3. The Origin of Life
Chapter Three
THE ORIGIN OF LIFE
Does the Text Require an Author?
Ethan Carmichael was brutally stabbed to death in the workshop of his large electronics store on the evening of December 30. Our team stood around Ethan’s body, careful not to step in his blood or displace any evidence, including the cell phone lying near his right leg. Mitchell, the newest member of our unit, voiced his displeasure about the call-out.
“I was kinda hoping this would be a quick one,” he said, looking at his watch and thinking about how close we were to New Year’s Eve.
Given the situation, it didn’t appear any of us were going to be participating in holiday celebrations over the next few days. I looked outside and saw a woman standing next to a patrol officer. I asked, “Has anyone talked to her yet?”
I was the last person to arrive at the scene, and the first responding officers said this woman had discovered Ethan’s body. Her name was Rachel and she was Ethan’s live-in girlfriend of several years. She smoked a cigarette as she waited for detectives to interview her.
Mitchell was assigned the case as the primary investigator, so he left the workshop to interview Rachel and coordinate the arrival of the coroner. The rest of us waited for CSI technicians to finish processing the scene before we could begin a preliminary examination of the evidence. Nothing in the workshop appeared to be disturbed, with the exception of an open closet door in the upstairs office.
I was particularly interested in Ethan’s cell phone. When CSI finished their work, I searched through its data for relevant information. I discovered an interesting text, sent earlier in the evening. The short message was simply:
Bti30
The text appeared to come from a local phone number, but Ethan hadn’t assigned a name to the number in his phone. Unsure of the origin of the text, I began to ponder what, if anything, this short series of letters and numbers could mean. I assembled questions along classic lines of inquiry, employing the five Ws (what, where, why, when, and who).
Cold-Case Approach:
What did the text mean? Was this information of some sort or just chance gibberish? Where did it come from? Did someone intentionally text this string of characters? Why was the text sent in the first place? Was it transmitted accidentally? Who texted it? Was the originating number one of Ethan’s company phones (three were used by staff within the huge store and warehouse), or did it belong to someone external to the business? At first glance, it was nearly impossible to answer these questions, but within twenty-four hours I knew precisely what the message meant, where it came from, and who sent it.
We wrote a search warrant for Ethan’s computer, phone, and business records, and I spent the better part of the next day combing through the results. First, I discovered the phone number was Rachel’s newly activated cell phone. As I sifted through Ethan’s cell phone texts and computer emails, I discovered additional “Bti30” texts. Rachel and Ethan regularly used this terminology when referring to their arrival times with each other. “Bti30” was simply shorthand for “Be there in 30 minutes.”
Once we were equipped with this information, Mitchell’s interview with Rachel exposed many curious facts and important details related to their relationship. As it turned out, Rachel and Ethan had been fighting for several months. Rachel had been seeing another man, Billy, during this time and had promised Billy she’d break up with Ethan prior to the year’s end. On the night Ethan was murdered, he was preparing to go home when he received a text from Rachel indicating she would meet him at the business in thirty minutes. He stayed and was killed within the hour. Rachel then arrived nearly ninety minutes after the text and reportedly discovered Ethan’s body.
As our investigation continued over the next few days, Ethan’s business partner told us a small safe was missing from the closet in the upstairs office. Ethan kept over $50,000 in this safe, and although his business partner said Rachel knew about the safe, she denied any knowledge of its existence. Our investigation began to focus on Rachel and Billy. We ultimately determined Rachel sent the text message for a distinct purpose. She wanted to delay Ethan’s departure from the office just long enough for Billy to arrive at the location, commit the murder, and steal the safe. We now understood what happened relative to the sequence of events, why it occurred, and how Rachel used a short burst of information to accomplish her murderous goal. Information within the crime scene pointed to an external suspect.
The Evidence “In the Room”:
ASKING THE CLASSIC QUESTION: WHAT IS LIFE?
Cops are good at identifying death scenes. When patrol officers arrive, they may have to assess the victim for breathing and pulse, but there are often more obvious signs of death. One of three conditions related to the “mortis triad” may be present: the loss of body temperature (algor mortis), the formation of rigidity (rigor mortis), or the presence of discoloration due to lividity (livor mortis). These conditions make it much easier to identify dead people. But as we examine life (rather than death) in the universe, it may not be as easy to identify what is “alive” in the first place. What are the minimum conditions required in order for something to be alive?
Living beings typically have the ability to metabolize energy (consume and process food) and the ability to reproduce. These minimum requirements are met by even the simplest single-cell organisms. When you see these two attributes (metabolism and reproduction), you know you are in a life scene. Whenever I enter a death scene, it’s my job to determine how the death occurred. As we examine the life scene of the universe, we have a similar objective. How did life emerge in our universe and on our planet? How did nonliving matter turn into living organisms?
If you read high school or undergraduate biology books, you might think these are easy questions to answer. But the truth is, in spite of decades of concerted research, scientists are no closer to knowing how life emerged today than they were generations ago, although they have exhausted a large number of possible leads.11 British chemist Leslie Orgel put it this way: “The problem of the origin of life on the earth has much in common with a well-constructed detective story.… There are far too many clues and far too many suspects. It would be hard to find two investigators who agree on even the broad outline of events.”2
Researchers have been consistently unable to identify a viable location, pathway, or mechanism explaining the origin of life. With each passing year, the level of complexity and interaction at the cellular level becomes more apparent and more difficult to explain.
THE COMPLEXITY OF LIFE AT THE CELLULAR LEVEL
A Tool for the Call-Out Bag:
The complexity required for cells to metabolize and reproduce is mind boggling. Cells are packed with miniature biological machines resembling (and often exceeding) the best work of human engineers. Microscopic cellular apparatuses, transportation vehicles, and tools interact with factory-like cooperation and precision.3 In order to understand what constitutes biological life, we’ll need to examine the sequence of events leading to the formation of these components inside the cellular factory.
As a criminal investigator, I’ve taken a similar approach with my own cases. As we examined Rachel’s involvement as the source of the text on Ethan’s phone, for example, we attempted to locate it within the sequence of individual events leading to Ethan’s murder. The specific series of actions and reactions became part of the narrative we would later present at trial. As scientists have attempted to explain the origin of life, they’ve done their best to establish the sequence of events leading to the formation of primitive cells:
THE FORMATION OF CARBON ATOMS
Carbon has the unique ability to bond with other carbon atoms and with elements such as hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur. Without the existence of carbon, life as we know it could never exist. (The creation of carbon was described in the last chapter as part of the fine-tuning of the universe.)
THE FORMATION OF AMINO ACIDS AND NUCLEOTIDE BASES
Two carbon compounds are critically important for life to originate: amino acids and nucleotide bases. These molecules are formed when ten to thirty hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon atoms are united by a chemical bond. Homochirality (single-handedness) is a critical characteristic of the chemistry of life. Just as you and I have two hands (one right and one left), amino acids, nucleotide bases, sugars, and other molecules demonstrate similar “handedness.” Proteins cannot assemble unless their “chiral” amino acids are entirely right- or left-handed. Similarly, DNA and RNA molecules cannot assemble unless their pentose sugars are entirely right- or left-handed.
THE FORMATION OF PROTEINS
Amino acids (of a singular “handedness”) combine to form a variety of proteins. These proteins are necessary to build the molecular machinery of life. Animals and plants use proteins created from the same set of twenty amino acids. Specific amino acids form long chains. The chains are coiled and fashioned into distinctly useful protein shapes, then later assembled for a variety of purposes. These resulting proteins fall into three categories. Structural proteins are used to build the structure of the cell. Functional proteins (called “active proteins”) are assembled to carry out important tasks in the cell (such as transporting critical materials). Regulatory proteins (called “enzymes”) promote and regulate the chemical reactions in the cell.
THE FORMATION OF NUCLEOTIDES
In order for life to originate, nucleotides must form from the combination of nucleotide bases, phosphates, and sugars. Cytosine, thymine, adenine, and guanine are found in DNA; uracil resides only in RNA. These nucleotides are formed when five nitrogen-based biological compounds are combined with phosphates and sugars.
THE FORMATION OF NUCLEIC ACIDS, INCLUDING DNA AND RNA
Nucleotides, in turn, join together in extremely long chains called nucleic acids. The most critical forms of nucleic acid in the cell are deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and ribonucleic acid (RNA). DNA is the largest molecule known. In humans, DNA contains as many as ten billion atoms. The adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine bases in DNA are linked in a particular order to form the genetic code containing the master plan for the organism. The information in DNA guides and instructs the formation of proteins; without it, protein formation would be a haphazard, hit-or-miss proposal.
THE FORMATION OF PRIMITIVE CELLS
In order to protect the molecules and molecular machines required for life, primitive cells must also have membrane and cell walls capable of protecting the cellular molecules from harm while filtering necessary ingredients into the interior of the cell.
Staying “Inside the Room” for an Explanation:
SEARCHING FOR ANSWERS TO THE REMAINING CLASSIC QUESTIONS
A Tool for the Call-Out Bag:
Scientists want to know how these components emerged and also the chronology of events that led to their appearance. They have been careful to limit their explanations to the forces of physics and chemistry “inside the room” of the universe.4 The resulting internal search for a plausible chemical pathway has been more difficult than anyone imagined. Biologist and professor Gerald Rau wrote, “Thus the problem of getting all of the compounds together in a living cell is much like the problem of making a cream puff. The filling needs to be made in a pan on a stove, then put in a refrigerator, while the shell is combined in a bowl, baked in an oven, then cooled, before the two parts are put together. All of the steps need to happen to the right amounts of the right components in the right sequence using the right tools in order to form a successful final product.”5 To make matters worse, the “icing” on each “cream puff” must also be inscribed with a message (DNA) billions of letters in length.
ALIBIS AND CONUNDRUMS
If Rachel and Billy had provided us with verifiable alibis, we would have been unable to place them in the sequence of events leading to the murder, and as a result, we would never have considered them as suspects. People can’t be in two different places at the same time. Alibis create conundrums: conditions difficult to explain based on the impossibility of simultaneous appearances. The relationships between DNA, proteins, enzymes, and the cell’s membrane present a biological conundrum. In order to understand the depth of the dilemma, we must take a quick look at the process of protein formation within the cell.
Specially formed functional proteins “unzip” a specific portion of the DNA by separating the helix at the middle of its rungs. Additional specialized proteins then act as molecular machines, helping to assemble nucleotide bases along one of the unzipped DNA segments.
This new assemblage of nucleotides is called a messenger RNA (mRNA). Once formed, the shorter mRNA molecule detaches from the DNA and is transported into the cell by additional protein “helpers.” The mRNA is carrying instructions needed to build a protein. It is helped by another RNA molecule known as transfer RNA (tRNA). The mRNA and tRNA meet in a molecular machine called a ribosome. This important mini-factory is constructed from proteins and RNA complexes. Here, the tRNA transfers the message carried in the mRNA so amino acids can form each protein:
Once the sequence of amino acids has been established, something amazing happens. Rather than remain in a long chain, the amino acids begin to roll up and fold onto one another, forming the specific finished shape of the protein required to accomplish its job. This may take a few seconds, and scientists are still mystified as to how amino acids accomplish this task.6
Expert Witness Profile:
None of this can happen without the aid of enzymes and the protection of the cell membrane. Enzymes are large molecules constructed primarily with proteins. These important molecules activate and accelerate the reactions related to everything from food digestion to DNA formation. Nearly every chemical response in the cell requires an enzyme to help it happen fast enough for life to result. Finally, all this activity must be protected. That’s where the cell membrane becomes critical. The membrane separates the interior of the cell from hostile exterior forces. It is constructed with fatty molecules (lipids) and proteins (along with carbohydrates). Some cells also have an additional cell wall surrounding the membrane. Cell walls are tough but flexible, and they offer an additional layer of filtering and protection.
Now that we’ve reviewed the inner activities of the cell, you’ve probably already recognized the “chicken and egg” problem. Enzymes are necessary for the timely formation of proteins, but these enzymes are built, in part, with proteins.7 Worse yet, this “chicken and egg” problem is also present in the larger relationships between the DNA, RNA, proteins, ribosomes, and cell membrane.
Paul Davies described the conundrum: “Take DNA … It has a grand agenda, but to implement this, DNA must enlist the help of proteins … proteins are made by complicated machines called ribosomes, according to coded instruction received from DNA via mRNA. The problem is, how could proteins get made without the DNA code for them, the mRNA to transcribe the instructions, and the ribosomes to assemble them? But if the proteins are not already there, how can DNA, ribosomes and all the rest of the paraphernalia get made in the first place? It’s Catch-22.”8
All these important machines, transportation vehicles, and tools must arrive at the cellular factory simultaneously and function in unison if life is to be possible. The cell membrane and enzymes cannot be constructed without proteins, but the protein formation must be accelerated by enzymes and protected by the membrane. Proteins can’t be formed without DNA information and RNA activity, but machines formed from proteins (such as ribosomes) are a critically necessary part of this process.
ASKING THE CLASSIC QUESTION: WHERE COULD IT HAVE HAPPENED?
As I investigated the origin of the text message on Ethan’s phone, I first examined his phone account to make sure the message didn’t originate from a mobile phone within the large business. I eventually determined the text came from a phone line external to the murder scene. The trail leading to the external source of this text pointed to our suspects as the best explanation for this crime.
In a similar way, when we examine the life scene of the universe, we must investigate the origin of life to see if it can be explained from “inside the room” of the universe. We can do this by asking a number of classic where, what, why, when, and how questions. We’ve already asked the what question as we defined life. Now it’s time to ask, where did this series of events begin?
Even if we assume the existence of carbon (as described in the last chapter), the origin of life requires the emergence of pre-biotic molecules (amino acids and nucleotide bases). Where could this have happened? Could life have originated from “inside the room,” and if so, where?
As we begin to examine these explanations for life’s origin, keep an eye out for the three common liabilities of explanations we’ve seen so far: Are the explanations supported by the evidence? Do they attempt to redefine critical aspects of the data? Do they suffer from logical contradictions?
COULD IT HAVE STARTED IN THE ATMOSPHERE?
You may remember the famous 1953 Miller-Urey experiment from your high school or undergraduate biology class. Stanley Miller and Harold Urey mixed ammonia, methane, water vapor, and hydrogen and passed an electric charge through the circulating gases. Within a week, they found several types of amino acids had been created. This experiment later became the icon for a naturalistic explanation of the basic building blocks of life. Many believed it proved amino acids could be formed naturally in the atmosphere of the early Earth.
A Tool for the Call-Out Bag:
But with the evidence we now have about the conditions of the early atmosphere, we know the gases used by Miller and Urey were not present in the quantity or proportion they used. While this experiment may have some historical significance, it does not prove life could originate in the atmosphere. In fact, scientists now believe the early atmosphere simply could not produce amino acids at any significant or necessary level.
COULD IT HAVE STARTED IN WATER?
Like the Miller-Urey experiment, the concept of an ancient primordial soup is an iconic fixture in most entry-level biology textbooks. Soviet biologist Aleksandr Oparin first proposed the idea in 1924, arguing chemical evolution took place in Earth’s early waters, resulting in the formation of amino acids, then primitive proteins. But aside from the fact we have no physical evidence to support the existence of a primordial soup, we now know the “chicken and egg” relationship between proteins and polymer chains (DNA) makes their simultaneous appearance in water extremely unlikely (to put it mildly).
In addition, the absence of significant sources of phosphate for the early formation of DNA, RNA, or ATP (adenosine triphosphate) is prohibitive in this environment. Worse yet, there would be no way to limit the proportion of left- and right-handed amino acids, nucleotides, and sugars in the primordial soup, making the formation of DNA and RNA molecules exceedingly difficult.
COULD IT HAVE STARTED ON LAND?
Some researchers have proposed a scenario in which local terrestrial conditions, such as those occurring in clay, might capture water on occasion, allowing the necessary molecules to form and interact. But when trying to re-create these conditions in the laboratory, scientists have come to realize the impossibility of stabilizing the environment to allow for the formation of the necessary cellular components.
COULD IT HAVE STARTED IN THE EARTH?
Some scientists have proposed an underground location for the origin of life where molecular formation would be protected from water and atmospheric interference. But the underground locations available in early Earth would have been incredibly hostile to the formation of biochemical precursors, proteins, and RNA. Just as problematic would be imagining a scenario in which these primitive forms of life could then transition from their underground origin to their eventual homes above ground.
COULD IT HAVE STARTED IN SPACE?
Some scientists, frustrated with the lack of progress locating a reasonable earthly source for pre-biotic molecules, have turned their attention to outer space. But even if the basic building blocks for life, amino acids, were delivered to Earth in a meteorite, this would still fail to explain how the simple molecules formed into the more complex proteins and nucleic acids necessary for life, given the “chicken and egg” problem. And if these more complex organic elements came to Earth from space, how did they originate there and how could they survive the entry into the planet’s atmosphere?
There’s a reason why scientists are so divided over the location of life’s origin: none of the proposed environments offer a viable, reasonable explanation.9
ASKING THE CLASSIC QUESTION: WHEN DID IT OCCUR?
The timing of Rachel’s text was critical to our understanding of what happened to Ethan. Her text held Ethan in place at the workshop long enough for Billy to arrive and commit the murder. As we investigated Billy’s activities on the day of the crime, we found he had ample time to get to the workshop, kill Ethan, steal the safe, and return home. Nothing in the timeline precluded Billy from being our suspect.
As we examine the first appearance of life in the universe, we must also consider the available timeframe in order to identify the correct “suspect.”
Scientists searching for an explanation for life’s origin concede that early Earth was anything but hospitable to life’s formation. In fact, researchers believe the planet underwent a number of sterilization events as it was bombarded by asteroids and meteorites. In spite of this, scientists have discovered life emerged quickly with surprising complexity.10 As researchers examine the first appearance of complex micro-organisms and their proximity to Earth’s heavy-bombardment period, they are unable to explain how this complexity could emerge in the short timeframe available.11
ASKING THE CLASSIC QUESTION: WHY DID IT HAPPEN?
Once we understood what might have been driving Rachel to conspire in Ethan’s murder, our case came together in a logical manner. Given what we learned about Ethan, we recognized there were few people who would want to kill him, and few who knew the location of the safe, aside from Rachel. Once we understood why Ethan was killed, we were able to search for a suspect external to Ethan’s death scene. In a similar way, understanding why life might emerge in our universe may be helpful in determining the cause and its reasonable location in or out of our life scene.
DID IT START BY CHANCE?
Researchers recognize the unlikely probability life’s minimum complexity could assemble by chance. Even those who champion the role natural selection might play in causing adaptations over time admit this process simply cannot account for life’s minimal complexity. Before Darwinian evolution could ever do its work, some degree of complexity would be required.12
The more we learn about life’s minimal complexity and the relationship between DNA, RNA, and the proteins and enzymes necessary for life, the less researchers believe chance or unguided processes could account for their orchestrated and cooperative existence. Even the simplest of building blocks, proteins, are incredibly unlikely to exist by chance.13 When considering the complex relationships between specific proteins and other important laborers in the cellular factory, the odds for their appearing by chance has been likened to 1040,000 to 1.14 I’d like to offer an analogy to make this monstrously large number understandable, but a number of this size is so enormous, my analogy would probably also require an analogy.
DID IT START AS THE RESULT OF PHYSICAL NECESSITY?
Expert Witness Profile:
If raw chance is an insufficient cause, is it possible the minimal molecules and structures required for life might have “self-organized” in some way? Do life’s pre-biotic molecules possess attributes causing them to connect, form, and interact as a matter of chemical or physical necessity? Many scientists hope this to be the case, especially given the long odds against chance formation. But they still haven’t observed or identified the chemical or physical properties necessary to cause such self-organization. Research in this area has reached a “stalemate.”15
Researchers have identified a more pressing problem, however. Scientists now recognize the important difference between self-organization and organization driven by information.16 The miniature machines, transportation vehicles, and tools within the cellular factory cooperate and interact because they have been instructed to do so. How were these instructions written?
Searching “Outside the Room” for an Explanation: ASKING THE CLASSIC QUESTION: HOW DID IT OCCUR?
In the end, Rachel’s text was her downfall. Once we realized “Bti30” was specified information sent by Rachel to accomplish a purpose, we knew we had an important intelligent suspect external to the death scene. In a similar way, our investigation of life in the universe will eventually come down to the presence of information in our life scene. Proteins, ribosomes, enzymes, and other cellular building blocks are formed at the direction of specific nucleotide sequencing in DNA. This nucleic sequence is informational.
WHAT IS INFORMATION?
Most of us have an intuitive understanding of the nature of information, given our everyday use of symbols, words, phrases, and sentences. I typically use my pet corgi, Bailey, to illustrate the distinctions between levels of information. If I placed Bailey at my keyboard and encouraged her to press the keys, she might produce the following sequence:
skfhO,dhf OidfnN iahdH nkhinhg khtT
A Tool for the Call-Out Bag:
While this sequence has some statistical value—and might even qualify technically as information—it fails to impress us as informative. Bailey doesn’t appear to be telling us anything. Imagine, however, if Bailey managed to type this:
grand the, eats letting
Most of us would be impressed with Bailey’s ability to type words we can recognize (based on agreed-upon conventions of English), but this sequence is still less than informative. Bailey still doesn’t appear to be telling us anything. Imagine if her next effort resulted in this:
Grandpa is eating
If Bailey could type this short sentence, she’d be demonstrating an even higher level of intelligence. This brief sentence possesses meaning. Bailey appears to have an idea about what she wants to communicate, and her words are effectively transferring meaningful information. Let’s go another step. Imagine Bailey typed this:
Let’s eat, Grandpa!
Her sentence now includes directions for a specific action. She’s trying to get Grandpa to feed her. We’ve progressed from statistics, to cosyntics, to semantics, to pragmatics and apobetics, according to Dr. Werner Gitt, head of the department of information technology at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (see the sidebar).17
Bailey’s final sentence is instructive and demonstrates her desires and motivations; if Bailey could actually write such a line, she would provide us with the highest level of information. One way to test the informational value of Bailey’s sentence is to simply evaluate the impact of modification. If I remove the punctuation from Bailey’s first effort, the meaning (or lack of meaning) remains unchanged:
skfhOdhf OidfnN iahdH nkhinhg khtT
If, on the other hand, I remove the punctuation from Bailey’s last effort, the entire meaning of the sentence is changed:
Yes, commas really do save lives! Bailey’s last sentence is clearly information because it possesses meaning, direction, and purpose. If even minor alterations are made, the meaning and outcome change dramatically.
ARE DNA NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCES INFORMATION?
Now let’s turn our attention to the nucleotide sequencing in DNA. Is this information? Scientists and researchers seem to think so, and most recognize the dilemma this creates. Paul Davies expressed it well: “Once this essential point is grasped, the real problem of biogenesis is clear. Since the heady successes of molecular biology, most investigators have sought the secret of life in the physics and chemistry of molecules. But they will look in vain for conventional physics and chemistry to explain life, for that is a classic case of confusing the medium with the message. The secret of life lies, not in its chemical basis, but in the logical and informational rules it exploits.”18
Information in RNA and DNA presents a problem for researchers, especially those who propose RNA as the first molecule to appear through some combination of chance and chemical necessity (known as the “RNA World Hypothesis”). Even if RNA were a precursor to DNA, the first RNA molecules would had to have been rich in information to replicate. Information must exist first, before any other transformational process can take place.19 Without the prior genetic information in DNA and RNA, nothing of significance happens within cells.
Nucleotide sequences are more than statistical gibberish. They are semantically, pragmatically, and apobetically significant sources of information. The genetic sequence has meaning and directs action for a specific purpose. One way to test whether DNA contains high-level, specified information is to apply our modification test. If we were to isolate those portions of the genetic code instructing Bailey’s leg length or ear shape, a small modification in the sequence would result in a different physical outcome. We can change the meaning and purpose of the code by altering the sequence, a sure sign DNA sequences are the highest level of information.
FROM WHERE DOES INFORMATION COME?
If Bailey had typed “Let’s eat, Grandpa,” we would have good reason to consider her to be a very intelligent dog. That’s because our personal experience tells us information comes only from intelligent sources. This presents a problem for those who attempt to stay “in the room” of the universe to account for genetic information. If we limit ourselves to the materials available to us in the universe, information must be explained from matter, chance, the laws of chemistry or physics, and nothing more.20 Efforts to account for information in this way have failed repeatedly. In fact, the information in DNA proves to be the decisive stumbling block for every naturalistic theory offered for the origin of life.
Every geographic location proposed—whether in the atmosphere, in the water, on the ground, under the Earth’s crust, or from outer space—requires an explanation for the existence of information in the genetic code.
Every timeframe offered for life’s origin, be it earlier or later in the history of our planet, requires an explanation for this information.
Every description of why life emerges—whether by chance or some form of physical necessity—requires an explanation for information.
And finally, every mechanism proposed for the origin of life—be it through “protein first” models, “RNA first” models, or any other model—requires an explanation for the existence of genetic information.21
The chance arrangement of information in DNA is prohibitively improbable, and there are no chemical or physical laws at work to dictate its existence.22 We are left, then, with a paradox: the laws and forces of nature cannot produce information, but information is required for life to begin.23
Given the utter inability of chance or natural law, and our observations related to the origin of information, intelligence is the best explanation. But this requires us to look for an intelligent source transcending the limits of the physical universe. Scientists trying to account for information by staying “inside the room” seem to be rejecting the obvious. In order to create information, the author of this information must have the ability to select between possible alternatives. This ability to choose selectively requires intelligence, will, and purpose. Unguided physical processes simply cannot accomplish the task. The selection process required in the creation of information requires an intelligent, volitional free agent.24
“Inside the Room” or “Outside the Room”?
EXTERNAL INTELLIGENCE, INTERNAL INFORMATION, AND INADEQUATE ALTERNATIVES
We’ve asked classic investigative questions in an effort to identify what life is and where, when, why, and how it originated. After examining the sequences and timelines needed for life to emerge from nonliving chemicals, we exhausted the available life scenes in an effort to identify the process or “suspect” responsible. Every attempt to stay “inside the room” of the natural universe for an explanation failed to account for life’s origin. As professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at Colorado State University Franklin Harold said, “The origin of life appears to me as incomprehensible as ever, a matter for wonder but not for explication.”25
Explanations from “inside the room” became even more unreasonable when we examined degrees of information to determine the identity of our “suspect.” As we considered the information residing in DNA and RNA, the laws of physics and chemistry became increasingly inadequate as explanations. If a model attempts to explain the origin of life yet fails to explain the origin of information foundational to life, it falls dreadfully short of its goal. The first five classic questions point most reasonably to the one remaining question most scientists refuse to ask: Who?
When I discovered the information in Ethan’s murder scene and determined it had come from outside the room, I didn’t hesitate to look for the intelligent agent responsible for the text. If our questions related to information in the universe point to an intelligent source transcending the matter and natural laws of the universe (with the ability to select the information we find in DNA), it’s reasonable to move from the inadequate alternatives to the most reasonable inference. Our inference isn’t simply based on the lack of naturalistic explanations “inside the room,” but is instead an inference from the affirmative evidence we possess related to information and intelligence. (More on this positive approach to inferences in the next chapter.)
Our Emerging “Suspect” Profile:
We now have a clearer picture of the external cause of the universe based on the information within it. Our suspect is more than simply powerful; this external cause appears to be purposeful, intelligent, and selective in its use of information. The process of selection—or creating information—requires purpose, intentionality, and the freedom to choose between options. That’s the difference between personal agents and impersonal forces. The force of gravity, for example, does not have the ability to choose when it will act.
Now we have a more complete and specific “suspect” profile. In the next chapter, we’ll discover our suspect possesses yet another attribute we commonly identify with persons: creativity.