I find this very interesting, partly because I recreated Stanley Miller’s famous experiment for my high school science fair. It brings back fond memories of basement science projects. – Anthony
Primordial soup gets spicier
‘Lost’ samples from famous origin of life researcher could send the search for Earth’s first life in a new direction
Stanley Miller gained fame with his 1953 experiment showing the synthesis of organic compounds thought to be important in setting the origin of life in motion. Five years later, he produced samples from a similar experiment, shelved them and, as far as friends and colleagues know, never returned to them in his lifetime.
More 50 years later, Jeffrey Bada, Miller’s former student and a current Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego professor of marine chemistry, discovered the samples in Miller’s laboratory material and made a discovery that represents a potential breakthrough in the search for the processes that created Earth’s first life forms.
Former Scripps undergraduate student Eric Parker, Bada and colleagues report on their reanalysis of the samples in the March 21 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Miller’s 1958 experiment in which the gas hydrogen sulfide was added to a mix of gases believed to be present in the atmosphere of early Earth resulted in the synthesis of sulfur amino acids as well as other amino acids. The analysis by Bada’s lab using techniques not available to Miller suggests that a diversity of organic compounds existed on early planet Earth to an extent scientists had not previously realized.
“Much to our surprise the yield of amino acids is a lot richer than any experiment (Miller) had ever conducted,” said Bada.
The new findings support the case that volcanoes — a major source of atmospheric hydrogen sulfide today — accompanied by lightning converted simple gases into a wide array of amino acids, which are were in turn available for assembly into early proteins.
Bada also found that the amino acids produced in Miller’s experiment with hydrogen sulfide are similar to those found in meteorites. This supports a widely-held hypothesis that processes such as the ones in the laboratory experiments provide a model of how organic material needed for the origin of life are likely widespread in the universe and thus may provide the extraterrestrial seeds of life elsewhere.
Successful creation of the sulfur-rich amino acids would take place in the labs of several researchers, including Miller himself, but not until the 1970s.
“Unbeknownst to him, he’d already done it in 1958,” said Bada.
Miller’s initial experiments in the 1950s with colleague Harold Urey used a mixture of gases such as methane, ammonia, water vapor and hydrogen and electrically charged them as lightning would. The experiment, which took place in a closed chamber meant to simulate conditions on early Earth, generated several simple amino acids and other organic compounds in what became known as “primordial soup.”
With the gases and electrical energy they produce, many geoscientists believe the volcanoes on a young planet covered much more extensively by water than today’s served as oases of raw materials that allowed prebiotic matter to accumulate in sufficient quantities to assemble into more complex material and eventually into primitive life itself. Bada had already begun reanalyzing Miller’s preserved samples and drawing conclusions about the role of volcanoes in sparking early life when he came across the previously unknown samples. In a 2008 analysis of samples left from Miller’s more famous experiment, Bada’s team had been able to detect many more amino acids than his former mentor had thanks to modern techniques unavailable to Miller.
Miller, who became a chemistry professor at UCSD in 1960, conducted the experiments while a faculty member at Columbia University. He had collected and catalogued samples from the hydrogen sulfide mix but never analyzed them. He only casually mentioned their existence late in his life and the importance of the samples was only realized shortly before his death in 2007, Bada said. It turned out, however, that his 1958 mix more closely resembled what geoscientists now consider early Earth conditions than did the gases in his more famous previous experiment.
“This really not only enhances our 2008 study but goes further to show the diversity of compounds that can be produced with a certain gas mixture,” Bada said.
The Bada lab is gearing up to repeat Miller’s classic experiments later this year. With modern equipment including a miniaturized microwave spark apparatus, experiments that took the elder researcher weeks to carry out could be completed in a day, Bada said.
Parker, now a student at Georgia Tech, led the study. Co-authors include H. James Cleaves from the Carnegie Institution of Washington in Washington D.C.; Jason P. Dworkin, Daniel P. Glavin and Michael P. Callahan of NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.; Andrew D. Aubrey of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge, Calif. and Antonio Lazcano of the National Autonomous University of Mexico in Mexico City.
Scripps Institution of Oceanography: scripps.ucsd.edu
Scripps News: scrippsnews.ucsd.edu
Good geological arm-waving stuff in that post. And one, because it deals with US (and not some esoteric thing like andesite or eclogite), we ALL can wave our arms about. However there were some entirely new geological concepts introduced in the comments.
Now a question:
@Thomas L says:
March 23, 2011 at 12:52 am “…G-d throws dice…”. Who is this Geedashduh you speak off? I’m looking for a good game of craps. Got a phone number for him/her?
You are a big name author of ‘science’ books and your books clog the local book store however they are mythological. You’ve put no effort into understanding evolutionary science and show no desire to. Please stand up………………………… Mr. Dawkins!!!!
(Don’t believe me: watch first 5 minutes of this gem!)
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/evocell10/lynch/rm/qttv.html
In response to “Eric Anderson, March 23, 2011 at 7:07 am”
“Self assembly is a step required before self-copying aka self-reproduction. It’s a matter of “exploring the space of simple molecules that self assemble” to find the ones that can “self-copy” and thus replicate which is a prerequisite for life.” – pwl
“Can you point me to a single example of a self-replicating molecule? (Hint: we’re not talking about a self-replicating system, we’re talking about a self-replicating molecule, which is what you posit was somehow formed to allow life to get off the ground.)” – Eric Anderson
DNA is a self replicating molecule. Clearly it is an example.
“Nature can easily conduct exhaustive combinatorial searches through such even vast combinatorial spaces.” – pwl
“This is just evidence that you haven’t run the math. The combinatorial space required to get even a simple complex of the required proteins is way beyond the available time and resources of the known universe. This is precisely why other folks are trying to come up with some other self-organizing mechanism, just like jrwakefield alluded to in the comments above.”
I don’t have to run the math, Nature did and we are the evidence of it not taking more than the available time and resources of the known universe. In fact it seems that life formed within a few billion years of the Sol System forming (assuming life in the Sol System originated within the Sol System). Really it took much less time once conditions on the newly formed Earth were amenable.
“I asked, “Can you please point me to a single example of a self-reproducing molecular system that is known to have arisen through natural causes?” And you responded “Look in the mirror Eric.”” – Eric Anderson
“Very funny, but, sorry, that is an invalid response.” – Eric Anderson
Not invalid at all, it’s a evidence based response. You exist. You can verify that by looking in the mirror. Clearly you and other life on earth are self-reproducing molecular systems. When you look in the mirror you see that evidence. So while funny it’s 100% accurate, and evident..
“First of all, you don’t have any evidence that life arose through natural causes, you are just assuming and stating it as though it were a fact.” – Eric Anderson
Excuse me? Are you suggesting that life magically started some other way? Like the wave of a magic wand or something?
Of course the origin of life is 100% natural causes. This isn’t Sunday School Eric, this is real hard life and actual science about the objective reality of Nature.
Are you Eric proposing a super natural explanation? If so please provide all the evidence for that. Oh right, there is no evidence for that and tons of scientific evidence against it from even being possible.
“Second, we’re talking about the formation of life; that is the entire question at hand. You can’t provide a valid explanation for life by circularly referring to life.”
Not allowed to explain life because we’re looking for an explanation of life. Sigh.
Yes you can use life to explain life; clearly life exists. That’s an observable evident fact and is not circular, it is just what is so. Clearly life must have gone through a phase of development where it was able to self assemble and self-replicate and to correct those mistakes otherwise no life would be here today. These are self evident facts. Unless you want the non-scientific Sunday School explanation that life magically appeared out of a puff of magic smoke, but if you go that route you’re not being scientific at all so good luck with that.
Wolfram’s discoveries are highly relevant to not just self assembly, but to self replication and self correcting during transcription copying. Cellular Automata and other simple systems exist all over in Nature and proliferate in biology demonstrating the relevance of Wolfram’s discoveries at all scale levels. With simple systems generating complex behaviors that can be as complex as any complex behavior it’s no wonder that life exists. Yes, in many ways the universe is a computing machine that has chemistry and physics that are highly amenable to the process of life generation. It’s a matter of Nature working the combinations in the muck or in the atmosphere with zaps and going through the chemical bumps in the sunlight or night or depths of the oceans near the heat vents. Whatever the specifics the universe using very simple non-intelligent rules to be not just able to produce life but it’s almost easy given the physics, chemistry, and and other conditions. It’s likely that there are many forms of life, more than we can imagine. Nature doesn’t have to compute them all but over the vast span of the Goldilocks era of the Universe’s existence it’s very likely that life has or will start a vast number of times. In fact given what we now already know about physics, chemistry, biology, information science, simple systems generating complexity, the primordial soup, etc… it’s reasonable to say that life starting in the universe is pretty much inevitable in places where the conditions and timing are “right”. It’s a shake and bake life creating universe. Nature seems to like to create life and even puts the parts needed for life together in space! That’s so cool.
“In the context of a discussion about the formation of life, can you please point me to a single example of a self-reproducing molecular system that is known to have arisen through natural causes (without invoking circular references to life, the very thing we are trying to explain)?”
Look in the mirror Eric, look in the mirror and put your books with imaginary invisible super alien being aside and pick up some science books instead. Open your mind to the objective reality of Nature with all it’s magnificent beauty and stark horrors and learn what is actually real and what is actually possible.
I’ll go with jonnythelowry that the complexity of life is “implausible.” I would also add that it is amazing, breathtaking and awe inspiring, particularly with recent biological improvements in teeth, brain organization and speed, and perfected form in limbs/extremities.
tmtisfree says:
“I agree thought the puzzle looks awfully mingled at the moment, but History shows that Science is a succession of such despairs only to push the limit further.”
I liked your post and mostly agree. Perhaps we will someday unravel the profound mystery of the origin of life. I am really happy you acknowledge there is an enormous leap from a brew of amino acids to an actual living cell. That’s all I really meant to express.
“”””” And “Life” in my opinion is probably quite common across the Universe.
“Intelligent life”, even at the probably modest level we humans operate at, may be very, very rare indeed. “””””
Seems like a self defeating proposition to me.
The whole SETI project is predicated on one quite unsupportable fallacy; that “intelligence somehow imparts greater survivability.” Intelligent systems can manouver around their own weaknesses, and therefore survive when non-intelligent self replicating systems couldn’t.
Ergo since intelligent systems have superior survivability; there must be more intelligent systems than there are non-intelligent systems.
We can conclude therefore, that “intelligence is just the latest gimmic that Mother Nature is trying out in the search for “survival of the fittest”, and there is little evidence that it is any good for that purpose.
The dinosaurs survived for 140 million years or so, just by being big and mean and ugly; and maybe it did take a Iridium meteorite to wipe them out; but i doubt it. So we aren’t even very far into our very first million years of intelligence; and we may not make it through the next millenium.
Besides there are more creatures on earth that look like lobsters, than there are that look anything like humans, so we clearly are on the wrong track.
Carl Sagan went to meet his maker, without ever having discovered even one single binary digit of scientific observational data on “intelligent life” originating outside a thin shell perhaps +/- 25 km about mean sea level on planet earth. So much for a great waste of intelligence.
Seems clear to me that intelligence can’t be the secret to longevity in survival, or else it would be the most abundant form of life.
Eric Anderson, since you’d rather stay blind and not look at the evidence of life in the mirror here is another example of self replicating molecular systems.
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/02/25/primordial_soup_is_well_past_its_sell_by
More is implied about Stanley Miller’s experiments than actual occurred.
It was shelved since no appropriate polymerization model could be shown.
Ok he made salts.
Lots of arm waving for sure.
We can’t even come close to modeling the earth’s atmosphere, much less the origin of life.
A dose of humility is in order.
I believe that the scientific method will prevail. In our technological world, the discipline of science has fallen victim to the vernacularization of investigatory discipline even amongst scientists.
If spontaneous generation happened long ago with simpler and less abundant base materials, then it MUST be happening now as well. With all the eyes and laboratories out there, one would think that we could have seen it once in a lab.
So, show me.
PW
ROM says: (March 23, 2011 at 1:30 am)
But that’s life!
Very, very nice essay, ROM. Thank you.
Fascinating post with some excellent comments.
I first read about the Miller experiment 39 years ago (when I was 4 years old) in an extraordinary book called “The Origin of Johnny”:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Origin-Johnny-Malcolm-Ross-Macdonald/dp/0224012606
Some people have said that there are no theories or plausible explanations offered for breaching the gulf between organic molecules and a fully functioning cell. Nevertheless, my old copy of Biology, by Campbell, Reece & Mitchell (5th edition, 1999), contradicts that oft-repeated assertion with a ten page segment dedicated to the development of cells from organic precursors. e.g.:
=======
According to one hypothetical scenario, the first organisms were products of a a chemical evolution is four stages: (1) the abiotic (nonliving) synthesis and accumulation of small organic molecules, or monomers, such as amino acids and nucleotides; (2) the joining of these monomers into polymers, including proteins and nucleic acids; (3) the aggregation of abiotically produced molecules into droplets, called protobionts, that had chemical characteristics different from their surroundings; and (4) the origin of heredity (which may have been under way even before the “droplet” stage). It is possible to test the plausibility of these stages in laboratory experiments.
(op.cit, pp. 492-493)
============
Interestingly, awash with vast tracts of abiotic hydrocarbons, Saturn’s moon Titan–according to some folks at NASA–“contains all the ingredients for life” :
http://esse.engin.umich.edu/PSL/PRESS/Titan_Cassini_Huygens/AP_Wire_012705.pdf
Perhaps petroleum was crucial to our origin.
Zeke….all this time we’ve been talking and you are this lovely….limbs perfect with
perfect extremeties [Snip ]…
Leif isn’t going to show up here I don’t think. Anyway, Well, he might…now. Look, the reason you have finger print stuff on your finger tips…for grip and identification and not on your elbow is because……[ ] There will be a mechanistic explanation as there are for the 30 million other odd ‘technologies’ in biology which i find, in total, to be incompatible with my sense of how everything would be in the absence of a ‘intervening and pervasive presence’. We can all agree; there is something weired about this planet, our lives and the universe we live in. If Physics, Chem, Bio etc strains to come up with a convoluted long shot potential explanation doesn’t change the first premise for many. And the more I look, I feel more comfortable i am with the former. Take the quantum light offsetting of the pigment-less Peacock feather which gives it it’s color. Scientists say ‘….it’s as if the Peacock is an expert in Quantum Light offset effects…’ without considering that…………. it is. Because…that opens pandora’s box. And we can’t have that. When you read the actual science, it’s riddled with observations and statements like that always stop short of…the next (ill)logical step. No, No, No,…let’s not go there. Let’s just say “IT’S AS IF…” That next step will always be optional no matter how patently absurdley obvious.
There is no mean to determine this probability. Even if you consider Drake’s equation has some heuristic value, not one of the probabilistic and non-probabilistic terms in the equation is known, has been measured or will be in the foreseeable future, meaning that the result can be anything from zero to any big number, ie is a unscientific guess.
What is more interesting is how to formalize the complexity of living entity in term of specific organizational hierarchy to overcome complexity. For example the seminal paper by Varela et al (Autopoiesis: The organization of living systems, its characterization and a model, available here) suggests that we can get ride of non-essential biological phenomenons such as evolution and reproduction to focus instead on the characterization of the necessary and sufficient properties at the organization level to sustain life (theory of autopoiesis).
Such theoretical studies suggest that the key property of living entities (autopoietic systems) is the maintenance of their own organization. “In other words, autopoietic systems are self-generating systems, operating as homeostatic systems that have their own organization as the critical fundamental variable that they actively maintain constant” (see an accessible résumé here).
This kind of new approach (some called it a paradigm shift) has led to what we know in artificial life, cybernetics and much much more. Fast forward some 35 years, and appreciate what is now possible with synthetic genomics. As Freeman Dyson notes about this paper:
Should we deduce that we, Humans, are now playing at the level of God?
Yeah, that brings back a memory. Around 1960, someone in my high school made a science fair project out of it, and I recall standing with a friend and explaining it to two or three adults – maybe including the school principal – who had never heard of Miller and his experiment. We had read about in Scientific American or somewhere.
Leave God out? I have a much better idea: leave Dawkins out.
tmtisfree: “My response to you (March 23, 2011 at 1:11 pm) is God-free.”
Fair enough. My bad. I think we cross posted, as I was typing my 1:12 p.m. post while yours went through the moderation cue, so I didn’t see your 1:11 post before I posted. So to address your 1:11 post:
“. . . either Biology obeys the Laws of Physics (ie Laws of Physics is sufficient to explain Biology), either Physics is not sufficient (ie Biology is explained by some other undefined and non-physical something. That is, Biology does not obey the Laws of Physics).”
This is a logical fallacy. The fact that something follows the laws of physics in no way whatsoever means that the laws of physics are sufficient to explain its existence. You are fundamentally confusing consistency with sufficiency; they are totally different concepts. Is it necessary for biology to follow the laws of physics? Sure. Does that mean that physics is sufficient to explain the origin of biological systems? Absolutely not. Look at the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions.
“By Physics, I means all the fundamental Laws governing all the processes at all the scales of what is currently measurable. Not more, not less.”
My mistake. I thought you were proposing that life arose by chance. I now realize you are saying that life arose not by chance but as an inevitable byproduct of the laws of physics. So which law(s) of physics do you think caused life to arise? (Please, no vague generalizations and hand waving to physics generally as though it has some magical property to form life. Inquiring minds want to know: what is your proposal for how these laws of physics formed life? Which laws are you invoking and how do they operate to form life?)
“Information is indeed important in the characterization of the degree of complexity of system, together with energy and matter.”
It is not just a degree of information (or the oft-abused word “complexity”). It is a difference in kind. Compare a rock to an ant. It is not just a difference of degree in some vague concept of “complexity”. There is a fundamental difference in kind. One has a scalable, distributed system architecture with a 4-bit digital coding system, information storage, retrieval and translation mechanisms, concatenation and bit-parity algorithms, and so on. The rock doesn’t have the same thing, just in some less complex degree. It doesn’t have it, period.
“But this concept offers no explanation . . .”
It offers an exceedingly important clue about the origin of life.
pwl, I apologize in advance if the tone of the below is a bit abrupt, as I am somewhat exasperated that you seem to be missing the points, not out of an inability, but more an unwillingness. I think I was quite clear, but let me try again.
pwl: “DNA is a self replicating molecule. Clearly it is an example.”
No it isn’t. Do you have any idea what is required to replicate DNA? There is an entire suite of protein complexes, enzymes, carefully-controlled procedures, software heirarchy protocols, correction algorithms and more to get DNA copied. DNA is not even close to being “self-replicating.” Abiogenesis proponents are so fond of referring to their undefined, hypothetical “self-replicating” molecule that formed at some vague point in the distant past that they never stop to think about what is required for replication. So you have not provided an example and I ask again, can you provide me a single example of a self-replicating molecule?
pwl: “I don’t have to run the math, Nature did and we are the evidence of it not taking more than the available time and resources of the known universe.”
Thank you for that admission. I didn’t think you had run the math. Just a suggestion, if you want to find out what is actually required for life to form, you need to start dealing with some of the numbers, not just parroting vague statements about lots of time and resources. The time and resources of the known universe are but a rounding error against the probabilities needed for formation of life by known natural processes.
Finally, you ask me to look in the mirror again. Do you understand that pointing to the existence of life as proof that life can arise through natural causes constitutes circular reasoning? The entire context of our discussion is how life arose. If all you are going to do is point to the existence of life it is entirely circular. If you don’t get that simple logical point, then I’m not sure we can pursue this particular aspect further.
“Excuse me? Are you suggesting that life magically started some other way? Like the wave of a magic wand or something?”
Nope, no magic wands, although it is funny that an abiogenesis proponent would accuse someone else of waving magic wands — lesseee, put some chemicals in a pot, stir them around for a while and tahdah! life! Talk about magic wands . . .
“Of course the origin of life is 100% natural causes.”
This is just a blatant statement of blind faith in the power of chance to so something that we have zero reason to believe it can. I know you haven’t done the math, so this is one area where it could really help.
“It’s a matter of Nature working the combinations in the muck or in the atmosphere with zaps and going through the chemical bumps in the sunlight or night or depths of the oceans near the heat vents. Whatever the specifics the universe using very simple non-intelligent rules to be not just able to produce life but it’s almost easy given the physics, chemistry, and and other conditions.”
This is an astounding statement. It’s almost easy, huh? Well, let the folks at the Harvard Origins project know right away, please. Again, it bears repeating: those who think that forming life is a simple process have no idea what is involved in getting simple life off the ground. You are Exhibit A in proving my point.
“Look in the mirror Eric, look in the mirror and put your books with imaginary invisible super alien being aside and pick up some science books instead.”
Well, you sure love that mirror. I’m trying to say this in a non-demeaning way, but it appears you are not in any position to lecture me about origins science. I have obviously picked up way more science books on the topic than you have. If you haven’t done the math, as you admit, if you don’t have a good feel for what is involved in the formation of life, that is fine. A decade ago I didn’t either. All I can suggest is that you set aside for a moment your a priori commitment to the idea that abiogenesis is an easy, inevitable outcome of physics and chemistry and take some real time to think through on a detailed level — from an engineering and math standpoint — what is required for life. Once you’ve done that, we’ll be in a much better position to continue the discussion.
There are closed minds in both science and religion. People like to have definitive answers in both arenas. The way it is set up, however, is that those with open minds find out as much as possible, come up with a theory (or conjecture) but are not disappointed when they find out they are wrong and just keep digging. Every satellite we have sent to other parts of our solar system has informed us that our theories regarding the various planets have invariably been wrong. Every path we have gone down in cosmology or quantum physics has resulted in inconsistencies which we cannot explain. The Great Setter Upper has set this up this way, to keep us searching and learning. Even if the pretty unbelievable perfection of physical facts which allow our universe and us to exist at all is an accident, the rules, themselves, by which it all works are too perfect to be an accident. The more I learn the more I believe this and that vanity is the great closer of minds.
********************************News Flash!*****************************
Pasteur’s Flasks Still Sterile
Film at 11.
@tmsisfree
re; synthetic biology
“Should we deduce that we, Humans, are now playing at the level of God?”
No, creating new forms of life based on bits and pieces of things found in nature is no more than going to a junk yard and building a new car out of pieces of other car.
We won’t be playing God until we can create new laws of physics.
I’m glad you’re able to call out pwl on his circular reasoning. The existence of life is not proof that life arose naturally. Its self confirmation of the original underlying assumption “Everything in the universe has a natural explanation.” There is not evidence or proof that this assumption is true, just as there is no evidence or proof that “God exists” is true. Starting with the assumption that “there is no God” immediately introduces a cosmic amount of bias and misinformation if that underlying assumption is wrong.
As a previous poster said “Tornado in a junkyard”. Its funny, because even a tornado in a junkyard has a better chance of assembling a working 747 than life has of occurring naturally. Yet no one points to a 747 and says “see, it exists therefore it happened naturally”. How ridiculous a statement.
You keep repeating it. But what is this mystery ingredient that is missing to get a complete (and sufficient) picture of the apparition of life and that seems beyond Physics?
Your question is meaningless until we have defined and agreed precisely what one means by ‘life’. If for example we choose the Kaufman definition (“life is an expected, collectively self-organized property of catalytic polymers”, see ref. below), then trivial biochemistry (to describe enzymatic reactions), basic thermodynamics (to characterize phase transitions of the system), etc are required to explain the emergence and the behaviour of such system (see chapter “Crystallisation of Life” in the book “The Origins Of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution” for an extensive description). Kaufman also discusses this work by linking to chaos theory (chapter “Adaptation to the edge of chaos”, same book). More generally, and that relates to my question above, a physical system, complex or not, biologically living or not, depends upon, can be described by, and has to be explained with the (known or not) physical laws that rule this world. Calling for something beyond Physics to explain (emergence of) life is outside Science’s scope and only leads to unfruitful discussion.
What is its relevance to the (potential) physical mechanism(s) at play in eg the definition of Kaufman?
pwl says:
March 22, 2011 at 10:16 pm
“No need for any magical super powers, no need for any unexplainable non-evident magical super beings; all that is needed is just blind and basic chemical processes mixed with a dash of physics and a zap of electricity and a tad of information and the touch of internally generated randomness coming together into a complex system, cellular life.”
Erm…, yeah…, but how did those miraculous chemical and physical processes come about? Why do they exist?
The urge to do away with supernatural (meaning, that which is beyond what we currently understand and commonly observe) explanations is as bad as the urge to accept them, and emanates from the same basic human fear of the unknown, and the need to create comfortable myths to paper over the gaps in our knowledge. Why not just say, here is how some elementary building blocks of life may have come about by processes we can duplicate, and leave it at that?
tmtisfree says:
March 24, 2011 at 12:59 pm
“Calling for something beyond Physics to explain (emergence of) life is outside Science’s scope and only leads to unfruitful discussion.”
That is a completely arbitrary demarcation. How about just admitting that we do not currently know how life emerged, but if you have a falsifiable hypothesis and ideas of how it may be practically and rigorously tested, we are all ears.