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
This is a classical quote by Shapiro (in “Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth”, 1986) against the time argument by Wald (Scientific American, 1954): “Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.”
Continuing with Kauffman’s work he offers this refutation of Shapiro’s view (from the book referenced earlier):
“Shapiro continues with an effort to calculate the odds of attaining, by chance, something like E. coli. He begins with an argument by Sir Fred Hoyle and N. C. Wickranlasinghe (1981). Rather than estimate the chances for obtaining an entire bacterium, these authors try to calculate the chances of obtaining a functioning enzyme. They begin with the set of the 20 amino acids which are used to construct enzymes. If the amino acids were selected at random and arranged in random order, what would be the chances of obtaining an actual bacterial product? For a typical enzyme with 200 amino acids, the probability is obtained by multiplying the probability for each amino acid, 1 in 20, together 200 times, yielding 1 in 20^200. Since more than one sequence of amino acids might provide enzymes with proper function, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe estimate that the chance of obtaining an enzyme of the appropriate type at random was “only” 1 in 10^20. But to duplicate a bacterium, one would have to assemble 2000 different functioning enzymes. The odds against this would be 1 in 10^20 multiplied 2000 times, or 1 in 10^40000. As Shapiro points out, it is clear why Hoyle and Wickramasinghe gave up on spontaneous generation, since the likelihood of the event was comparable to the chances that “a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.”
.
Against Wald’s world enough and time, Shapiro says that with only 10^51 possible trials, the odds of success – l in 10^40000 – are vastly too improbable to have happened. Life, on this argument, cannot have arisen spontaneously.
.
The arresting feature of this example is not the apparent improbability of success but how typical the apparent failure is (Eden 1967; Schutzenberger 1967). The same sense of mystery surrounds the origin of a coupled metabolism, of the genetic code, of tissue organization. The general feature of each of these mysteries is that each exhibits, in one form or another, the evolutionary emergence of a mutually necessary set of processes. Each time we confront the evolutionary emergence of such a whole, whose parts are mutually necessary to one another, there is a tendency to reason along with Shapiro. What is the chance of obtaining the first part, of obtaining the second part – and since each is useless without the rest, what is the chance of obtaining them jointly? Where the odds can be estimated, even crudely, the joint probability is always very low. Typically, one cannot even estimate the odds of obtaining any single part.
.
Yet it is clear that Shapiro’s argument is flawed. Having calculated the probability of obtaining a protein with some particular catalytic activity as 10^20, he then argues that an organism would require a set of 2000 enzymes for 2000 particular reactions. It is this requirement for one particular set of coupled enzymatic activities which yields the overwhelmingly poor odds he calculates. We should instead be concerned with the probability of finding any one of possibly very many properly coupled sets of enzymatic activities which might constitute a living proto-organism. I will suggest in Chapter 7 that, viewed in this way, the origin of life was a quite probable consequence of the collective properties of catalytic polymers. More generally, I suggest throughout this book that many properties of organisms may be probable emergent collective properties of their constituents. The evolutionary origins of such properties, then, find their explanation in principles of self-organization rather than sufficiency of time.”
The major conclusion of Chapter 7 reads as follows:
“The combinatorics of polymers and their reactions, coupled with a simple model of the distribution of catalytic capacities in peptide or RNA space, leads to the expected existence of collective reflexive autocatalysis due to the percolation properties of random graphs. We have the beginning of a theory for the minimum complexity required to achieve autocatalytic closure. Below that minimum, disconnected subsystems exist. Above it, a connected whole emerges. […] For any fixed probability of catalysis P, autocatalytic sets must become possible at some fixed complexity level of numbers of kinds of polymers. The achievement of the catalytic closure required for self-reproduction is an emergent collective property in any sufficiently complex set of catalytic polymers.”
He calls the transition phase occurring within such systems “Crystallisation of Life”.
Of course creationists might better take some beta-blocker first before reading such heretical book.
This is my limit between what is scientifically acceptable and what is not. Put yours wherever that please you.
I can accept that. As I already wrote earlier in this thread: “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.”
The book I referenced above presents just that, a testable theory of the origin of life (see a partial conclusion in the post above). I cannot however copy the 700+ pages of the book here (with about 1000 peer-reviewed papers in the bibliography section).
Eric Anderson, it’s not that I “miss” your points, it’s that your points are irrelevant.
DNA is a self replicating molecular system.
“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?”
Ah, a self replicating system is discussed because at some point the molecules would have needed to copy themselves somehow directly or indirectly Eric Anderson. That is why it’s mentioned, and while the specifics of how our ancestor molecular systems specifically started replicating themselves might be obsecured to us at this point in time, clearly it is a step that must have gotten started. Why you attack it is beyond me.
I did provide you an example, two in fact, (1) existing life that uses self replicating molecular SYSTEMS, and (2) the lab experiment of Gerald Joyce et. al. that had chemists create self replicating molecular systems that produced unexpected results that mirror evolution (pwl March 23, 2011 at 6:32 pm ): “We have two enzymes, a plus and a minus,” Joyce explains. “The plus assembles the pieces to make the minus enzyme, and the minus enzyme assembles the pieces to draw the plus. It’s kind of like biology, where there is a DNA strand with plus and minus strands.”. The second example let’s you stay blind Eric Anderson so you don’t have to look in the mirror at the actual evidence of self replicating molecular systems.
Again with the “math”, it’s Nature that ran through the combinations of life over the ~700 to ~1000 million years after the Earth formed inorder to generate life (unless life was seeded from materials formed in the Sol System space in which case Nature could run the “math” much longer after the formation of Sol itself). Considering that Nature can run the “math”, actually chemistry experiments, in parallel in billions and billlions of locations at the same time it’s not a problem. Oh, and then it just takes a tiny bit of “natural math” aka chemistry for Nature to whip up a batch of “primordial soup” in meteors. So maybe it’s not that much “natural math” aka chemistry, physics, simple systems generating complex behavior at all to take the next step to self replicating systems based upon RNA and DNA. Eric Anderson you’re just assuming it’s hard since you don’t know the answer, maybe it is hard, and maybe it isn’t.
Life exists on Earth. Life either originated on Earth, in the Sol System or in the universe due to processes that exist in the universe within the bounds of and using the processes of physics, chemistry, and the inherent information processing capabilities of the universe. That’s not a stretch at all, that is simply an observation of fact and uses what we already know with evidence based science of the objective reality of Nature.
“Finally, you ask me to look in the mirror again.” – Eric Anderson
You are an example of a self replicating molectular SYSTEM are you not? Are you denying that life on Earth is based upon self replicating molecular systems? Seems that you are excluding relevant evidence.
“Do you understand that pointing to the existence of life as proof that life can arise through natural causes constitutes circular reasoning?” – Eric Anderson
Not relevant. Life is an example of a self replicating molecular system. That is why I use it. It is proof that self replicating molecular systems can evolve from the muck (so to speak) and stand up and comphrened the universe and how we came to be. It’s not cicular reasoning at all, it’s looking at the actual evidence and saying this is interesting, how did we get here, how do we work, how does life work, how did life get started, oh, that’s how. Very interesting indeed.
“The entire context of our discussion is how life arose.” – Eric Anderson
Glad you finally showed up to the party Eric Anderson.
“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.” – Eric Anderson
You’re the one missing the point Eric Anderson. The point is to understand how the machinery of life got started. I’ve presented that in general and with some specifics. You asked for an example, and I gave you two in fact, but all you need do is look into a mirror for an example of a self replicating molectular system. Not my fault if you don’t like what you see in the mirror or think it’s cicular. It is what it is and isn’t what it isn’t.
“Nope” to life magically starting.
“it is funny that an abiogenesis proponent would accuse someone else of waving magic wands” – Eric Anderson
Why do you think that abiogenesis is “waving magic wands”? That’s a really strange thing to believe about abiogenesis Eric Anderson.
I have no interest in any magic wands nor in waving any. Just because there are “gaps” in our knowledge doesn’t mean that any magic wands are being waved. Wolfram’s work, the primordial soup experiments, evidence from meteors, Gerald Joyce’s experiments, and others clearly shows that no magic wands need any waving at all.
If not abiogenesis then what Eric Anderson? Aliens seeded Earth with life? At least aliens is a viable answer but they would have started with their own abiogenesis somewhere in the universe.
If not abiogenesis then what Eric Anderson? Panspermia seeded life on Earth? At least panspermia is a viable answer but life would have started with abiogenesis somewhere in the universe.
Which only leaves us with one more non-possibility: If not abiogenesis then what Eric Anderson? An alleged God? It’s clear Eric Anderson that if you are proposing that (which it seems you are given how you attack “chance” in your next quoted comment below) that you’re an Intelligent Design advocate who wants to wave a godly magic wand so why even bother talking with science oriented folks like myself if you’re going to play the magical invisble super alien being card?
“Of course the origin of life is 100% natural causes.” – pwl
“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.” – Eric Anderson
No faith at all, no belief at all, just hard raw rational logic based upon the evidence and laws of Nature. Not chance, but internally generated randomness of simple processes based upon simple non-intelligent rules using basic chemistry and physics. Just because we don’t know all the steps Eric Anderson doesn’t mean that it wasn’t Natural. There isn’t an alternative to the creation of life being 100% natural unless you invoke magic. Sure aliens could have seeded life, or life could have arrived on Earth via panspermia but ultimately the evidence is clear that the universe is a life creating system given the set of laws of Nature that we now know so well to be true. Don’t like it? Too bad, look in the mirror or under a microscope for the evidence.
“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.” – pwl
“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.” – Eric Anderson
Why is it astounding? It’s just a summary of the known facts and logical deductions based upon the actual hard evidence. No need to “inform” the Harvard Origins project as they already know this.
I never said that forming life “is a simple process”. It might be, it might not be. Certainly making some if not most of the RNA and DNA building blocks is relativly easy as Stanley Miller’s famous experiment shows.
Is that the point your attempting to make Eric Anderson? That life isn’t a simple process to get started? Well then say so without all the other verbage, please. The fact is we don’t know if it’s a simple process to get started or not. Certainly cooking up aminoacids – the building blocks of RNA and DNA – is not just simple but very easy, almost effortless given the right conditions. The rest could be easy or hard, we don’t know yet. Eric Anderson you seem to have committed to it being hard which is a strange thing to do.
“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.”
When did I say it was “easy” for life to get started? I never did. I have no commmitment that abiogenesis is easy even if portions of it clearly are easy and simple, it might turn out to be easy all the way through or it might not. Of course it always looks harder not knowing the recipie. If kids ever get to the point of creating life from scratch for their school science projects then I’d say it would have turned out to be easy to create life in the universe. That has yet to be seen of course.
As for abiogenesis and the generation of life being an inevitable outcome of physics and chemistry and simple rules of Nature that generate complex behaviors that does seem very likely that abiogenesis is inevitable, as long as the environmental conditions are condusive OF COURSE. It would be astounding if that wasn’t the case! The fact that the building blocks of RNA and DNA have been found in meteors from space is compelling evidence that life “could be” abundant in many ecololgical niches where ever they happen to be located. This seems very reasonable given the current evidence including the new evidence of planets abounding. Not only that, the fact that RNA and DNA building blocks are found in space suggests that life based upon RNA and DNA might be the rule rather than the exception. Lots of real possibilities grounded in the science.
For abiogenesis, self assembling molecular systems are needed. They have to self copy or replicate in some way directly or indirectly. They have to correct for errors but not perfectly. It’s clear that that is not just possible but evident in life on Earth and in the Gerald Joyce et. al. experiments. RNA and DNA building blocks are clearly easy for Nature to cook up with basic chemistry. This is an exciting field indeed.
tmtisfree
Even if we take the odds of 1:10^20th power for the chances of a protein to spontaneously occur, over the course of 4.2 billion years assuming 1 “chance” used per second still leaves us with only 1 chance in 755 that ONE protein will randomly assembly itself.
Great, so after 4.2 billion years, we’ve generated MAYBE one protein. And I’m being generous with the frequency of viable interactions. How again does that explain the multitudes of life on earth, from a statistical standpoint?
Joel K mistakenly said: “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.”
I refer you to my response to Eric Anderson posted above regarding the topic at hand, the origin of life in the objective reality of Nature.
Joel K, as for your alleged god hypothesis when you have evidence, any independently verifiable evidence at all, of your alleged god then we can explore that possibility, until then the origin of life is entirely Natural. Oh, you’ve have to also invalidate most of the laws of Nature too by the way along with providing evidence of your alleged god. Note we are talking hard scientific evidence by the way, none of which has ever been found nor presented.
The currently well known laws of physics actually prevent the alleged god(s) from existing or operating in the universe. Blame Einstein. Damned Speed of Light Limit prevents any and all omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, but most importantly of all prevents any and all omnibenevolence aka omnievil from occurring as it takes a lot of time for information, matter or energy to travel and all those “omni*” capabilities would need to violate the laws of Nature for them to work.
In science we can rule things out as not possible by using our existing scientific knowledge that we have evidence for. It is done all the time. It’s called building up knowledge based upon verifiable evidence.
For example, from the laws of gravity we know that a human being can’t jump from the surface of the Earth to the Moon and back again without using any technology. It is not possible. You can imagine it but it’s not possible in the objective reality of Nature. Same with the alleged god, just not possible given the well known and well tested laws of Nature in the objective reality of Nature. By all means you can enjoy imaging your alleged god if you wish, won’t make it real though.
pwl:
Circular logic is not a proof unto itself. “Life exists therefore it arose through natural causes” is just as ridiculous as saying “Life exists therefore God exists.”
You could say to me “Prove to me God created Life.” And I could say “Look in the mirror, you’re alive aren’t you, therefore God created Life.”
Which is exactly the same as you saying “Look in the mirror, you’re alive aren’t you, therefore life arose 100% naturally.”
The only difference is the point at which you start. The question, as a reminder, is “Where did life come from?” When answering that question, you can’t say “Life exists, therefore it arose naturally”, because the METHOD is the very point of the question. Either it arose 100% naturally through one of the many situations you have postulated, or it arose supernaturally. Those are the 2 possible answers to the question. Assuming one is correct and then stating that since obviously life exists so the one you picked must be correct, even though we don’t know the details, is a fallacious conclusion. Circular arguments are not proof, and circular arguments are all you have contributed so far.
As Eric Anderson said, we don’t know the method of a natural origin of life. That also means that there may not BE a method for the natural origin of life. Assuming there is one, and therefore eventually it will be found, and since there is life therefore there must be one is a textbook example of circular reasoning.
Can you open your mind? Can you step back and even consider the possibility of “What if the origins of life are supernatural”? Anathema to science, yes, I know. But that doesn’t mean its impossible.
tmtisfree says:
March 24, 2011 at 2:30 pm
“The book I referenced above presents just that, a testable theory of the origin of life (see a partial conclusion in the post above). I cannot however copy the 700+ pages of the book here (with about 1000 peer-reviewed papers in the bibliography section).”
Sorry if I muddled my message, but you misunderstand. I was taking the part of being you, responding to someone demanding that you provide knowledgeable proof of how life came to be. Personally, I would simply answer: “I do not know. If you believe it was an outside intelligent agency, then please provide something beyond circumstantial evidence of his/her/its/their existence which would be worth researching.”
The whole Evolution/Creation argument strikes me as a tempest in a teapot. Neither side really knows, so why do they insist on antagonizing one another with facades of certainty? IMHO, the evolutionists need to be more forthcoming on what is known, what is merely consistent with the evidence, and what boils down to conjecture, albeit conjecture which leads along paths of inquiry worth pursuing. The creationists, in my view, are doing a service when they point out loose ends, but they need to realize that, at the point they bring in an unobservable outside entity as explanation, they are no longer contributing to the acquisition of knowledge.
But, it’ll never happen. It’s the prisoner’s dilemma. If either side gives ground, the other will sweep in and claim it for their own.
I once thought about writing a novel in which the protagonist actually does get to meet the Creator, and asks him, “where did you come from?” And, he answers, “I do not know. Some of my kind have ideas ranging from spontaneous being to another race of even greater entities giving birth to us, but we have no real evidence one way or the other.”
There is not much value discussing probability when first terms cannot be measured not even be estimated crudely with any proper justification, so instead of repeating myself I refer you to my preceding posts dealing with probability.
About the “multitude of life”: matter is built from some particles by the mean of a very few number of rules, yet the forms of matter are multiple. Do you have any troubles with the multitude of materials? Probably not, then you should not have any one with life’s diversity. The implication of this analogy is more profound (ie general) than you might think at first sight.
I think I gave you quite the same message in the post you quote me, if you read with attention.
Critical thinking is a requirement in Science, wherever it comes from, and refining theories an endless process. But from your own perspective, it is easy to find what proposition is the real dead end.
Science is the study of nature, so the supernatural has no place in scientific discussion IMHO.
It may be that we apply a supernatural label to things in nature that we cannot explain, such as the origin of life. In which case there is no harm in exploring possible causes of these things we cannot explain. That’s why we do science.
To waive off scientific theory with a supernatural explanation is to leave the realm of science.
That’s not to say that there is no supernatural force, it’s just that it will never be discovered scientifically, for if it were, the mystery would end. A catch 22.
Many great scientists have publicly espoused their theological views; Einstien, Galileo, Kepler are a few who come to mind. These views never appeared in any scientific theory or formula that they proposed as best I can recall.
pwl says:
March 24, 2011 at 2:48 pm
“The currently well known laws of physics actually prevent the alleged god(s) from existing or operating in the universe. Blame Einstein. Damned Speed of Light Limit prevents any and all omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, but most importantly of all prevents any and all omnibenevolence aka omnievil from occurring as it takes a lot of time for information, matter or energy to travel and all those “omni*” capabilities would need to violate the laws of Nature for them to work.”
Not in hyperdimensional universes, of which ours may be one. So might a Flatlander insist that no observer could see his entire world disk at once.
Why do you feel a need to assure yourself that you know the unknowable?
Hate to tell you Bart but there isn’t any hard verifiable evidence yet for any “hyperdimensional universes”, just hypotheses, none of which enable us or anyone to actually move in those dimensions. Usually they are so caught up in tiny balls or other such tiny spaces as to be practically irrelevant. Evidence rules Bart. Provide some please.
I don’t know the “unknowable” nor do I claim to. How would you know that something is “unknowable”?
There is zero evidence for any alleged gods and plenty of excellent evidence which we can verify for their non-existence (except in the brains of believers, we know that their alleged gods are experienced as real delusions to them there) due to the laws of Nature. Can’t be omniscient if omniscience isn’t permitted by Nature, and if you can’t be omniscient you’re not a god. Ditto for the other “omni*” magic powers of the alleged gods. What we can tell is that the alleged gods are omni-impotent.
Provide some evidence for your alleged gods Bart if you can, otherwise you’re just wasting keystrokes on nothings Bart.
“…otherwise you’re just wasting keystrokes on nothings Bart.”
Indeed. It is best not to argue with fanatics.
I’ve not used any circular logic at all Joel K., Eric Anderson is incorrect about the circular argument nonsense as are you. Life is a valid example of the existence of self replicating molecular machines, you can’t just exclude it willy-nilly as Eric Anderson wants to do.
If you have another explanation for how life arose other than natural causes please present your hypothesis with actual evidence otherwise, well, the evidence of natural life stands as the only solution.
“we don’t know the method of a natural origin of life. That also means that there may not BE a method for the natural origin of life.” – Joel K. quoting Eric Anderson.
The logic of your argument doesn’t follow. If the origin of life wasn’t natural then what was it? Magical supernatural? Good luck with that line of nonsense Joel K. as it has ZERO evidence. None. Zippo. Ziltch. It’s also against the laws of Nature as explained above. Two whammies against your line of nonsense non-logic.
It’s obvious that life is 100% natural unless you want magical non-explanations of alleged gods. If that’s what you want then why are you on a science blog, go to your Sunday school instead.
Yes, it is not possible that the origins of life are “super natural” since the “super natural” is not possible given the laws of Nature in the objective reality of Nature where we actually really do exist.
We deal in actual real science Joel K that has actual evidence. Enjoy your illogical and fantasies of your alleged god Joel K.. Even though I don’t understand your need for an alleged god you can have it if you want it but it’s certainly not a viable explanation for the origins of life.
I have an open mind, just not so open that my brain falls out. Evidence Joel, actual evidence and not silly logic and nonsense arguments that are disconnected from the objective reality of Nature such as the ones you’re making Joel K..
Sigh, why does the discussion of the origin of life always bring out those who want their magical invisible all powerful yet omni-impotent super alien being to be the answer? Sigh.
Well Bart, if it’s fanatical to ask for evidence that can be verified per the scientific method then I’m guilty of being a science fanatic.
Bary if you need to assume on nothing but faith that your alleged god exists and magically created the universe and life in it and offers you a magical heaven after your sure to be obliterating death then that’s fine, be that way if you wish but typically that is what is called fanatical in the way you meant. Your faith based beliefs won’t save you from the obliterating death that awaits all life but you can pretend that it will if that gives you hope or solace or the ability to get through the day.
I prefer to embrace the facts of life as they actually are in the objective reality of Nature with it’s awesome majestic beauty and wonder along with it’s utter stark horrors.
The scientific method works as the best way to comprehend the actual universe where we exist because it demands verifiable evidence from experiments or observation and it’s uncompromising in that requirement. The hypotheses rise or fall based upon being able to repeat those experiments or see the same or similar observational data that fit the hypothesized claims (such as equations). Evidence. Hard evidence, that can be verified over and over again and independently by others. That is what it takes to win the day and nuggets of knowledge about the actual objective reality of Nature.
The human body is hard evidence of self replicating molecular systems. You can ignore it if you wish but that wouldn’t be being scientific.
The lab experiment of Gerald Joyce et. al. that had chemists create self replicating molecular systems that produced unexpected results that mirror evolution (pwl March 23, 2011 at 6:32 pm ) is also evidence that Nature can create self replicating systems: “We have two enzymes, a plus and a minus,” Joyce explains. “The plus assembles the pieces to make the minus enzyme, and the minus enzyme assembles the pieces to draw the plus. It’s kind of like biology, where there is a DNA strand with plus and minus strands.”.
Again you can ignore the hard evidence but then you’re not being scientific.
Without any evidence for your non-natural origin of life hypothesis you’ve got nothing. When you have any verifiable evidence of supernatural events or origins of life please let the world know as that would be quite the claim to verify and very important as it would overturn most of science.
Until then and even after then I’ll be fanatical in my need for evidence in support of scientific claims according to the means and methods of the scientific method and the philosophy of objective science; Bart, you, Joel K. and Eric Anderson can be fanatical in your faith based beliefs in your alleged god as the cause of the origin of life if you’re so inclined, however faith isn’t being scientific, faith is being the opposite as it endarkens the mind rather than enlightening it with the facts of life in the objective reality of Nature. In the end it’s your choice, let faith based dogma from the bronze dark ages determine what you believe or let the facts of life no matter how much you don’t like them to inform you and make your life in the here and now better.
If you have any actual science points on the topic I’d be interested in talking about them, otherwise I’ve dealt with the non-scientific nonsense enough.
Pardon me for the typo, “Bary”, I meant “Bart”. Sorry about that. It slipped past my second reading before posting the comment.
Sigh… Why do atheist fanatics, with their underpants gnome theories of how life “just happened”, not see that they are just as illogical and faith biased as traditional religious fanatics? Sigh…
“Your faith based beliefs…”
Please find some passage, innuendo… anything anywhere in what I have written which suggests I profess a faith of any kind? Did you even bother reading? (Don’t answer – it’s strictly rhetorical.)
As an illustration of the problem, one can look to complex natural crystal formations which would be very difficult to reproduce precisely in a laboratory given only a seed crystal. Crystals grow according to some very simple natural rules.
Given enough time….and enough matter…..and enough motion…..and enough energy….one can imagine…..
It still leaves the question of who made the matter and set it into motion.
Dave Whorley said “That’s not to say that there is no supernatural force, it’s just that it will never be discovered scientifically, for if it were, the mystery would end. A catch 22.”
“Supernatural” is an oxymoron. If something exists, then it is natural, or exists in the natural world.
Where is the proof, the hard evidence, the empirical scientific evidence that life can spontaneously generate itself.
No one is arguing that self replicating molecules don’t exist. Only that self replicating molecules cannot possibly come into existence given the known time, material, and sheer mathematical probability of the task at hand. Do you disagree with my basic probabilities? You must disagree, though on what ground I haven’t seen. Well, let me tell you what the probabilities mean. They mean that arguing for a natural origin for life on earth is just as scientifically impossible as my arguing for creation by God. The difference between us then, is I’m willing to admit faith in my origin belief, yet you are unable to see that it takes just as much faith to believe yours, as they are equally impossible.
I”m sorry if your rabid atheism gets in the way of your being able to see objectively, as other posters have been able to. Fanaticism can’t be reasoned with, and condescension and rudeness are not the hallmarks of someone who can debate reasonably. You deny the obvious circularity of your arguments, you refuse to concede that you have a bias by your initial assumptions about origins, and you completely lack any imagination in thinking about what you don’t know.
As Bart says “Why do you feel a need to assure yourself that you know the unknowable?” Because you are convinced that you know the scientifically unknowable concerning the existence of God.
“No one is arguing that self replicating molecules don’t exist. Only that self replicating molecules cannot possibly come into existence given the known time, material, and sheer mathematical probability of the task at hand. Do you disagree with my basic probabilities?”
Not wanting to get involved in the apparent bitterness, but I disagree with this premise.
Frankly, the time, the material, and the physical processes of the earth are not so well accounted for. For example, life around deep ocean black smokers in were unknown 20 years ago.
We cannot model climate, much less the probabilities you seem so certain about.
Jeff Alberts says:
March 24, 2011 at 7:13 pm
Good point.
Well Bart a number of your posts suggest that you support “supernatural explanations” for the origins of life as somehow being on par with natural causes which would indicate that you’re of the faith based variety or don’t comprehend the philosophy of science vetted against the harsh objective reality of Nature.
As for your silly comments regarding atheism, it has nothing to do with atheism, it has to do with actual verifiable evidence in the objective reality of Nature, your alternative hypothesis based in faith has zero evidence. There is zero evidence for any alleged gods, or for the origin of life being caused by magic, and there is lots of verifiable evidence against such beings being possible due to the laws of physics. Science is about evidence Bart. If you plan on putting forward religious hypotheses for the origin of life you’d better have some compelling verifiable evidence but we both know you got none.
Clearly you don’t comprehend science if you think that religious answers based in faith are on par somehow with scientific answers that require verifiable evidence. At this point Bary you’re just attempting flame baiting nonsense rather than trying to contribute anything of value to the conversation.
“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.” – Bart
Clearly Bart you can let your brain fall out of your head all you want and accept “supernatural explanations” or attempt to redefine “supernatural” to mean what we don’t understand currently or don’t commonly observe, however I like my brain in my head where it does the most good testing the alleged evidence being presented against the objective reality of Nature as we know it to be and know it not to be from the well tested laws of Nature.
It has to do strictly with evidence, scientific evidence Bart. There is none for your alleged magical supernatural possibilities, and you know it.
Now maybe you’re not into “faith” but it appears Bart that you’re too willing to accept nonsense such as the supernatural.
To me it’s really mute since the test of any hypothesis is the evidence that can be verified. So please if you insist on being open to crazy notions please provide evidence of anything supernatural, otherwise the natural explanations are the only ones that have merit in science.
I say provide the verifiable evidence for your claims that life is not of natural origin (assuming you’re making such claims), otherwise your hypothesis in that regard is refuted by the laws of Nature that clearly show that the supernatural and alleged gods are but dreams of the faithful believers or the deluded.
Clearly life can and did originate in the universe from natural causes. There is zero evidence for any other possibility. Not only that the laws of Nature prevent the typical alternative hypothesis, the alleged god or supernatural. The primordial soup experiments clearly show RNA and DNA building blocks are not just easy to make but simple and the discoveries of them in meteors from space show that Nature cooks them up even in harsh and inhospitable environments, it’s very likely that these building blocks are in many places and not just in the Sol System. Furthermore the experiments of Gerald Joyce et. al. show that non-living molecular systems can not only self replicate but can evolve as well even beyond what humans expected. It’s only a matter of time before someone cooks up living organisms from scratch. Heck, Craig Venter created synthetic life already using existing parts. The more experiments that are done the more we learn and the closer we seem to be getting to creating life ourselves or priming the necessary conditions for Nature to do it again on it’s own.
So you can fret over whether or not supernatural explanations should be considered Bart or you can dig in and contribute something to the actual conversation. I’m betting that you’ll stick with being non-scientific and prefer the magical fantastic over the harsh facts of life in the objective reality of Nature that we can determine with hard verifiable evidence.