The problem of so many failed experiments in abiogenesis is only the “tip of the iceberg.” The most serious concern facing the field is not so many failures, even though this is significant. Rather, they all seem to have a common root–randomization. Normally, in science discovery of a common root underlying a wide range of supposedly unrelated issues is considered a major advance in science. I suggest that Article 3 does just this. However, since its conclusion is forbidden to be discussed by materialists, its significance has tended to be ignored.
Natural, non-biological chemicals appearing on a planet or moon are generally characterized by high concentrations of a very few different compounds. The ammonia, methane, hydrogen, and water of the Miller-Urey experiment illustrate this. This would represent only four of the greater than four million possibilities cataloged in the Beilstein database. The appearance of life would require most of the original compounds to be converted into high concentrations in precise ratios of less than forty of the over 4 million possibilities: various proteins, RNA nucleotides, DNA nucleotides, and fatty acids. Virtually all of the remaining possibilities act as potential contaminants. If they appear in high enough concentration, they will overwhelm and thwart any useful reactions that might otherwise have been useful towards life. Unfortunately, after only a week Miller produced four times as many contaminants as usable chemicals. This was more than enough to thwart any possibility of the useful amino acids and nucleotides forming the proteins and nucleic acids required for life. Miller demonstrated how quickly randomization can close and lock the door on abiogenesis. Natural process thwart the appearance of a natural origin of life before it can get started.
It is a mantra in abiogenesis that given enough time, it is inevitable that life should appear. This is powerful rhetoric, but it is false. As time passes, the products become more and more randomized, more and more remote from those required for life. It is difficult to get a high concentration of a limited number of compounds to change randomly into a high concentration of a limited number of new compounds when there are multiple millions of new possibilities. It is virtually impossible for a broad distribution of chemicals to suddenly converge on an extremely limited number of possibilities through natural processes. This is the task facing abiogenesis after long times have lapsed. The statistical law of large numbers virtually guarantees that natural processes will not provide the chemicals of life when and where needed in their proper composition. Any incidental provision of them will only be temporary. They will degrade more rapidly than they could be used.
Increasing randomization of products is confirmed by analysis of both Miller’s experiment and the Murchison meteorite. If randomization of feedstock is truly characteristic of prebiotic processes, then there is no scientific basis for a natural origin of life. Observed science teaches against its possibility.
There is yet another significant observation concerning randomization. This is the same root behavior that prevents successful operation perpetual motion machines and free-energy machines. Entropy is merely a certain mathematical perspective of randomness. The equations describing entropy can be derived from a mathematical analysis of randomness. Thus, at the molecular level it appears that the same underlying principle that prevents successful operation of a “free-energy machine” also prevents natural processes from forming life. Abiogenesis is no more likely to successfully fabricate a living cell than you are to operate a free-energy machine and no longer have any electric bills or gasoline bills.
If the above discussion is not valid from a scientific perspective, this is your opportunity to explain to the world why it is not.