LIFES TRUE BEGINNINGS

Lloyd Pye (www.lloydpye.com)

Framing The Picture

How did life begin on Earth? More intellectual and literal blood has been shed and spilled attempting to answer this question than any other in any aspect of science or religion. Why? Because the answer, if it could be determined beyond doubt, would reveal to us the deepest meanings behind ourselves and all that we see around us. More importantly, it would demolish once and for all the thorny tangle of conscious and unconscious thought and belief that causes most of the bloodshed.

At present there are only two socially acceptable explanations for how life has come to be on Earth. Science insists it has developed by entirely natural means, using only the materials at hand on the early planet, with no help from any outside source, whether that source be divine or extraterrestrial. Religion insists with equal fervor that life was brought into existence whole and complete by a divine Creator called by different names by the world’s various sects. Between these two diametrically opposed viewpoints there is no overlap, no common ground where negotiation might be undertaken. Each considers its own position to be totally correct and the other totally wrong, a certainty bolstered by the fact that each can blow gaping holes in the logic/dogma of the other.

Science is quick to point to the overwhelming technical proofs that life
could not, and indeed did not, appear whole and complete
within the restricted time frame outlined in the Biblical account. Of
course, people of faith are immune to arguments based on fact or
logic. Faith requires that they accept the Biblical account no matter
how dissonant it might be with reality. Besides, they can show that
not a shred of tangible evidence exists to support the notion that any
species can transmute itself into another species given enough
time and enough positive genetic mutations, which is the bedrock of
Charles Darwin’s theory of incremental evolution, or
“gradualism.”

In the early 1800’s Darwin visited the Galapagos Islands and noticed
certain species had developed distinct adaptations for dealing
with various environmental niches found there. Finch beaks were modified
for eating fruit, insects, and seeds; tortoise shells were
notched and unnotched for high-bush browsing and low-bush browsing.
Every variation clearly remained part of the same root
stock–finches remained finches, tortoises remained tortoises–but those
obvious modifications in isolated body parts led Darwin to
the logical assumption that entire bodies could change in the same way
over vastly more time. Voila! Gradualism was conceived and,
after gestating nearly three decades, was birthed in 1859 with the
publication of the landmark On The Origin Of Species. Since then
Darwin and his work have been topics of intense, usually acrimonious
debate between science and religion.

The irony of a two-party political system whose members spend the
majority of their time shooting holes in each other’s
policies is that it becomes abundantly clear to everyone beyond the fray
that neither side knows what the hell it is talking about. Yet
those standing outside the science-religion fray do not grow belligerent
and say, “You’re both wrong. An idiot can see that.
Find another explanation.” No! In this emotionally charged atmosphere
nearly everyone seems compelled to choose one side or the
other, as if seeking a more objective middle ground would somehow cause
instant annihilation. Such is the psychological toll wrought
on all of us by the take-no-prisoners attitude of the two sides battling
for our hearts and minds regarding this issue.

Facts Will Be Facts

Because those of faith insist on being immune to arguments based on
facts, they remove themselves from serious discussions of how
life might have actually come to be on Earth. So if anyone reading this
has a world view based on divine revelation, stop here and
move on to something else. You will not like (to say the least!) what
you are about to read. Nor, for that matter, will those who
believe what science postulates is beyond any valid doubt. As it turns
out, and as was noted above, neither side in this two-party
system knows what the hell it is talking about.

To move ahead, we must assign a name to those who believe life
spontaneously sprang into existence from a mass of inorganic
chemicals floating about in the early Earth’s prebiotic seas.
Let’s call them “Darwinists,” a term often used for that
purpose. Darwinists have dealt themselves a difficult hand to play
because those prebiotic seas had to exist at a certain degree of
coolness for the inorganic chemicals floating in them to bind together
into complex molecules. Anyone who has taken high school
chemistry knows that one of the best ways to break chemical bonds is to
heat them.

Given that well-known reality, Darwinists quickly postulated that the
first spark of life would no doubt have ignited itself sometime
after the continental threshold was reached around 2.5 billion years
ago. At that point land would have existed as land and seas would
have existed as seas, though not in nearly the same shapes we know them
today. But the water in those seas would have been cool
enough to allow the chemical chain reactions required by “spontaneous
animation.” So among Darwinists there arose a broad
consensus that the spontaneous animation of life had to have occurred
(again, because they do not allow for the possibility of outside
intervention, divine or extraterrestrial), and it had to have occurred
no earlier than the continental threshold of 2.5 billion years ago.

These assumptions were believed and taught worldwide with a fervor that
leaves religious fundamentalists green with envy.
Furthermore, they were taught as facts because that is what science
inevitably does. It reaches a consensus about a set of
assumptions in a field it has not fully mastered, then those assumptions
are believed as dogma and taught as facts until the real facts
become known. Sometimes such consensus “facts” endure for a short time
(Isaac Newton’s assumption that the speed of light
was a relative measure lasted only 200 years), while others endure like
barnacles on the underside of our awareness (the universe
doggedly expands beyond every finite measure given for it).

In the same way Newton’s fluctuating speed of light was overturned by Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, the continental threshold origin of life was blown out of the water, so to speak, by discoveries in the 1970’s that indicated life’s origins were much older than anticipated. So old, in fact, it went back nearly to the point of coalition, 4.5 billion years ago, when the Sun had ignited and the protoplanets had taken the general shapes and positions they maintain today. Ultimately, 4.0 billion years became the new starting point for life on Earth, based on fossilized stromatolites discovered in Australia that dated to 3.6 billion years old.

For Darwinists that meant going from the frying pan into the fire, literally, because at 4.0 billion years ago the proto-Earth was nothing but a seething cauldron of lava, cooling lava, and steam, about as far from an incubator for incipient life as could be imagined. In short, right out of the gate, at the first crack of the bat, Charles Darwin was, as they say in the south, a blowed-up peckerwood.

Limbo Of The Lost

The fossilized stromatolites discovered in Australia had been produced
by the dead bodies of billions of prokaryotic bacteria, the very
first life forms known to exist on the planet. They are also by far the
simplest, with no nucleus to contain their DNA. Yet in relative
terms prokaryotes are not simple at all. They are dozens of times larger
than a typical virus, with hundreds of strands of DNA instead
of the five to ten of the simplest viruses. So it is clear that
prokaryotes are extremely sophisticated creatures relative to what one
would assume to be the very first self-animated life form, which can
plausibly be imagined as even smaller than the smallest virus.

READ  CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE ONLY REALITY

(By the way, viruses do not figure into this scenario because they are
not technically “alive” in the classic sense. To be fully alive means
having the ability to take nourishment from the immediate environment,
turn that nourishment into energy, expel waste, and reproduce
indefinitely. Viruses need a living host to flourish, though they can
and do reproduce themselves when ensconced in a suitable host. So
it seems safe to assume hosts precede viruses in every case.)

Needless to say, the discovery of fossilized prokaryotes at 3.6 billion
years ago left scientists reeling. However, because so many of
their pet theories had been overturned in the past, they knew how to
react without panic or stridency. They made a collective decision
to just whistle in the dark and move on as if nothing had changed. And
nothing did. No textbooks were rewritten to accommodate the
new discovery. Teachers continued to teach the spontaneous animation
theory as they had been doing for decades. The stromatolites
were consigned to the eerie limbo where all OOPARTS (out-of-place
artifacts) dwell, while scientists edgily anticipated the next
bombshell.

They didn’t have to wait long. In the late 1980’s a biologist
named Carl Woese discovered that not only did life appear on
Earth in the form of prokaryotes at around 4.0 billion years ago, there
was more than one kind! Woese found that what had always
been considered a single creature was in fact two distinct types he
named archaea and true bacteria. This unexpected, astounding
discovery made one thing clear beyond any shadow of doubt: Life could
not possibly have evolved on Earth. For it to appear as early
as it did in the fossil record, and to consist of two distinct and
relatively sophisticated types of bacteria, meant spontaneous animation
flatly did not occur.

This discovery has been met with the same resounding silence as the
stromatolite discovery. No textbooks have been rewritten to
accommodate it. No teachers have changed what they are teaching. If you
can find a high school biology teacher that religious
fundamentalists have not yet terrorized into silence, go to their
classroom and you will find them blithely teaching that spontaneous
animation is how life came to be on Earth. Mention the words
“stromatolite” or “prokaryote” and you will get frowns of confusion
from teacher and students alike. For all intents and purposes this is
unknown information, withheld from those who most need to
know about it because it does not fit the currently accepted paradigm
built around Charles Darwin’s besieged theory of
gradualism.

Outside Intervention

The ongoing, relentless assaults on gradualism by religious fundamentalists is the principle reason scientists can’t afford to

disseminate these truths through teaching. If fundamentalists would keep their opinions and theories inside churches, where they belong, scientists would be far more able (if not inclined) to acknowledge where reality does not coincide with their own theories. But

because fundamentalists stand so closely behind them, loudly banging on the doors of their own bailiwick, schools, scientists have no choice but to keep them at bay by any means possible, which includes propping up an explanation for life’s origins that has been bankrupt for more than two decades.

Another reason scientists resist disseminating the truth is that it
would so profoundly change the financial landscape for many of them.
Consider the millions and billions of tax dollars and foundation grants
that are spent each year trying to answer one question: Does life
exist beyond Earth? The reality of two types of prokaryotes appearing
suddenly, virtually overnight, at around 4.0 billion years ago
provides overwhelming testimony that the answer is “Yes!” Clearly life
could not have spontaneously animated from inorganic
chemicals in seas comprised of seething lava rather than relatively cool
water. So billions of dollars of funding would vanish if scientists
ever openly conceded that life must have come to Earth from somewhere
else because it obviously could not have originated here.

A third reason scientists avoid disseminating this knowledge is that
spontaneous animation is a fundamental tenet of their corollary
theory of human evolution. As with life in general, scientists insist
that humanity is a product of the same protracted series of gradual
genetic mutations that they feel produced every living thing on Earth.
And, again, all this has been done by natural processes within the
confines of the planet, with no outside intervention of any kind, divine
or extraterrestrial. So, if spontaneous animation goes out the
window, then the dreaded specter of outside intervention comes
slithering in to take its place, and that idea is so anathema to
scientists they would rather deal with the myriad embarrassments caused
by their blowed-up icon and his clearly bankrupt theory.

So What Is The Answer?

Life came to Earth from somewhere else–period. It came to Earth whole
and complete, in large volume, and in two forms that were
invulnerable to the most hostile environments imaginable. Given those
proven, undeniable realities, it is time to make the frightening
mental leap that few if any scientists or theologians have been willing
or able to make: Life was seeded here! There…it’s on
the table…life was seeded here…. The Earth hasn’t split open.
Lightening bolts have not rained down. Time marches on. It
seems safe to discuss the idea further.

If life was actually seeded here, how might that have happened? By
accident….or (hushed whisper) deliberately? Well, the idea of
accidental seeding has been explored in considerable detail by a
surprising number of non-mainstream thinkers and even by a few
credentialed scientists (British astronomer Fred Hoyle being perhaps the
most notable). The “accidental seeding” theory is called
panspermia, and the idea behind it is that bacterial life came to Earth
on comets or asteroids arriving from planets where it had
existed before they exploded and sent pieces hurtling through space to
collide some millennia later with our just-forming planet.

A variation of this theory is called directed panspermia, which replaces
comets and asteroids with capsules launched by alien
civilizations to traverse space for millennia and deliberately home in
on our just-forming planet. However, the idea of conscious
direction from any source beyond the confines of Earth is as abhorrent
to science as ever, so directed panspermia has received little
better than polite derision from the establishment. But for as blatantly
as undirected panspermia defies the scientific tenet that all of life
begins and ends within the confines of Earth, it is marginally
acceptable as an alternative possibility. There have even been serious,
ongoing attempts to try to determine if the raw materials for life might
be found in comets.

The point to note here is that no one wants to step up to the plate and
suggest the obvious, which is that some entity or entities from
somewhere beyond our solar system came here when it was barely formed
and for whatever reason decided to seed it with two kinds
of prokaryotes, the hardiest forms of bacteria we are aware of and, for
all we know, are creatures purposefully designed to be
capable of flourishing in absolutely any environment in the universe.
(Understand that prokaryotes exist today just as they did 4.0
billion years ago…unchanged, indestructible, microscopic terminators
with the unique ability to turn any hell into a heaven. But more
about that in a moment.)

READ  1999: Rethinking Relativity

If we take the suggested leap and accept the notion of directed-at-the-scene panspermia, we are then confronted with a plethora of follow-up questions. Were all of the planets seeded, or just Earth? Why Earth? Why when it was a seething cauldron? Why not a couple billion years later, when it was cooled off? Good questions all, and many more like them can be construed. But they all lead away from the fundamental issue of why anyone or (to be fair) anything would want to bring life here in the first place, whether to the proto-Earth or to any other protoplanet? And this brings us to the kicker, a question few of us are comfortable contemplating: Is Earth being deliberately terraformed?

Welcome To The Ant Farm

The concept of terraforming does indeed conjure up images from the
recent movie “Antz.” Nevertheless, for all we know that is
exactly what we humans–and all other life forms, for that matter–are,
players on a stage that seems immense to us, but (visualize the
camera pulling back at the end of “Antz”) in reality is just a tiny orb
swirling through the vastness of a seemingly infinite universe. An
unsettling and even unlikely scenario, but one that has to be addressed.
Well, so what? What if we are just bit players in a cosmic
movie that has been filming for 4.0 billion years? As long as we are
left alone to do our work and live our lives in relative peace,
where is the harm in it?

Is this fantastic notion really possible? Is it even remotely plausible?
Consider the facts as we know them to be, not what we are
misled into believing by those we trust to correctly inform us. The
simple truth is that life came to our planet when it (Earth) had no
business hosting anything but a galactic-level marshmallow roast. The
life forms that were brought, the two prokaryotes, just happen
to be the simplest and most durable creatures we are aware of. And, most
important of all, they have the unique ability to produce
oxygen as a result of their metabolic processes.

Why oxygen? Why is that important? Because without an oxygen-based
atmosphere life as we currently know it is impossible. Of
course, anaerobic organisms live perfectly well without it, but they
would not make good neighbors or dinner companions. No,
oxygen is essential for complex life as we know it, and quite possibly
is necessary for higher life forms everywhere. If that is the case,
if oxygen is the key ingredient for life throughout the universe, then
from a terraformer’s perspective bringing a load of
prokaryotes to this solar system 4.0 billion years ago begins to make a
lot of sense.

Let’s put ourselves in their shoes (or whatever they wear) for a
moment. They are a few million or even a few billion years into
their life cycle as a species. Space and time mean nothing to them.
Traversing the universe is like a drive across Texas to us…a bit
long but easily doable. So as they travel around they make it a point to
look for likely places to establish life, and 4.0 billion years ago
they spot a solar system (in this case ours) forming off their port
side. They pull a hard left and take it all in. At that point every
protoplanet is as much a seething cauldron as the proto-Earth, so they
sprinkle prokaryotes on all of them in the hope that one or
more will allow them to flourish.

What the terraformers know is that if the prokaryotes ultimately prevail, then over time trillions of them will produce enough oxygen to, first, turn all of the cooling planet’s free iron into iron-oxide (rust). Once that is done…after, say, a billion years (which, remember, means nothing to the terraformers)…oxygen produced by the prokaryotes will be free to start saturating the waters of the seas and the atmosphere above. When enough of that saturation occurs (say, another billion years), the terraformers can begin to introduce increasingly more complex life forms to the planet.

This might include, for example, eukaryotes, Earth’s second life
form, another single-celled bacteria which clearly appeared
(rather than evolved) just as suddenly as the prokaryotes at (surprise!)
around 2.0 billion years ago. Eukaryotes are distinctive
because they are the first life form with a nucleus, which is a hallmark
of all Earth life except prokaryotes. We humans are eukaryotic
creatures. But those second immigrants (which, like prokaryotes, exist
today just as they did when they arrived) were much larger
than their predecessors, more fragile, and more efficient at producing
oxygen.

After establishing the first portion of their program, the terraformers
wait patiently while the protoplanet cools enough for “real” life
forms to be introduced. When the time is right, starting at around half
a billion years ago, higher life forms are introduced by means of
what today is called the “Cambrian Explosion.” Thousands of highly
complex forms appear virtually overnight, males and females,
predators and prey, looking like nothing alive at present. This is what
actually happened.

The terraformers continue to monitor their project. They notice Earth
suffers periodic catastrophes that eliminate 50% to 90% of all
higher life forms. (Such mass extinction events have in fact occurred
five times, the last being the Cretaceous extinction of 65 million
years ago, which wiped out the dinosaurs). They wait a few thousand
years after each event while the planet regains its biotic
equilibrium, then they restock it with new plants and animals that can
make their way in the post-catastrophe environment. (This, too,
is actually borne out by the fossil record, which scientists try to
explain away with a specious addendum to Darwinism called
“punctuated equilibrium.”)

For as outrageous as the above scenario might seem at first glance, it does account for the real, true, literal evidence much better than either Darwinism or Creationism ever have…or ever will. This produces the bitterest irony of the entire debate. With pillars of concrete evidence supporting outside intervention as the modus for life’s origins on Earth, the concept is ignored to the point of suppression in both scientific or religious circles. This is, of course, understandable, because to discuss it openly might give it a credibility neither side can afford at present. Both have their hands quite full maintaining the battle against each other, so the last thing either side wants or needs is a third wheel trying to crash their party.

However, that third wheel has arrived and is rolling their way.

AUTHOR:

Lloyd Pye

Leave a Reply