Theory of Evolution

Most of the contemporary scientific understanding confuses the origin of life with adaptation - the evolution of existing life forms is distinct from the genesis of life or species, and while Charles Darwin's theory addresses how higher forms of life evolve from lower forms - it did not explain the initial appearance of life.

This fundamental question remains unanswered.

Darwin's view on the origin of life is noted through his letter in 1871, where he speculated about a protein compound forming in a "warm little pond". However, this was merely an assumption, and Darwin did not delve into the chemical processes that could lead to such a formation.

The distinction between chemical evolutionary theory (explaining the origin of the first life from non-living chemicals) and biological evolutionary theory (explaining the origin of new life forms from simpler, pre-existing ones) is highlighted. Darwin's work falls under biological evolution, presupposing the existence of "one or very few simple forms" of life.

The question of the origin of life is not considered trivially easy or solved.

It is argued to be an important aspect of the naturalistic story of life's beginnings. The persistence of the primordial soup model in textbooks, which suggests life arose from molecules coming together in a stinking pond, is plainly nonsense - a model likened to ancient Babylonian myths.

The Miller-Urey experiments of the 1950s, which attempted to simulate primordial earth conditions by subjecting a mixture of gases and water to electricity, resulting in the formation of some amino acids, which is an experiment that garners much significance in explaining the origin of life...

...However, key criticisms include:

• The production of unnatural amino acids alongside natural ones.
• The generation of both right-handed and left-handed molecules (achiral), whereas life requires predominantly one handedness.
• The failure to demonstrate how these amino acids would polymerise (hook together) to form proteins.
• The formation of "sludge" called melanoidin, which moves in a life-unfriendly direction.
• The necessity for intelligent intervention by chemists to isolate desired products from unwanted byproducts, which is not representative of an undirected natural process.

It is asserted that origin of life research has made no progress in the two-thirds of a century since the Miller-Urey experiment. Despite significant advancements in other scientific and technological fields, nothing even resembling a synthetic cellular structure has arisen from its independent components.

Current proposals are actually more successful in showing how life probably did not form. While one participant suggests defining the difficulty of the problem as a form of progress, the prevailing sentiment is that the complexity of life, as our understanding grows, makes the origin of life seem increasingly elusive.

The discovery of DNA's structure by Watson and Crick in 1953 is identified as a pivotal moment, revealing the immense complexity of the genetic code. DNA is likened to a computer program, digital code, and machine code. This introduces the problem of explaining the origin of such specified complexity. It is argued that creating a three-billion-item-long strand of DNA through random processes is improbable/impossible.

The concept of information in DNA is explored, distinguishing between Shannon information (related to the reduction of uncertainty) and specified information (arrangement of characters specific to perform a communication function). DNA is argued to possess specified information, conveying instructions for building proteins and protein machines. The origin of such functionally specified information is a key challenge.

Experience shows large amounts of specified information, like codes and languages, invariably originate from an intelligent source. Intelligent activity is proposed as the only known cause of the origin of functionally specified information. Therefore, the presence of DNA in even the simplest cell suggests intelligent design.

However, DNA alone is insufficient for life; it requires a supporting cast of enzymes and other molecules like RNA and proteins. Furthermore, the entire cell is argued to be imbued with informational code, not just DNA; saccharides and proteins also carry information crucial for cellular function and recognition. The fidelity of information transfer during molecular reproduction is also a significant hurdle.

The idea of intelligent design is presented as a potential explanation for the origin of biological information. This is based on the principle that in historical science, explanations should invoke causes known to produce the effects in question. Since intelligence is the only known cause of specified information, its role in the origin of life should be considered. This line of reasoning stops short of identifying the nature of this intelligence with any specific religious doctrine.

The scientific community's hostility towards intelligent design is noted from various scientific societies affirming evolution as the only scientifically accepted explanation for the origin and diversity of species, even though evolution does not address the origin of the first life.

A historical perspective suggests that design arguments were once part of scientific inquiry in the 17th century with figures like Galileo, Kepler, and Newton. However, a shift occurred in the late 19th century towards exclusively materialistic explanations for both the operation and the origin of natural phenomena.

The argument for intelligent design suggests that limiting inquiry to only materialistic explanations may preclude the best explanation if the evidence points to a different type of cause, such as intelligence.

The analogy of Thomas Aquinas's teleological argument – the arrow implies an archer – must be drawn, and discoveries in modern science are reviving the argument from design. The complexity and specified information found in biological systems actually point towards a designing mind.

The transition from inert matter to a living cell remains unexplained - by science.

The sheer complexity and interconnectedness of even the simplest cell highlight the vast gap in our understanding of how life could have arisen from non-living components. The ubiquitous nature of life on Earth, contrasting with the barrenness of other observed planets, is also remarkable.