The path towards the description of the origin of life is inherently insulated with nebulous philosophical and scientific propositions. For a climacteric issue that would define the tangent of human destiny, a concise definition of human origin seems to be lacking. If any, these explanations are immersed in insufficient theorems.
The incandescence by which the origin of life whips up emotional and intellectual “rage” craves for a conclusive explanation that shall help extinguish these flames of controversies. Nevertheless, the current proposals by scientific, philosophical, and religious precincts seem not to entirely grasp the veiled idea about the origin of life. These dispositions seem to end up drained in the sea of confusion at one point. Massimo’s expression in the article, where do we come from? Indicates his despair in the proposed explanations about the origin of life.
The creation theory succinctly approaches the origin life. Its premise is completely missing from the scientific scale and may not sustain a thorough analysis on how life came. It defies the basic canons of the scientific process. The supposition about the existence of a supernatural being who is in charge of the whole universe may not be totally dismissed but then, it makes little sense that all issues that are not explainable through science would be “discarded” to the supernatural human.
Conventionally, the loose ends left by scientific discourse in highlighting the origin of life would tempt an individual to resign the explanation to the “existence of a superhuman” whose origin is not known. Massimo outrightly dismisses creation theory. With the admission that it openly defies science, creation theory fails the threshold of a scientific approach.
Nucleotides and Proteins: the question of “which came first?” Nevertheless, even as humanity scratches its head over creation theory, the proposal that life emerged from nucleotides that precipitated into proteins ingenuously leaves a sour aftertaste when reading. A critical analysis of the whole theory begs the question of the chicken and the egg: which one came first? If nucleotides emerged first, then how did they replicate without the input of proteins known as primary components of life?
Conversely, one wonders how the replication occurred with no input of RNA and DNA. A very similar situation is witnessed in Millers scientific analysis of the primordial soup, his explanation about the spontaneous origin of life was based on very weak assertion regarding the ubiquity of microbes in the atmosphere. Despite the advancement in technological and scientific processes, the primordial soup has not found any solid scientific principle to base its explanation on the spontaneous origin of life, it is very fallacious, and no wonder; no further work has been pursued regarding its submissions and scientific proposals.
What we are witnessing is therefore, a topsy-turvy of ideas explaining the origin of life and universe. These explanations contradict each other immensely. A critical insight into the paradigm shifts in explaining the concept of life evolution reveals that there is no progressive prototype of scientific or philosophical muscle that can be conclusively inferred.
Each explanation takes its own path and pursues it without a cogent back up. Smith’s theory of clay crystal for instance, asserts that life originated from particles of clay in the primitive earth. His proposals further sours the understanding of life origin, it is very incomplete in its assertions. It therefore calls for logic to understand the issues surrounding the origin of life. For now, the explanations would do much justice to humanity if proper backup is quoted based on scientific and philosophical hindsight.