Unfortunately, we made mistakes. We have made a conclusion based on incomplete, inaccurate data on life and the universe

Marcos N. Eberlin:

Question of Dr. Augustus Nicodemus Lopes: Why, despite all these discoveries of Science, the theory still prevails in the Academy that life had a spontaneous origin, if its complexity is clear ?

I believe, Augustus, It was because of a pact, a position we assumed 150 years ago. When Darwin proposed his theory, when he elaborated his arguments, the understanding we had about life was really, that simple, rudimentary, medieval, and obscurantist. We imagined that life, which a cell the basic unit of life was formed by a single substance, a protoplasm, something like a gelatin.

So imagine at that time that life could actually have come up in a soup, in that scorching broth of the primordial soup, was not really that hard.
Then arguments were worked out. And we then assumed a very clear position that life had arisen by natural processes.

And we have been defending this position for 150 years.

And everytime that data show us against this position, we dig our heels in more and more, more and more.

We came to a position of impasse, absolute impasse.

So today, we do not want to throw in the towel. And we do everything to not debate, we do not want to hear about Intelligent Design, we do not want to talk about Intelligent Design. We advertise as loudly as possible, because we have to stifle the data.

But in Science, nothing better in Science than one data after another, one data after another. And the flood, the avalanche of data today is talking much louder than the scientists. And the scientists, really, will have to come and face society and, with the humility that all of us must have, facing this society, say:

‘People! Unfortunately, we made mistakes. We made a conclusion based on incomplete, inaccurate data about life and the universe that natural forces would have the ability to create it.”

From the video Interview with Dr. Marcos Eberlin (part 2 of 2)


1st Interview of Augustus Nicodemus Gomes Lopes to Dr. Marcos N. Eberlin in the Academia em Debate program of the Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie de São Paulo.

Youtube Channel: Marcos N. Eberlin
Posted: Jan 9 2012
Youtube Channel: Inteligentista
Posted on 14 May. 2017


Some say it was a ‘rudimentary way of life’

Today we have a lot of information to know how this Luca should be.

Minimum LUCA requirements

How should this being at the molecular level?

3 essential features:

  1. You’d have to be able to reproduce. Self Preservation
  2. You would have to be able to store and process power. Self support.
  3. You would have to be able to store and process information. Automation.

So to that first Luluca, that first being, at the molecular level, could do all this, he would have to have at least these 9 requirements:

  1. It would have to have a double-layer membrane resistant to temperature fluctuations
  2. It would have to have a membrane capable of capturing external energy
  3. A mechanism to encapsulate biomolecules, all essential for life.
  4. It would have to have protein channels and filters.
  5. You would have to be able to synthesize macromolecules
  6. Replicate these macromolecules
  7. It would have to have a replication code, and if it wanted to be something more than Luca, it would have to have a specialization code
  8. Mechanism of cell membrane subdivision
  9. Able to convey information to the child.

The vast majority of chemists who study the viability of chemical evolution admit: Luca really should be able to do it there.

But would be just that?


Luca would have to have a few more things.

And one of the things that fascinates me most, and we have been acting a little in this area too, is that the proteins, the fundamental units, the fundamental polymers of life, the proteins would have to have a very particular and special characteristic:

  • All aminoacids of these proteins should have the same chirality
  • This chirality would have to be ‘L’

And This is it?

No, there are much more.
And if you want to know more, watch the video 🙂

Marcos Eberlin
He holds a Bachelor’s degree (1982), a Master’s degree (1984) and a Ph.D. (1988) in Chemistry from the State University of Campinas – UNICAMP and postdoctoral studies at the Aston Laboratory of Mass Spectrometry at Purdue University, USA (1989-1991).
He is currently a MS-6 professor at UNICAMP, where he founded and coordinates the ThoMSon Laboratory of Mass Spectrometry (http://thomson.iqm.unicamp.br). He is a member of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences (2002) and commander of the National Order of Scientific Merit (2005). He received the Zeferino Vaz Award for Academic Recognition (2002) and the Scopus-Capes Award (2008) for excellence in publications and staff training, and the Thomson Medal (2016) of the International Society of Mass Spectrometry, the highest honor awarded in the area. He was deputy director of the Institute of Chemistry of UNICAMP (1998-2002) and president (2009-2014) of the International Society of Mass Spectrometry (IMSF). He is currently the executive president of the Brazilian Society of Mass Spectrometry (BrMASS) and the Brazilian Society of Intelligent Design (TDI BRASIL). He is an associate editor of Willey’s Jounal of Mass Spectrometry (JMS). He has guided about 180 masters, doctors and postdoctors, who today spread to Brazil and the world as researchers and professionals, and his research group is one of the most numerous in Brazil with about 50 researchers. He has published about 800 scientific articles (2016) with close to 16 thousand quotes in scientific areas such as Chemistry, Physics, Biochemistry, Biology, Forensics, Pharmaceuticals, Food, Veterinary, Medical and Materials Sciences.

    Leave Your Comment Here

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

    Este sitio web utiliza cookies. Si continúas navegando estás aceptando las mencionadas cookies y nuestra política de cookies. Para más información puedes clicar en el enlace.

    Aviso de cookies