ABOUT DE ORIGIN OF LIFE

From an article of Juan Antonio Aguilera Mochón - “Science and Religion" (2006) -  (Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Department of the Granada University).

…Of course, the conventional evolutionary theory does not solve the problem because it deals with the transformation of existing species.

But how did life emerge is a genuinely scientific problem, although with exceptional difficulties: science could show how likely the events might occur (the origin of life), and even try it in the lab, but never seemed able to certify that it occurred that way[1].... Since Alexander I. Oparin and John B.S. Haldane proposed the first scientific hypotheses about the origin of life in the 1920s, and since Stanley L. Miller demonstrated in the laboratory in 1953, that simulating the conditions of early Earth originated spontaneously compounds characteristic of living organisms (amino acids) considerable progresses have been made in understanding the problem and developing solutions. Today it is an exciting and active field of research in which important issues remain to be solved to understand on solid foundations, how the first cells could have assembled together; however, there are not scientific hypotheses missing [see Wächtershäuser Günter (1988) as hypothetical model, and an overview on Aguilera (1993)]. Therefore it cannot be sustained, if not because of ignorance or bad faith "that the origin of life is a problem that science would not be able to explain[2]… Few informed scientists doubt that the origin of life was a natural event, spontaneous, even there is a diversity of opinions regarding the likelihood of occurrence given the right conditions (which also affects the likelihood of extra-terrestrial life).[3]

What we know about the origin of life allows us to say once again that the God hypothesis is unnecessary. But I would add in the line of François Jacob, that if we accept God the creator and designer as a working hypothesis, we would conclude that it was (is), apparently, ignorant of molecular biology. The genetic code itself, which translates the genetic messages into the language of proteins, seems easily improvable. In fact we humans that have barely begun to make progress in molecular biology, are already planning to improve this code into existing species … or in developing species almost from “novo”.[4]…

---

[1] could demonstrate likely… but never certify, ¿is there evidence?

[2] cannot, but maybe

[3] this means that many "informed scientists" (we do not know what portion of the non-believers derived from surveys submitted in the first article of the series) have "no doubt", but they cannot demonstrate, perhaps someday they could. Within the provisional principle of science, we will have to wait ... and of course, have faith

[4]now we–humans- are "creators", of course based in the “knowledge” which has always existed, although recently discovered. So if the "knowledge" has always existed, the scientists are the ones that have came out of ignorance recently or are coming out in these days, thanks of course to their work and research concern.