The Nightmares of Materialism. Part 1. The Abiogenesis Fiction C. Goodbye Darwin

In the first two parts of this series,¹ we saw the central role that abiogenesis, or the hypothesis that life arose from non-life, plays in the theory of Neo-Darwinism. In the process, we have also seen how Neo-Darwinism is the animating world view of the Great Reset Agenda of the New World Order.²

In this final part of this series on Abiogenesis, we will demonstrate even more problems plaguing the persistent belief that life can arise from non-life. It does not look good for Neo-Darwinism and the materialism that it has hoodwinked the world with.

More Reasons for Failure: Instability of RNA

Aside from all the six challenges above, there is real head scratching problem: the stability of a single polymer. Time is the number one enemy of the polymerization process.³

These polymers are not stable. They break down within a relatively short time period. For example, some proteins have a lifetime of 13 days only. Within this 13-day window, this protein polymer has to find all the other substrates, other molecules, that is has to interact with.⁴

We encounter an even more traumatic problem with RNA synthesis. RNA is the preferred molecule of many OOL scientists. They believe that the pathway to life is via the RNA molecule. From RNA, one can obtain DNA and all the rest of the other molecules needed for life to emerge and function.

Take a polymer of RNA that has 600 copies of itself. A single RNA molecule in this configuration will have a life of only 4 hours.⁵

A Tough Nut to Crack: The Protein Folding Problem

Even if the proper combination of polymers of amino acids were attained, one has still not solved the problem connected with the three-dimensional structure of the proteins that the amino acid sequences have created. This is known as the protein folding problem.

Imagine one has a thousand hollow blocks. One can assemble these hollow blocks in many different shapes in three-dimensional space. One can create an igloo-type structure. One can create a square. One can created a circle-like structure, and so on.

Scientist have a technical term for this. It is called the Levinthal’s paradox. This paradox points out that a protein, by undergoing a random search among all possible three-dimensional shapes, can take a huge amount of time.⁶

To gain a concrete idea of how this looks like, imagine a relatively simple protein containing 100 amino acids. Amino acids are the building blocks of protein. If this amino acid chain randomly searches its three-dimensional shape, it would be confronted with 10 to the 95^th power of choices.

One scientific team describes this process.

Levinthal’s calculation assumed nine possible configurations for each φ,ψ-pair in the backbone (three staggered configurations for each rotatable bond, like ethane), resulting in 9¹⁰⁰ ≈ 10⁹⁵ possible conformations for a chain of 100 residues. Given the time required for single bond rotations (picoseconds), even a small protein that initiated folding by random search at the time of the big bang would still be thrashing about today.⁷ (References in original omitted and emphases added.)

In short, automatic protein folding, on the basis of materialistic processes and chance, is not possible. Clearly something else is necessary for the protein to fold properly so that it would have properties making it suitable to support life.

The Obvious Conclusion

The science is clear. What is not alive cannot produce life. Inorganic dead matter cannot be the source of life on earth. Abiogenesis, as a science, is basically a dead-end subject.

Even prominent figures in OOL research reach a similar conclusion even if they continue to try to make OOL science succeed.

Lee Cronin is one of the giants in OOL research. He agrees that there is no proof of how life came from simple primordial compounds to life and how this life eventually embodied itself in the first self-replicating cells.⁸

Also, a year ago, in a Lex Fridman interview, Lee Cronin admits that the prebiotic soup argument for the origin of life is a “scam”.⁹ His reason for calling it a scam is this. 

Craig Venter of the Human Genome Project fame and pioneer in synthetic biology, could not make a cell from scratch even if Venter synthetically manufactured all the DNA sequence in the simple cell.

Why? Because “there is some contingent information embodied outside the genome in the cell and that is just incredible”¹⁰

Dr. Robert Shapiro, one of the pioneers of OOL research, concurs. He has said that the OOL narrative of how life emerged from non-life is “just so stories”. This and that happened and then this further happened and finally life appeared. Shapiro characterized this fiction as “just so stories.¹¹

From Science to Cancelling.

Dr. James Tour is, as we have seen, the most prominent and sharpest critic of OOL science. His challenges to the science are deadly, as seen above and in Part 1.A and Part 1.B of this series.¹² Yet, OOL scientists have basically dismissed his tightly argued demolition of OOL science. Instead of taking up his challenges, they have basically tried to silence him.¹³

They have called him a creationist even though God is never brought up in his purely scientific critique of OOL science. In this regard, it is ironic that a top multi-talented atheist scientist, Dr. Hector Zenil, sided with Tour in the aftermath of latter’s debate in Harvard, Cambridge, with one of the giants in OOL, Dr. Lee Cronin, Chair of Chemistry at the University of Glasgow.¹⁴

Meanwhile, the general public, unaware of the massive problems in the field of Origin of Life Science (OOS) continues to be hoodwinked by the fictitious claims of this discipline. According to surveys, the majority of the public believe that life came from non-life and can be created in the laboratory. ¹⁵

Such is the tragic condition of our time. Here we have one of the most powerful arguments for the fictitious nature of materialism in the realm of the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. This theory presupposes that life can emerge from dead matter. Since there is no science that has proven this, modern versions of Darwin’s theory of evolution are all dead on conception.

Yet most continue to pray to the altar of a defrocked science. It is “Goodbye-time” for Darwin.¹⁶

When people begin to realize that the Emperor has no clothes, then societies and civilizations will begin to wake up to the gigantic “smoke and mirrors” that has been set up before them. The intellectual foundations of the Great Reset will be no more. Humans, awakened to their true nature, will create new futures that the respect their Divine nature¹⁷ and that we all did not come from monkeys, and, least of all, from the fictitious Last Universal Common Ancestor or LUCA.¹⁸

1. https://covidcalltohumanity.org/2025/01/13/the-nightmares-of-materialism-part-1-the-fiction-of-abiogenesis-a-life-did-not-arise-from-non-life/ and https://covidcalltohumanity.org/2025/01/16/the-nightmares-of-materialism-part-1-the-abiogenesis-fiction-b-one-failure-after-another/ ↩︎
2. https://covidcalltohumanity.org/2025/01/08/materialism-the-god-of-the-great-reset-part-3-sucking-out-life-meaning-and-morality-in-society-promoting-violence-as-a-way-of-life/ ↩︎
3. See reference #1 above. ↩︎
4. Can Scientists Answer These Questions? RNA, Abiogenesis, Chemical Natural Selection & more
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmykRoelTzU&t=8s. An Overview critique of OOL science can be found here: https://inference-review.com/article/time-out. And here https://inference-review.com/article/animadversions-of-a-synthetic-chemist. This article is long and technical. But towards the end, Tour discusses the instability and short life span of RNA polymers. ↩︎
5. Ibid. ↩︎
6. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.89.1.20 ↩︎
7. Peter Tompa and George D. Rose. “The Levinthal paradox of the interactome”. Protein Science 20 (2011): 2074. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3302650/ ↩︎
8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rwPi1miWu4 
   Dave Farina’s “Experts” completely DEBUNKED. The Religion of Prebiotic Soup – Lee Cronin Part 01 ↩︎
9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWjEb7Z1k18 ↩︎
10. Ibid. ↩︎
11. Smoke & Mirrors: Tour and Meyer Assess Origin of Life Experiments (Ep. 3)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUO-or638ow ↩︎
12. https://covidcalltohumanity.org/2025/01/13/the-nightmares-of-materialism-part-1-the-fiction-of-abiogenesis-a-life-did-not-arise-from-non-life/ and https://covidcalltohumanity.org/2025/01/16/the-nightmares-of-materialism-part-1-the-abiogenesis-fiction-b-one-failure-after-another/#bf187d53-49b6-4b61-a482-0fd97483e9a4 ↩︎
13. Academia Tries to Silence Renowned Professor after Exposing Huge Problems in Origin of Life Field
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysEc8SdDLAs ↩︎
14. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5dSkY1Mv-0. “Harvard Debate Review: Atheist Scientist Defends James Tour and Debunks Lee Cronin’s Assembly Theory” ↩︎
15. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/02/06/the-evolution-of-pew-research-centers-survey-questions-about-the-origins-and-development-of-life-on-earth/ ↩︎
16. But not for CCH. The next series of articles will show that Neo-Darwinism has equally deep problems in addition to Abiogenesis ↩︎
17. This will be the subject of future articles on the new and more spiritual scientific revolution that has already emerged worldwide. This post-materialistic science, as it is sometimes called, will be the basis for creating higher and more dignified futures for all humanity. ↩︎
18. See Part 1.A. of this series at: https://covidcalltohumanity.org/2025/01/13/the-nightmares-of-materialism-part-1-the-fiction-of-abiogenesis-a-life-did-not-arise-from-non-life/ ↩︎