What do you think?
Rate this book
The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories
PARTIAL LIST OF panspermia; biogenesis; adsorption; aldehydes; racemic mixture; aminoacyl; S. Arrhenius; K. Bahadur; biomonomers; biuret reaction; G. R. Carruthers; proteinoids; chemical soup; clay minerals promoting polymerization; concerto effect; Francis Crick; cyanate; cyanoacetylene; pyrimidine synthesis; cyanamide; cyanogen; dicyauamide; dipeptide; prebiotic; enthalpy; falsifiability; Fermi-Dirac; FisherTropsch synthesis; formate; heterocyclic bases; adenine synthesis; cytosine synthesis; synthesis by electon beam; thymine synthesis; ionic strength; LeChatelier's Principle; lipid vesicles; Maxwell demon; methylene cross-linkages; Micelles; microspheres; Harold Morowitz; etc., etc.
228 pages, Paperback
First published January 19, 1984
4 people are currently reading
165 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
February 21, 2008
I just re-read this book for a talk that I am giving on chemical origins. Mystery of Life's Origins is one of those quintessential books that anyone who studies intelligent design must read. I first read it during my internship at Probe before graduate school. Essentially, this books discusses all of the problems with the theory of chemical origins. Although it was published in the 1980's these are the same issues that keep coming up in current prebiotic or chemical evolution literature.
I gave this book a good rating, but with one caveat: It is a little heavy on the chemistry. There are reaction mechanisms and three chapters on thermodynamics. While I find such subjects interesting, I would direct the non-scientist to read the section on chemical origins in Design of Life.
I gave this book a good rating, but with one caveat: It is a little heavy on the chemistry. There are reaction mechanisms and three chapters on thermodynamics. While I find such subjects interesting, I would direct the non-scientist to read the section on chemical origins in Design of Life.
October 24, 2024
AN INFLUENTIAL CHRISTIAN CRITIQUE OF "ORIGIN-OF-LIFE" RESEARCH
The authors wrote in the Preface to this 1984 book, "[This] is a book that had to be written. There is a critical necessity in any developing scientific discipline to subject its ideas to test and to rigorously analyze its experimental procedures. It is an ill-fated science that doesn't do so. Yet, surprisingly, prebiotic or chemical evolution has never before been thoroughly evaluated. This book not only provides a comprehensive critique using established principles of physics and chemistry, it introduces some new analytical tools..."
They observe about the so-called "prebiotic soup": "It has been estimated that perhaps no more than 3% of the amino acids produced in the upper atmosphere could have survived passage to the ocean. Ultraviolet light would also destroy many organic compounds in the ocean since it would penetrate some tens of meters beneath the ocean surface. Ocean currents periodically would surface even the deep water, thus exposing its organic content, too, to destructive ultraviolet light. Pringle first raised this objection against the effectiveness of primordial synthesis of organic compounds in 1954. It has been remarked on many times and continues to be a major objection." (Pg. 45)
They note, "With fewer electrical storms, lightning would be a far less abundant energy source than is generally believed, and it is generally believed anyway to have been a minor energy source. Sparks have been used as an energy source in laboratory experiments as a matter of convenience." (Pg. 47)
They argue, "the `strongest evidence' for an atmosphere without oxygen is that we know chemical evolution took place. While this may be an appropriate consideration for framing a hypothesis, it does not properly constitute evidence for the hypothesis. We will discount this `strongest' evidence for an anoxic (no free oxygen) atmosphere since it is based on a circular argument. Such logic is hardly scientific, and simply assumes as true the hypothesis to be established." (Pg. 77)
They criticize S. Arrhenius's idea of Panspermia: "Although Panspermia was an ingenious idea, it failed to account for three significant factors: 1. Panspermia did not really answer the question of origins; it merely pushed the problem to some other planet or place in the cosmos. 2. Panspermia offered no way to protect life from the lethal effects of intense radiation in space. 3. Panspermia offered no mechanism for safe entry through the earth's atmosphere... These problems were seen as severe and most people dismissed Panspermia as nonviable." (Pg. 191-192)
They discuss Francis Crick's support [in Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature] of Directed Panspermia: "As Crick has mentioned, if it were really true that the primitive atmosphere contained a significant amount of oxygen, it would be difficult to imagine chemical evolution. In such a case, reasons Crick, `it would support the idea of Directed Panspermia.' A fact that has enamored Crick is that in the fossil record, the earliest organisms appear suddenly without any evidence of a prebiotic soup or simple precursors. For Crick this too is good evidence for Directed Panspermia. There is no compelling evidence that Crick and other can cite for this view, however. In fact the evidence cited above for Directed Panspermia would also apply to Panspermia." (Pg. 194-195)
The authors conclude, "Another question which can be answered, however, is whether such a view as Special Creation is plausible... How then does one determine whether an origin science scenario is plausible? The principles of causality and uniformity are used... does creation employ cause-effect and the principle of uniformity? Yes. In fact, it appeals to them as the only way we can plausibly reconstruct the past... May not the principle of uniformity then be used in a broader frame of consideration to suggest that DNA had an intelligent cause at the beginning?... We know that in numerous cases certain effects always have intelligent causes...
"Why then doesn't the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source?... We believe that if this question is considered, it will be seen that most often it is answered in the negative simply because it is thought to be inappropriate to being a Creator into science. The above discussion is not meant as a scientific proof of a Creator, but is merely a line of reasoning to show that Special Creation by a Creator beyond the cosmos is a plausible view of origin science." (Pg. 210-212)
Origin-of-life research has certainly progressed far beyond where it was in 1984, when this book was first published, of course. But many of their points remain valid, and this book will be of ongoing interest to Christian critics of such researches. [Fazale Rana's 'Creating Life in the Lab' is a much more up-to-date Christian critique.]
The authors wrote in the Preface to this 1984 book, "[This] is a book that had to be written. There is a critical necessity in any developing scientific discipline to subject its ideas to test and to rigorously analyze its experimental procedures. It is an ill-fated science that doesn't do so. Yet, surprisingly, prebiotic or chemical evolution has never before been thoroughly evaluated. This book not only provides a comprehensive critique using established principles of physics and chemistry, it introduces some new analytical tools..."
They observe about the so-called "prebiotic soup": "It has been estimated that perhaps no more than 3% of the amino acids produced in the upper atmosphere could have survived passage to the ocean. Ultraviolet light would also destroy many organic compounds in the ocean since it would penetrate some tens of meters beneath the ocean surface. Ocean currents periodically would surface even the deep water, thus exposing its organic content, too, to destructive ultraviolet light. Pringle first raised this objection against the effectiveness of primordial synthesis of organic compounds in 1954. It has been remarked on many times and continues to be a major objection." (Pg. 45)
They note, "With fewer electrical storms, lightning would be a far less abundant energy source than is generally believed, and it is generally believed anyway to have been a minor energy source. Sparks have been used as an energy source in laboratory experiments as a matter of convenience." (Pg. 47)
They argue, "the `strongest evidence' for an atmosphere without oxygen is that we know chemical evolution took place. While this may be an appropriate consideration for framing a hypothesis, it does not properly constitute evidence for the hypothesis. We will discount this `strongest' evidence for an anoxic (no free oxygen) atmosphere since it is based on a circular argument. Such logic is hardly scientific, and simply assumes as true the hypothesis to be established." (Pg. 77)
They criticize S. Arrhenius's idea of Panspermia: "Although Panspermia was an ingenious idea, it failed to account for three significant factors: 1. Panspermia did not really answer the question of origins; it merely pushed the problem to some other planet or place in the cosmos. 2. Panspermia offered no way to protect life from the lethal effects of intense radiation in space. 3. Panspermia offered no mechanism for safe entry through the earth's atmosphere... These problems were seen as severe and most people dismissed Panspermia as nonviable." (Pg. 191-192)
They discuss Francis Crick's support [in Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature] of Directed Panspermia: "As Crick has mentioned, if it were really true that the primitive atmosphere contained a significant amount of oxygen, it would be difficult to imagine chemical evolution. In such a case, reasons Crick, `it would support the idea of Directed Panspermia.' A fact that has enamored Crick is that in the fossil record, the earliest organisms appear suddenly without any evidence of a prebiotic soup or simple precursors. For Crick this too is good evidence for Directed Panspermia. There is no compelling evidence that Crick and other can cite for this view, however. In fact the evidence cited above for Directed Panspermia would also apply to Panspermia." (Pg. 194-195)
The authors conclude, "Another question which can be answered, however, is whether such a view as Special Creation is plausible... How then does one determine whether an origin science scenario is plausible? The principles of causality and uniformity are used... does creation employ cause-effect and the principle of uniformity? Yes. In fact, it appeals to them as the only way we can plausibly reconstruct the past... May not the principle of uniformity then be used in a broader frame of consideration to suggest that DNA had an intelligent cause at the beginning?... We know that in numerous cases certain effects always have intelligent causes...
"Why then doesn't the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source?... We believe that if this question is considered, it will be seen that most often it is answered in the negative simply because it is thought to be inappropriate to being a Creator into science. The above discussion is not meant as a scientific proof of a Creator, but is merely a line of reasoning to show that Special Creation by a Creator beyond the cosmos is a plausible view of origin science." (Pg. 210-212)
Origin-of-life research has certainly progressed far beyond where it was in 1984, when this book was first published, of course. But many of their points remain valid, and this book will be of ongoing interest to Christian critics of such researches. [Fazale Rana's 'Creating Life in the Lab' is a much more up-to-date Christian critique.]
January 24, 2024
This is a great science book especially considering it was written 40 years ago! To my knowledge there's been nothing questioned by this book which has been successfully addressed by recent theories of abiogenesis! In fact there are only Far More Questions as nanotechnologist Dr. James Tour has told us in his video series and many other authors have written about. I look forward to an author who will update/reprise this book and collect all the open questions concerning the mysteries of life's origin for which we are clueless.
May 25, 2009
Originea vietii din supa prebiotica este pusa la indoiala de:
- reactii mixte interferente
- imposibilitatea dovedirii faptului ca protocelulele ipotetice au o legatura cu adevarata origine istorica a celulelor
- preferinta in materia vie a izomerilor optici levogiri in aminoacizi si zaharuri D in acizii nucelici
- originea informatiei genetice semificative dpdv biologic in biopolimeri
- neplauzibilitatea autoorganizarii spontane a materiei si a neregiei in ansambluri vii
- dificultatea de a identifica adevaratele conditii geochimice de pe pamantul prebiotic
- cu toata disponibilitatea energiei UV din radiatia solara, majoritatea constituentilor atmosferei primare absorb lumina solara cu lungimi de unda mai mici de 2000 de angstromi, dar numai o mica parte a energiei are asemenea lungime, 0,015%
- in oceane va domina rata de diluare, astfel in cat concentratiile ingredientelor din supa prebiotica este nesemnificativa dpdv al evolutiei chimice
- energia individual nu este suficienta pentru a creste starea de complexitate a unui sistem, este nevoie de un mecanism care pana in momentul de fata lipseste
- constituentii atmosferei primare ar fi fost distrusi de radiatia solara - metanul, monoxidul de carbon, azotul, hidrogenul sulfurat.
- sursa de energie nu trebuie sa existe din abundenta ci sa fie eficienta
- procese distructive si substante esentiale ar fi fost indepartate in conditiile postulate de teoria supei prebiotice
- NU EXISTA DOVEZI GEOLOGICE PENTRU ASA NUMITA SUPA PREBIOTICA, acestea trebuind sa fie abundente data fiind existenta supei pe toata fata oceanului planetar
- datele arata ca daca atmosfera primitiva ar fi fost puternic reducatoare ea ar fi avut o viata deosebit de scurta
- mai degraba atmosfera primitiva a fost una oxidanta, ceea ce face ca aparitia vietii din non-viata sa fie imposibilia! mai mult, daca oxigenul nu ar fi fost prezent dupa aparitia vietii, aceasta viata nu s-ar fi putut dezvolta. oxigenul molecular liber trebuia sa fie foarte putin pt ca evolutia chimica sa aiba loc.
- exista dovezi ale interferentei exogene exterioare
- aranjamentul energiei in univers nu este aleator.
- molecule importante pentru sistemele vii au o energie mai mare decat precursorii lor, astfel incat termodinamica postuleaza ca acestea nu se vor forma in mod spontan
- existenta energiei nu garanteaza formarea si mentinerea sistemelor vii
- semnificatia ADN-ului este exterioara succesiunii de litere
- nu exista niciun model rezonabil pentru explicarea formarii membranelor celulare
- macromoleculele aperiodice contin multa informatie, pe cand cristalele au doar o structura ordonata repetitiva saraca in informatie
- rolul intamplarii in originea vietii este supralicitat si nefondat
- chiar daca un sistem viu s-ar forma prin aport de masa si energie, nemijlocit, nu este o explicatie suficienta pentru explicarea complexitatii vietii.
- cum a fost directionata energia pentru a se forma informatie noua?
- cocervatele nu sunt unitati care se autoorganizeaza si nu contin regularitati structurale sau procese metabolice caracteristice viului, ele fiind in conditii manipulate
- evolutia chimica nu e o ipoteza falsificabila
- conditiile statistice si termodinamice nu pot fi la ora actuala reconciliate cu formarea vietii din nonviata
- presupunerile si deductiile sunt luate uneori drept observatii stiintifice directe
- reactii mixte interferente
- imposibilitatea dovedirii faptului ca protocelulele ipotetice au o legatura cu adevarata origine istorica a celulelor
- preferinta in materia vie a izomerilor optici levogiri in aminoacizi si zaharuri D in acizii nucelici
- originea informatiei genetice semificative dpdv biologic in biopolimeri
- neplauzibilitatea autoorganizarii spontane a materiei si a neregiei in ansambluri vii
- dificultatea de a identifica adevaratele conditii geochimice de pe pamantul prebiotic
- cu toata disponibilitatea energiei UV din radiatia solara, majoritatea constituentilor atmosferei primare absorb lumina solara cu lungimi de unda mai mici de 2000 de angstromi, dar numai o mica parte a energiei are asemenea lungime, 0,015%
- in oceane va domina rata de diluare, astfel in cat concentratiile ingredientelor din supa prebiotica este nesemnificativa dpdv al evolutiei chimice
- energia individual nu este suficienta pentru a creste starea de complexitate a unui sistem, este nevoie de un mecanism care pana in momentul de fata lipseste
- constituentii atmosferei primare ar fi fost distrusi de radiatia solara - metanul, monoxidul de carbon, azotul, hidrogenul sulfurat.
- sursa de energie nu trebuie sa existe din abundenta ci sa fie eficienta
- procese distructive si substante esentiale ar fi fost indepartate in conditiile postulate de teoria supei prebiotice
- NU EXISTA DOVEZI GEOLOGICE PENTRU ASA NUMITA SUPA PREBIOTICA, acestea trebuind sa fie abundente data fiind existenta supei pe toata fata oceanului planetar
- datele arata ca daca atmosfera primitiva ar fi fost puternic reducatoare ea ar fi avut o viata deosebit de scurta
- mai degraba atmosfera primitiva a fost una oxidanta, ceea ce face ca aparitia vietii din non-viata sa fie imposibilia! mai mult, daca oxigenul nu ar fi fost prezent dupa aparitia vietii, aceasta viata nu s-ar fi putut dezvolta. oxigenul molecular liber trebuia sa fie foarte putin pt ca evolutia chimica sa aiba loc.
- exista dovezi ale interferentei exogene exterioare
- aranjamentul energiei in univers nu este aleator.
- molecule importante pentru sistemele vii au o energie mai mare decat precursorii lor, astfel incat termodinamica postuleaza ca acestea nu se vor forma in mod spontan
- existenta energiei nu garanteaza formarea si mentinerea sistemelor vii
- semnificatia ADN-ului este exterioara succesiunii de litere
- nu exista niciun model rezonabil pentru explicarea formarii membranelor celulare
- macromoleculele aperiodice contin multa informatie, pe cand cristalele au doar o structura ordonata repetitiva saraca in informatie
- rolul intamplarii in originea vietii este supralicitat si nefondat
- chiar daca un sistem viu s-ar forma prin aport de masa si energie, nemijlocit, nu este o explicatie suficienta pentru explicarea complexitatii vietii.
- cum a fost directionata energia pentru a se forma informatie noua?
- cocervatele nu sunt unitati care se autoorganizeaza si nu contin regularitati structurale sau procese metabolice caracteristice viului, ele fiind in conditii manipulate
- evolutia chimica nu e o ipoteza falsificabila
- conditiile statistice si termodinamice nu pot fi la ora actuala reconciliate cu formarea vietii din nonviata
- presupunerile si deductiile sunt luate uneori drept observatii stiintifice directe
September 1, 2011
The authors are distinguished scientists holding advanced degrees in chemistry, materials science, and geochemistry. This book clearly reflects that, and if you've not studied any of these sciences, a primer is in order. They thoroughly rebut Miller's infamous experiment which supposedly proved life can come from nonliving matter. This book explores the hypothesis of chemical evolution and what conditions would be required, as well as what conditions probably were like on the Earth prior to sentient life developing. Darwin's point about wanting a "warm little pond" in which evolution would take place is delved into in the chapter "The Myth of the Prebiotic Soup." Whether you believe in evolution, creation, or creationism, this book is a must-read for anyone with an interest in science.
Read
February 10, 2013I want to read this book.
August 9, 2016
A good scientific introduction into the problem of the origin of life.
October 2, 2016
An exhaustive assessment that answers and poses crucial answers and investigations into the nature of life. A classic and a must read.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews