impossible without a Creator. Subsequently, Wallace
(1990) informed that scientists still cannot say exactly what life is and how it is began. Mader
(1997) also point out that the transformation of non-living matter into living matter still
astonishes and challenges investigators. Purves and Orians (1987) asked why in nature, a cell
cannot simply be formed by a combination of its organelles, nor has such a chance of synthesis
could be achieved in a laboratory. This situation raises the important question, i.e. where did the
March, 2016
14
first cell come from? These three statements also used by (Ahad,2011). Thus,
spontaneously/abiogenesis origin of life is fairly impossible.
Consequently Francis Crick, Stephen Hawking and also NASA officially rejected Oparin’s
theory and those confirmed that life comes from the space. In addition, on the basis of recent 41
literatures scientist Md. Abdul Ahad (2011) also declared that the life must be created by a
creator. Even, Aristotle, Buffon, Lamarck and Darwin avoid abiogenesis origin of life and
declared that life is created by a Creator.
Starr and Taggart (1989) noted that a theory can be invalidated by new
evidence(s), gathering through on gonging tests and clarification of what those
observations really mean. Castro and Hubner (1997) confirmed that any theory might be
overturned at any time by new evidence(s).
So, it may be concluded that invalid Oparin-Haldane’s theory (the soup theory) and all
other theories about the origin of life at other places such as “in warm volcanic ridges, warm
ponds, tide pools (Luskin, 2013), hydrothermal vents (Lane et. al, 2010), between mica sheets
(Hansma, 2010)” etc. are also invalid and in future no new theory is possible to grow about
origin of life; useless Miller’s experiments and Oparin-Haldane’s theory may be simply a
theory of “Prebiotic chemistry”.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author is very much obliged to Professor Dr. Charles D. Michener (Natural history Museum
and Entomology Program, Department of Entomology and Evolutionary Biology, University of
Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045, USA) for his inspiration during the preparation of this
manuscript. The author is also grateful for the great help of Google for the data use in this paper.
Even, the author is very thankful to the writers and the publishers that mentioned in the
references for using their valuable information in this article.
18. REFERENCES
[1] Ahad, M. A. (2006).Criticisms of organic evolution and its evidences. PhD. Thesis,
Department of Zoology, Jhangir Nagar University, Savar, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
[2] Ahad, M. A. (2011). Evolution of first life without Oparin’s (primordial soup) theory of
evolution. Intern. J. Bio-resource and Stress Manag., 2(1): 4-9
[connection.ebscohost.com/.../evolution-first-life-without-oparin-primord]
[3] Ahad, M. A. (2011a). Molecular evolution of new species without modern synthetic theory
(neo-Darwinism).
Intern.
J.
Bio-resource
and
Stress
Manag.,
2(2):
131136[www.researchgate.net/.../261711183_Molecular_Evolution_]
[4] Ahad, M. A. (2014). Darwin’s theory is the mixture of Malthus’s theory and Lyell’s theory
and Darwin use wrong Lamarck’s theory as well as believe as a mechanism of evolution.
American
J.
Life
Sci.,
2(3):128137[article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajls.20140203.12.pdf].
[5] Ahad, M. A. (2014a). Sociobiology is not a theory of evolution but a branch of entomology,
which deals with social insects. Acad. J. Psych. Stud., 3: (7) 380393[ajps.worldofresearches.com/archive12.html]
[6] Ahad, M.A. (2015a). The direct evidences (paleontology/ fossils) of evolution opposite to
Darwin’s theory and even opposite to human evolution (descent of man) from the lower animal
like
chimpanzee.
Am.
J.
Life
Res.
Sci.,
3(1):5676[www.researchgate.net/.../271441523_The_Direct_Evidences_]
[7] Ahad, M.A. (2015b). Artificial selection/hybridization (the main force of evolution)
opposite to Darwin’s theory and also opposite to macroevolution through chromosomal
aberration/
chromosomal
number
mutation.
Martinia,6(2):5367[www.martinia.com/articles/2015.2/MAR.%202015.%2068-84.pdf]
[9] Ahad, M.A. (2015c). Impossible of Macroevolution of New Species via Changing of
Chromosome Number Mutation and Structural Mutation (Invalid chromosomal speciation
Theory): Darwin’s Theory and Neo-Darwinian Theory Oppose it. Martinia,6(2):6874[www.martinia.com/articles/2015.2/MAR.%202015.%2068-84.pdf]
[10] Batten, D. (2013). Origin of life. An explanation of what is needed for
Abiogenesis.[www.creation.com/origin-of-life)]
[11] Behe, M. (1996). Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
[www.amazon.com › ... › Evolution › Organic]
[12] Bergman, J. (2002).Why the Miller–Urey research argues against abiogenesis. J.Creation
18 (2):28–36[ creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-resear..]
[13]
Birdsell, J. B. (1975). Human Evolution: An Introduction to the New Physical
Anthropology, 2nd edn. Rand Mc.Naly College Publishing Co., Chicago.
[14] Brewer, G.J. & Sing, C.F. (1983). Genetics. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., London.
[15] Campbell, N.A. (1996). Biology,4thedn. The Benjamin Cumin Publishing Co., Inc., Melono
Park, Califonia.
[16] Castro, P. & Hubner, M.E. (1997). Marine Biology, 2nd edn. WCB/McGraw-Hill, New
York.
[17]
Chadwick,
A.V.
(2005).
Abiogenic
origin
of
life:
crisis.[www.origin.swau.edu/papers/life/Chadwick/default.html].
a
theory
in
[18] Christian, J.L. (1977). Philosophy: an Introduction to the Art of Wandering, 2nd edn. Halt,
Rinchart and Wiston, Texas.
[19] Crick, H.F.C.1956.Ideas of portein synthesis.
[ https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/ResourceMetadata/SCBBFT]
March, 2016
16
[20] Crick, H.F. C.(1981). Life Itself: Its origin and nature. Simon and Schuster, New
York[www.amazon.com › ... › Science & Math › Evolution].
[21] Crick, H.F. C. & Orgel, L. E. (1973). Directed Panspermia. Icarus 19:341-346
[https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/SCBCCP.pdf]
[22] Curtis, H. (1980). Biology, 3rd edn. Worth Publishers, Inc., New York.
[23] Darwin, C. (1859). The Origin of Species. Oxford University Press.
[24]
Darwin,
C.
(1859a).
[http://darwinonline.org.uk/content/frameset%3FitemID%3DF373%26viewtype%3Dtext%26page]
[25] Dane, G. (1976).Origin of Life: Critique of Early Stage Chemical Evolution Theories. Acts
& Facts. 5 (1).[ www.icr.org/.../origin-life-critiq.]
[26] Denton, M. (1985). Evolution: A theory in crisis, Adler & Adler Publishers, Harrisburg.
[www.ve.org.za › Home › Vol 34, No 1 (2013)]
[27] Fitch, W. M. and Upper, K. (1988). The Evolution of life, an overview of
general problems and a specific study of the origin of the genetic code. In M.W.
Ho and S. W. Fox (eds.) Evolutionary process and metaphors. John Wiley and
Sons Ltd., New York. pp. 35-47.
[28] Flory, P.J. (1953). Principles of Polymer Chemistry, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New
York.[ocw.mit.edu/...principles-of.../lec7_clean.pdf].
[29] Gouz, S. (2001). Was J.B.S. Haldane a Marxist when he produced his theory on the origins
of life?[https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00576197/document].
[30] Haldane, J. B. S. (1929). The origin of life. Ratio. Ann., 3: 3–10.
[31] Haldane, J. B. S. (1929). [www.marxists.org/archive/.../biology.ht]
[32] Haldane, J.B.S. (1938a).[ https://www.marxists.org/.../haldane/.../philosop]
[33] Haldane, J.B.S. (1948). [www.nature.com › Journal home › Archive › Book Review]
[34] Hansma, H.G.2010.[ www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/]
[35] Hartl, D. L. and Jones, E. W. (1998). Genetics, 4th edn. Jones and Bartlett
Publishers, Boston, London.
[36 ] Hawking, S. (1988). A Brief History of Time. Bantam Books,
New York City.[www.fisica.net/.../stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf]
[37] Hawking, S. (2009).[http://www.hawking.org.uk/life-in-the-universe.html]
[38] Hull, D. E. (1960).Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Spontaneous Generation, Nature,
186:693-695
[39] Katchalski, E. (1951). Poly-cx-amino acids, Adv. Protein Chem., 6: 126—85.
[40] Laetsch, W. M. (1979). Plants: Basic Concepts in Botany. Little Brown and
Co., Boston, Toronto.
[41] Lane, N., Allen, J. F. Martin, W. (2010).[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.]
[42] Luskin, C. (2015). Problems with the Natural Chemical Origin of Life.[www.
ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/838].
[43] Mader, S., 1997. Inquiry into Life. Wm. C. Brown Publishers, England.
[
44] Meyer, S.C. (1996). The Origin of Life
Materialism.[www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_origins.htm].
and
the
Death
of
[45] Miller, S. L., Schopf, J. W. and Lazcano, A. (1997).Oparin’s “Origin of Life”': Sixty
Years Later. J. mol. Boil.,44:351-353.[ www.iub.edu/.../articles/.../review%20Mi]
[46] Miller, S. (1955). Production of Some Organic Compounds under Possible Primitive Earth
Conditions. J. Am. Chem. Soc., 77 (9) : 2351–2361,
[47] Miller, S. L. (1953). A production of amino acids under possible earth conditions.
Science,117:528-529 [miller_1953.pdf]
[48]
Miller, S.L.
prebiotic-ch]
(1953a).[https://ralopat.wordpress.com/.../stanley-miller-the-father-of-
[49] Morris, H. M. 1967. The Twilight of Evolution. Baker Book House, Grand
Rapids.
[50] Müller, H. J. (1961). Genetic nucleic acid: key material in the origin of life. Persp. Biol.
and Medi., 5:1–23.
[ 51] Ohmoto, H., Watanabe,Y., Poulson, S.R. and Taylor, B.E. (2006). Sulphur isotope
evidence
for
an
oxic
Archaean
atmosphere,
Nature,
442:
908911.[lib.gig.ac.cn/local/nature/442,908-911.pdf]
[52] Oparin, A. I.(1924).
[www.valencia.edu/~orilife/textos/The%20Origin%20of%20Life.pdf].
[53] Oparin’s, A.I. (1938). The Origin of life. MacMillan, New York[Oparin_Nature.pdf].
[54] Peet, J. H. J. (2015).The Miller-Urey experiment-Truth in Science
[www.truthinscience.org.uk/.../51-the-miller-urey-ex..]
[55] Pretorius. M. (2013).[www.ve.org.za › Home ›Vol34,No1(2013)].
March, 2016
18
[56] Pitzer, K. S. & Brewer. L. (1961). Thermodynamics, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill
Publishing Co., New York.
[57] Rana, F. (2008). The cell’s design: How chemistry reveals the Creator’s artistry, Baker
Books, Grand Rapids.
[58] Ross, H. (2009). More than a theory, Baker Books, Grand Rapids.
[59] Rouillard, M. (2013). A. I. Oparin’s, Fraud, Fallacy,
or both?[www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2013/Spring.../Oparin.pdf]
[60]
Rouf,
M.
A.
Bacteria1545.pdf].
(1964).[http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/ElementalAnalysis-
[61] Starkey, W. (2011). Evolution exposed and intelligent designed explained, Xlibris
Corporation, Bloomington.
[62] Schaefer, H. F. (2004). Science and Christianity: conflict or coherence? The Apollos Trust
Publishers, Watkinsvill.
[63] Sarfati, J. 2000.[https://creation.com/.../j14_3_09-12.pdf].
[64] Sinnott, E. D., Dunn, L. C. & Dobzhanskey, T. (1998). Principles of Genetics, 5th edn.
Tata-McGraw-Hill Publishing Co. Ltd., New Delhi.
[65] Strickberger,W.M. (1996). Genetics, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall of India Pvt.
Ltd., New Delhi.
[66] Tamarin, R. (2002). Principle of Genetics, 7th edn. McGraw-Hill Higher
Education, New York.
[67] Valiant, S. (2007). [www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/6412].
[68] Vuletic, M.I. (2003). Frequently encountered criticisms in evolution vs.
Creationism[www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/ ].
[69] Walker, J. C. G. (1977). Evolution of the atmosphere. Macmillan, New York.
[70] Watson, J.D. (1977). Molecular Biology of the Gene. W.A. Benjamin, Inc., Melono Park,
Califonia.
[71] Wikipedia.(2015). [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MonroeShindelar/Primordial_Soup].
[72]
Young,
A.
(2006).
An
interesting
[www.strellis.com/SAS/articles/panspermia/panspermia.html].
theory?

Mar.2016.1-19

Transcription

Similar documents

Above An array of junk-shop loot— mirrors, taxidermied

EnJuvenate Pina Colada

View InSportRecovery Magazine Advertisement

How to Tie a Woggle

KASALA FURNITURE

lnstallation - ConservationMart.com

Turkey - EOPOWER

Key - Scioly.org

Pau V W wl t 5 5 lQvS CGa w