September 7, 2013 | David F. Coppedge

Mars Panspermia a Sign of Desperation

A second article proposes life began on Mars, prompting some observers to point out the failures of naturalistic origin-of-life theories.

After Steven Benner proposed Mars for the origin of ribose last month (“You Are Not a Martian,” 8/28/13), Christopher Adcock (U of Nevada) pointed out another problem with Earth-based life: phosphate doesn’t dissolve readily in water here (see New Scientist and  Since Martian phosphates dissolve more readily, maybe life originated on Mars.  New Scientist was quick to point out a contradiction:

Both studies have brought renewed attention to the idea that life on Earth was seeded from space, a theory known as panspermia. However, they can’t both be right. One idea requires Mars to be covered in liquid water, while the other needs it to be as dry as a desert.

The two articles revealed a little-known difficulty with origin-of-life research: the “phosphate problem.”  Adcock had nothing but the possibility that phosphate, an essential ingredient in life as we know it, dissolves much more readily on Mars than on Earth because of its chemical form. quotes him,

“I don’t think our results have any direct bearing on the theory that terrestrial life may have begun first on Mars, other than that our results suggest phosphate for potential biologic reactions may have been more available on Mars — that the ‘phosphate problem’ may not have been as significant there,” Adcock said….

“We haven’t discovered life on Mars, nor have we presented evidence that it existed there,” Adcock cautioned. “However, we have shown that one potential roadblock for life to arise on Mars may not be such a roadblock after all.”

New Scientist pointed out the contradiction in Martian environments favored by Benner and Adcock, then caught Benner admitting that the phosphate problem and the ribose problem both rule out the origin of life on Earth, despite his warm feelings:

Benner is more sanguine about the situation. He says that Adcock’s team is looking at Martian chemistry for the same reason he is: to solve a chemical problem that geologists tell us could not have been solved on early Earth.

“Just like RNA requires ribose, it also requires phosphate. Just as geologists tell us that we cannot get conditions on early Earth where ribose could have accumulated, they tell us that we cannot get conditions on early Earth where phosphate is soluble. So our two papers go in the same direction,” he says.

National Geographic weighed in on this dilemma on Sept. 5.  Writer Mark Kaufman noted Benner’s contention that ribose (essential for the proposed “RNA world”) falls apart in water, and can only be found in dry environments with boron—yet boron was too scarce on Earth.  Then he notes the “phosphate problem” raised by Adcock.  He put two and two together to raise “the big cosmic question” – where did life come from?

The reemergence of the theory of panspermia is intertwined with progress (or lack of progress) in a long-term scientific quest to find out how life began on Earth, a question that synthetic biology experts such as Benner have been working on for decades. Despite some advances, the field has come up against chemical walls that are proving impossible to climb.

For instance, Benner said, the organic—meaning carbon-based—compounds understood to have come together to form life in a “prebiotic soup” do not behave in the lab in a way that would indicate they led to the formation of life on early Earth.

When these compounds are energized by heat or light, instead of producing early RNA they create tarhardly the stuff from which we would all evolve.

Origin-of-life research, stuck on the tar baby, is at a crossroads.  Kaufman was not quite ready to swallow Benner’s optimism:

Benner says that “it’s yet another piece of evidence which makes it more likely life came to Earth on a Martian meteorite.” But it’s more of a changing of probabilities than it is scientific proof.

A panspermia solution, after all, produces another panspermia problem,” he said. “If a Martian microbe did make it from Mars to Earth, maybe it would be as if it landed in Eden. But just as likely, it would quickly die.

He left off with that quote, leaving the reader pondering insurmountable problems, bereft of answers.

The gig is up.  Secular origin of life research (OOL) is dead.  To seriously consider displacing the problem of life’s origin (by natural processes) to another planet is tantamount to saying that it is impossible.  If they cannot get it to form here, where “Eden” existed (in terms of perfect conditions for its “emergence”), then displacing it to an exterior hell is not going to help.

Consider the number of problems revealed just in these articles (a subset of all the problems).  Ribose needs boron in a dry desert, but even if it formed, it needs water.  But the moment you put it in water, where the phosphate is for making RNA, it dissolves or turns into tar.  Even if you get a stable RNA (which is going to be extremely rare), it is not alive; dozens more high hurdles must be jumped in the right order by chance: getting one-handed molecules, getting them to be enzymatically active for useful purposes; getting them isolated into protocells surrounded by membranes (we could go on and on).  Then, the Martian life has to get incorporated into a meteorite.  Even if that happens, it has to survive in space for eons, and arrive at Earth.  After all these miraculous improbabilities occur, if it doesn’t land in “Eden” it will quickly die, Benner said.

Yet many articles about these origin of life theories make everything sound so simple.  The “RNA world” (now shown to be so improbable it is impossible), has been for decades the cornerstone of most secularists’ optimism that life originated without design.  It’s sickening to watch that empty-headed “Newsy” reporter in the video barfing out Benner & Adcock’s absurdity with uninformed confidence: “Life on Mars?  You better believe it.  NASA announced that it discovered elements that support ancient life on the red planet.”  Such gullible toadies.  Blah.

We seem to be catching the first hints, though, of a few reporters becoming exasperated with the storytelling of the OOL crowd, like Marc Kaufman and Lisa Grossman.  They have a long way to go, but when the day comes when they feel enough courage to start really peppering the Benners and Adcocks with hard questions like reporters do with politicians, it will get interesting.  “If we cannot believe what they’ve been telling us about life forming on Earth all these years, why should we believe you when you say it happened on Mars?”  “Hasn’t the origin of life been falsified by these discoveries?”  “Are you really asking the public to believe this incredibly improbable sequence of events?”  “Are you implying that your brain, telling us these arguments, is the product of a series of cosmic accidents?  Then how can we trust anything you say?”  That will be a new day for “scientists” accustomed to the lapdog media regurgitating everything they say uncritically.

We call on Steven Benner to renounce his naturalism. Steve, you’re a smart guy, but you know you have been telling fables out of desperation.  You know enough philosophy of science to know that science does not require naturalism; it requires following the evidence where it leads.  For decades now, the evidence has been trending against naturalism.  You yourself said that the problems are hard enough to almost make you want to become a creationist.  Well, why not?  Don’t codes and systems bear the hallmarks of intelligent design?   Leave the dork side of the farce and come over to the light.

If you leave the farce, you will make a lot of enemies.  You will suffer the persecution of the Expelled.  But you will make a lot of new and better friends, and you will enjoy the good feeling of a character trait sadly lacking in your old crowd: integrity.

(Visited 214 times, 1 visits today)


  • mmartin says:

    Is it not funny how people readily believe that life travelled from Mars to Earth on a meteorite, but they laugh at the idea that all the kinds of animals did survive on an intelligently designed Boat during a year long flood?
    The level of desperation is staggering indeed.

  • ashleyhr says:

    The former if it happened is good luck sometime in the first billion or so years of the solar system’s existence. The latter is myth.

    • Editor says:

      Ashley, so we see that you admit to believing in luck (to the point of impossible luck), yet call something that has both eyewitness testimony and ample geological evidence a myth. Read our article again. If you truly put your hope in the myths of these astrobiologists, then your hope is tantamount to religious faith in miracles. You qualified your faith with the phrase, “if it happened.” Emile Borel called the Single Law of Chance, “events whose probability is extremely small never occur.” The absolute upper probability bound is 1 chance in 10(exp)150–anything less than that will never occur in the entire universe over its whole history. The chance of getting one usable protein is smaller than that: one in 10(exp)161. I.e., one protein will never form by chance, let alone a cell.

      And why do you call it “good” luck? Evolutionary naturalism knows no categories of good and evil. It just says, “stuff happens.” Astrobiology believes “impossible stuff happens.” That’s not science. That’s mythology–believing something in spite of the evidence. So watch what you call myth.

  • ashleyhr says:

    Ample geological evidence for a worldwide hill-covering flood 4,300 years’ ago? I’ve looked at what biblical creationists cite as such evidence and I was not persuaded.

    “Astrobiology believes “impossible stuff happens.” That’s not science.” Well that depends. Things once thought impossible scientifically sometimes turn out later on to be possible.

    Do you disagree that it is ‘good’ that we humans exist?

    Incidentally, the RNA World hypothesis (whether on Earth or with a little bit of help from Mars) is not the only hypothesis that has been put forward by evolutionists to facilitate abiogenesis though it is perhaps one of the best known and/or most popular I think.
    Btw I appreciate that you allow sceptical comments. Many young Earth creationist bloggers do not.

    • Editor says:

      Ashley, this was not an article about a global flood, so we should not go off on a tangent here. Let’s stick to the topic at hand: astrobiology.
      I see you are still putting your faith in the impossible. I already explained that the chance origin of a single protein is beyond the probability bound of the universe. That means it will NEVER happen, anywhere in the universe, at any time. To believe in it despite the evidence is not science; it is blind faith in the impossible.
      I believe it is good that humans exist, sure; my point is that evolutionism has no criterion for good. It is baseless for you to call life “good luck.” I’m not sure you understood the point. Don’t steal the creationists’ word “good” without justification from your own world view assumptions.
      Benner has effectively declared the RNA world dead. The other attempts, as we report frequently in the “origin of life” category here, are even worse off. It doesn’t matter how many hypotheses the OOLers can concoct. A hypothesis is not science; it comes BEFORE science. Science must demonstrate that a hypothesis is most likely factually true, based on evidence. Anyone can invent hypotheses. What will they invent next? That life emerged by means of tornadoes or tsunamis? The problems with each OOL hypothesis are so daunting, Benner himself once joked that it almost made him want to become a creationist.
      In our uniform experience of the world, we know of only one cause capable of bringing into being integrated systems that function on coded instructions. That cause is intelligence.
      Skeptical comments are allowed if they do not engage in ad hominems, ridicule, bald assertions, or red herrings. They must address the content of the article.

  • ashleyhr says:

    The global flood ‘tangent’ was introduced by mmartin not me.
    I was addressing the content of your article and I did not ‘steal’ any words. Your suggestion that I ‘stole’ the word ‘good’ is absurd.

  • ashleyhr says:

    I haven’t a clue what you are asking me.

    • Editor says:

      Let me make it as simple as can be. We humans rank things as good and evil; torture of children is evil, compassion is good. Where did that ranking come from? Is it behavior that “emerged” out of an unguided evolutionary process? Or are things really good and really evil, whether or not human beings think they are?

  • ashleyhr says:

    I thought your post was about the origins of life, not evolution or good and evil. Should we not be avoiding tangents?

    I think both things are true – good and evil things/behaviours exist whether or not evolution is true.

    Good Night.

    • Editor says:

      Ashley, you brought up the subject of the origin of life being “good luck,” and then claimed my response that you stole the word “good” as “absurd.” You cannot, therefore, dodge the discussion by calling this a tangent. I’m not going to let your charge that my statement is “absurd” go unchallenged, otherwise you get away with a “hit and run” attack.

      OK, so now you claim that good and evil exist, whether or not evolution is true. You are, in effect, treating truth and goodness as realities not subject to evolution. This makes you a supernaturalist. Truth and goodness are not made of particles. They did not evolve, and cannot evolve, otherwise they could become their opposites in a million years. Truth and goodness point to absolutes outside of nature. I urge you to meditate on the implications of that admission.

      The reason this dialogue is pertinent to the origin-of-life question is because astrobiologists insist that all the complexities of life, including the human mind with its values, can be reduced to matter in motion. But if truth or goodness emerged from particles and are subject to evolution, how can they argue for evolution using reason and logic? They have no guarantee that what they consider good and true today will not evolve to become bad and false tomorrow. It’s a self-refuting position. Anything self-refuting is necessarily false and cannot be scientific. Secular astrobiology, therefore, is a foolish pseudoscience that must be false. Q.E.D.

Leave a Reply