Invalid Oparin-haldane’s Theory (the Soup Theory) And All Other Theories About The Origin Of Life And Useless Miller’s Experiments... 5yw3h

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: [email protected] 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 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 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 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).

Ahad & Ferdous, 2016

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

Invalid Oparin-Haldane’s theory (the soup theory) and all other theories…

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)

Ahad & Ferdous, 2016

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)

March, 2016

Fig.9. Summary of main biological molecules of a cell (From Starr and Taggert, 1989)

6

Invalid Oparin-Haldane’s theory (the soup theory) and all other theories…

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 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)

Ahad & Ferdous, 2016

Fig.17. Structure of NADH (from Purves and

In ing, 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 ers 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 of Darwin’s followers to his very week assumption. 7. Useless Miller’s experiments to 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 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

Invalid Oparin-Haldane’s theory (the soup theory) and all other theories…

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)

Ahad & Ferdous, 2016

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

Invalid Oparin-Haldane’s theory (the soup theory) and all other theories…

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

Ahad & Ferdous, 2016

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 ed 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 ed 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

Invalid Oparin-Haldane’s theory (the soup theory) and all other theories…

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 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 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 ed 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:

Ahad & Ferdous, 2016

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 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 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 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

Invalid Oparin-Haldane’s theory (the soup theory) and all other theories…

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[idoc-pub.sitiosdesbloqueados.org/.../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].

Ahad & Ferdous, 2016

[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[idoc-pub.sitiosdesbloqueados.org/.../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

Invalid Oparin-Haldane’s theory (the soup theory) and all other theories…

[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/SCBC.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]

Ahad & Ferdous, 2016

[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

Invalid Oparin-Haldane’s theory (the soup theory) and all other theories…

[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/:MonroeShindelar/Primordial_Soup]. [72]

View publication stats

Young, A. (2006). An interesting [www.strellis.com/SAS/articles/panspermia/panspermia.html].

theory?