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
“Craig Venter and team make a historic announcement: they’ve created the first fully functioning, reproducing cell controlled by synthetic DNA. He explains how they did it and why the achievement marks the beginning of a new era for science.”
“No one is arguing that self replicating molecules don’t exist.” – Joel K..
Ok.
“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?” – Joel K..
I also can’t agree with that. Clearly self replicating molecules DID in fact come into existence given the known time, material and other constraints of Nature.
You’re assuming it is too difficult without having any basis for your conclusion and in fact you are ignoring the evidence that life did in fact jump from primordial soup to self replicating systems. So, not a good start for you Joel K. Oh and it has nothing to do with your twisted mutant notion you call “rabid atheism”, it is strictly about verifiable evidence Joel K..
Provide verifiable evidence of an alleged godly source of life and I’m sure that it will be tested by a lot of scientists – failing your production of evidence there is nothing but Nature – even if aliens or panspermia seeded life on Earth since at some point in the chain the first organisms would have had to have been naturally generated somewhere, somehow and somewhen by Nature – it’s called the Natural Null Hypothesis.
Well, the discussion has devolved (pun intended) and gone off the rails, so I’m not sure how much more can be gained, so I’m just going to summarize where we are at:
1- Abiogenesis requires some kind of self-replicating molecular system to arise, either by chance or inevitably through natural laws. Typically this is proposed as a self-replicating molecule (a la Dawkins and others), rather than a more complicated self-replicating system. This is a perfectly rational proposal for the abiogenesis proponent to make, both because it is much more believeable and because it is more probable that a single molecule could arise by chance than a coordinated, inter-related system of molecules. Therefore, to begin drilling down in the discussion I asked whether anyone could in fact provide an example of a self-replicating molecule, which pwl has not been able to (nor can anyone else, I presume). We do, of course know of self-replicating *systems*, on which we could then do a probability calculation, but not a self-replicating molecule. The other example of a self-replicating system besides DNA which pwl provided is research on a simple two-enzyme combination. He is quite impressed with this research, which is indeed interesting. On close reading we find the following description:
“The researchers began with pairs of enzymes they’ve been tweaking and designing for the past eight years. Each member of the pairs can only reproduce with the help of the other member.” . . . However, ‘it still leaves the problem of how RNA first came about. Some type of self-replicating molecule likely proceeded RNA and what this was is the big unknown at this point.’”
They’ve made good progress in designing a self-replicating system after eight years of effort, but gee (no doubt recognizing that such a system could not have come about by chance), they are still looking for that elusive “self-replicating” molecule. If anyone knows about one, please speak up now.
So that is point number one: there is no self-replicating molecule.
2- Even if there were such a thing as a self-replicating molecule (or if folks are willing to accept the fact that there isn’t one so that we can move on to talking about a self-replicating *system*), we then need to determine how that system came about. pwl asserts that such a system (and all subsequent life, but let’s set that aside for now) came about through completely naturalistic processes, and offers two lines of argument: (i) well, we’re here aren’t we?, and (ii) the laws of physics somehow inevitably cause such as system to arise.
The first line of argument is entirely circular, as the very point in question is how the system came about, not whether the system exists. The second line of argument I was hoping pwl would flesh out, but thus far we have received only vague general references to the laws of physics (no specific explanation of which laws cause such-and-such a result), coupled with self-organization theories like Kauffman’s. Some of the self-organization ideas are interesting in their own sphere, but certainly don’t explain the origin of self-replicating biological systems or life. Again, if anyone is under the mis-impression that they do, please tell the folks at the Harvard Origins project right away, as they don’t seem too convinced by the self-organization ideas that are out there.
So here is where we are at:
No evidence that there is such a thing as a self-replicating molecule. No evidence that the laws of physics can bring a self-replicating system or life into being on their own. The only self-replicating systems we can think of are either contained in life itself (the very system the origin of which we are trying to ascertain), or have been carefully designed by intelligent beings, as pwl helpfully pointed us to, after 8 years of painstaking effort.
What anyone wants to make of this based on their own metaphysical leanings is up to them. But this is the state of affairs as it stands, and a mighty interesting state of affairs it is.
Clearly existing life is evidence that self assembly and self replicating molecular systems came into being in Nature from natural processes. If can keep ignoring that evidence all you want but it won’t make it go away Eric Anderson.
The only alternative you have Eric Anderson is the non-scientific magical non-explanation that an invisible alleged god did it and that takes you in to woo woo land. Good luck there.
“No evidence that there is such a thing as a self-replicating molecule. No evidence that the laws of physics can bring a self-replicating system or life into being on their own. The only self-replicating systems we can think of are either contained in life itself (the very system the origin of which we are trying to ascertain), or have been carefully designed by intelligent beings, as pwl helpfully pointed us to, after 8 years of painstaking effort.” – Eric Anderson
Utterly bizarre statement by Eric Anderson. In the first sentence he contradicts and denies the two clear examples of evidence for self replicating molecular systems presented in his second sentence – such clear denial – yes denial – is stunning.
For some bizarre incomprehensible reason Eric Anderson insists that existing life is NOT a viable example of a self replicating molecular system that could only have been (ultimately) created by Nature.
Then of course after finding the second example of another self replicating molecular system that isn’t good enough for Eric Anderson since humans created it. Sigh. Yes, humans created it but there is no reason that Nature could not have in principle and that seems to be the key point of disagreement, whether or not Nature can in principle generate life, well existing life is the hard evidence that yes Nature can not just in principle generate life but has in fact done so at least once.
Eric Anderson seems to be a “gaps” type of non-thinker, just because we don’t have exactly some very narrow example of what he’s looking for (after he excludes the best example of them all, existing life on Earth) he discounts all possibility that life was created by Nature since we don’t have an isolated example of one of the obviously essential steps along the way from primordial soup to existing life self replicating itself.
Yes at the moment we have ONLY ONE example of a self replicating molecular system and YES it is us and other Life on Earth but so what, it’s still evidence that it was done by Nature – Unless you want to go all magical. Hey that’s fine with me, the magical explanation, as long as you provide the hard evidence for it that can be verified. At least with Nature we know it Nature could have done it just based upon the chemistry, physics, simple rules generating maximal complexity, and the other laws of Nature.
Eric Anderson argues like he’s a “creationist” or an “intelligent designer” using “gaps” and excluding actual evidence. Well Eric Anderson there is NO scientific basis for you to exclude existing life on earth as an example of self replicating molecular systems.
I do agree that it would be “better” to have another isolated example of Nature generating such self replicating molecular systems. I’ll look around and see what else I can dig up, but really Nature did it once and that is enough to prove that it happened. Exactly how Nature generated the first life on Earth is an open question but the question of whether or not Nature can generate life is an abounding clear YES Nature Generates Life (whether it originated here on Earth or was seeded here by aliens or via panspermia).
Correction in caps.
Utterly bizarre statement by Eric Anderson. In the first TWO SENTENCES he contradicts and denies the two clear examples of evidence for self replicating molecular systems presented in his THIRD sentence – such clear denial – yes denial – is stunning.
Eric Anderson it doesn’t matter if Nature used a self replicating molecule or a self replicating molecular system (more than one molecule working in conjunction with each other) to accomplish the self replication. Clearly Nature accomplished this feat at least once regardless of the specific means, we are the evidence and wouldn’t be having this conversation otherwise.
To deny that is to admit the supernatural non-scientific non-explanation of a magical alleged god doing it which takes you Eric Anderson into woo woo land. You can go there if you wish but seriously take it to your sunday school please.
pwl says: Clearly existing life is evidence that self assembly and self replicating molecular systems came into being in Nature from natural processes.
No, it’s not. The mere existence of a thing is not evidence that a given cause C caused it, unless there is evidence that C caused other instances of the same kind of thing.
“New Mutants soon appeared and even thrived” is an example of Nature CREATING NEW self replicating molecular systems! They were not created by humans but by Nature!
So there we have the third case of self replicating molecular systems, and the second case of Nature generating self replicating molecular systems on it’s own! Conclusive evidence and proof that Nature can and does produce self replicating molecular systems (aside from the other existing example of Life).
What kind of frogs are you smoking? That’s not good for your mental health dude.
The “mere” existence of life is in fact evidence that life came to be from Natural processes. What else could have done it? Sure aliens could have “designed” us but we’ve covered that possibility since the aliens had to have come into being somehow as living beings so we’re just back to life being generated by Nature. Maybe Earth was seeded by organic materials in the Sol System or from another Star System, no problem as life again came from Nature at some point in time.
Your statement Smoking Frog is nonsense.
Life exists. It had to start somehow. There is no other option other than by Natural causes that doesn’t take you to the kids woo woo play room.
If you know of an alternative please illuminate us with your psychedelic wisdom.
pwl says: The “mere” existence of life is in fact evidence that life came to be from Natural processes. What else could have done it? Sure aliens could have “designed” us but we’ve covered that possibility since the aliens had to have come into being somehow as living beings so we’re just back to life being generated by Nature. Maybe Earth was seeded by organic materials in the Sol System or from another Star System, no problem as life again came from Nature at some point in time.
Your statement Smoking Frog is nonsense.
Life exists. It had to start somehow. There is no other option other than by Natural causes that doesn’t take you to the kids woo woo play room.
If you know of an alternative please illuminate us with your psychedelic wisdom.
No, your argument is nonsense. If nothing but natural processes could be the cause of life’s coming into existence, then life’s coming into existence is not evidence that the cause was natural processes. You’re begging the question, i.e., assuming what you set out to prove.
“Smoking Frog” has nothing to do with psychedelia. It’s the name of a Mayan warlord of the 4th century, or actually it’s what historians called him before they decided that the glyphs for his name really meant “Fire is Born” or “Born of Fire” (maybe they still haven’t decided which).
I understand your point, but it is a questionable one. Consider the opposite of your claim: [there exists] [n]o evidence that the laws of physics can NOT bring a self-replicating system or life into being on their own. Indeed, there is no reason to state that the latter premise is false until you have carefully eliminated all possibilities. This Science is so young that it seems improbable we have done enough work to declare end of the game. Thus it must be considered (at least potentially) true. And because it is the very point that is investigated (ie determining if some particular definition of ’emergence of life’ can be theorized and supported by laboratory experiments), such opposite view of yours is open to scientific investigation, while yours is an epistemological deadlock.
Now, as I said in one of my previous post, the belief in an IDer is completely independent of the research of how “things works”. Nowhere in the Holy Scriptures (or elsewhere) it is written that it is forbidden to find why and how “things works”. Particularly, nowhere it is written that finding what is life and how it appeared is forbidden or discouraged. Indeed, even the greatest scientists and philosophers who believed in God (or some other deity) had spend their own live to find why and how “things works” precisely because, or better, thanks to their belief.
Let’s give the last words to one of this great mind:
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
– Albert Einstein, 1954. From Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press.
It is true, but the very article at the head of this thread points to such (arguably very incomplete) evidence. This first result has been repeated and extended by Miller himself and other workers in the 60’s and 70’s to show that building blocks of RNA, DNA, lipids and sugars can be formed under primitive abiogenic conditions (for a summary, see Ferris, J. P. (1987). Prebiotic synthesis: Problems and challenges. In Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, vol. 52. CoId Spring Harbor Laboratory, CoId Spring Harbor, N.Y.).
The next step, according to Kauffman, is how to “obtain self-reproducing systems of complex organic molecules capable of a metabolism coordinating the flow of small molecules and energy needed for reproduction and also capable of further evolution”. He shows that “any sufficiently complex system of peptide or RNA polymers capable of catalyzing the formation and cleavage of new polymers either from other peptides or RNA polymers or from their monomeric building blocks can be expected to contain self-reproducing subsystems capable of metabolism and evolution”.
So there are (some) experimental evidences about the early beginning of life arising from primitive bricks and a general theory about auto-catalytic polymers (backed by experimental evidences mostly conducted in the 80’s and 90’s). All of this and beyond is extensively discussed by Kauffman.
It is clear that evidences exists, although incomplete.
Or, thousands of years ago, to explain why the days were getting longer again. Back then some NH people would make a human sacrifice in January then proclaim that they had fulfilled their yearly obligation to their Sun god with the obvious proof being that the days would start getting longer again … time to drink blood and party!
I wish people would recognize that that application of the supernatural back then is not much different than what climate alarmists are doing now in that both involve the placement of human activity in the middle of the equation as though what nature/Ra/Sun god is doing MUST have some connection to what we humans are doing. Young virgins or the economy of the free world, something has to be sacrificed at the alter of the false gods or we’re all gonna die. CAGW is therefore no Johnny-come-lately scam and the attendant prospect of death in following the charlatans purveying such conceit is as real today as it was when Stonehenge was built.
But what actually happened when we figured out orbital mechanics? Does explaining it with science preclude the existence of the supernatural? While it appears to disqualify any and all reasons for human sacrifice, it does not disqualify God in any way at all. Science is the study of God’s wonder and infinite knowledge. For every question ever answered by science, one or more questions are always there just waiting to be revealed to us to then ask. There is never any ultimate answer in sight, only more questions.
I have no disdain for those who try to use science to disprove God because they nonetheless generally continue to contribute reasons contrary to such a stance without realizing it. That is.. excepting those who come around to my way of thinking 😉
pwl, I have appreciated the opportunity to debate this very interesting topic and share my thoughts. However, I am disappointed with your continued misrepresentation of what I am saying. Do you understand the difference between a single molecule and an integrated system of molecules? Do you understand that observing that something exists is not the same as explaining how it came to exist? I’m going to try this one last time.
The question of the origin of life is an exceedingly interesting one, with a multitude of open questions. We will not solve the origin of life on this thread, but in an effort to focus the discussion and home in on one of abiogenesis’ primary claims, I asked whether there is indeed such a thing as a self-replicating molecule, which is typically claimed to be the first critical step in an abiogenesis scenario.
Thus far, no-one has been able to point me to a single example of a self-replicating molecule. Indeed, the researchers who were working on enzymes that you yourself cited, are still looking for the elusive beast. I have very clearly stated that a self- replicating *system* exists; that is not the question. The question is whether there is such a thing as a single self-replicating molecule. Either you cannot read or have deliberately chosen to ignore the distinction between a molecule and a system. I am not attempting to solve all origin of life issues all at once. I am taking a very measured approach and asking whether the initial abiogenesis concept of a self-replicating molecule has any legs. If you are willing to acknowledge that no-one knows of a self-replicating molecule and that no-one knows whether there ever was such a thing, then we can mark that small, but critical, point off our list and move onto the next issue, that of formation of a self-replicating system. If you are not able or not willing to see the distinction between a single molecule and an integrated system, then unfortunately, there is little point in proceeding.
Secondly, everyone following this thread, with the possible exception of you, can clearly see that “explaining” how life came to exist by pointing out that life exists is a circular argument that is logically invalid. Unless you are willing to acknowledge that the existence of life does not explain how life came about, then there is no point in proceeding.
I understand that you have a deep philosophical commitment to a naturalistic origins scenario. However, please take some time to think about these things outside of this thread. If you get to the point where you are willing to acknowledge that: (i) the existence of life does not explain its origin, and (ii) no-one knows whether there ever was a self-replicating molecule, then we will have made some progress and I would be happy to continue the discussion to address more challenging issues. However, if your philosophical commitment prevents you from even taking these initial obvious logical steps, then our time is probably better served elsewhere.
pwl says:
March 24, 2011 at 9:14 pm
Dude, you are so deep in your cocoon, you are barely coherent. An example: You claim to prove that an omnipresent creator cannot exist. I explain how your model of reality may be incomplete (read the words, no doubt for the first time):
You fire back that ‘there isn’t any hard verifiable evidence yet for any “hyperdimensional universes”, just hypotheses.’ But, this in no way contradicts what I stated. I merely falsified your claim that the “well known laws of physics actually prevent the alleged god(s) from existing”. You, yourself, effectively conceded that those laws may be not be complete, though the evidence, according to you, is currently lacking (in fact, we know perfectly well that those “laws” are incomplete, because they do not mesh even within the local realm of our observational space). You were wrong. You “proved” nothing. Deal with it.
You then go into these tirades which are effectively the underpants gnomes belaboring phase I of their plan, additionally spouting utter nonsense and circular reasoning (which others have called you on). You do not recognize the glaring gaps in your logic, and insist on making conclusions based on fragmentary evidence correlated in your own mind by your assumed narrative (in precisely the same way religious fanatics reason out their philosophy). This marks you as irrational. This marks you as the (ir)religious fanatic that you are.
I am not particularly religious. I mean, F*** God. If there is one, I’ve a few bones to pick with him, anyway. I merely refrain from making conclusions where evidence is lacking, and suspend my judgment until I can learn more. You choose another path. Fine. But I have no more time for your dumb rants. As you grow older, and learn the answers were not so simple as you thought, perhaps you will gain a more balanced perspective.
pwl,
Why are you so emotionally invested in proving to others that only “natural” processes could have come up with life? That may well be the case, but study some more physics and you start to think about where everything came from, and the incredible coincedence of why it all works so perfectly for the existence of anything at all, let alone living organisms. The more some of us learn about science and “nature’s rules” the more we believe in a God who made the rules that may well allow for naturally occuring life. Why is an eternal God any less believable than an eternal universe or a spontaneous one for that matter?
Isn’t ID/Creation discussion off limits on the blog?
This thread illustrates the reason for such a policy.
Guess we need to be reminded why occasionally.
Yuck.
tmtisfree says:
[Smoking Frog] The mere existence of a thing is not evidence that a given cause C caused it, unless there is evidence that C caused other instances of the same kind of thing.
[tmtisfree] It is true, but the very article at the head of this thread points to such (arguably very incomplete) evidence. …
Yes, but that’s not the claim I was addressing. I was addressing pwl’s claim that the mere existence of life is evidence that natural causes are the cause of life’s coming into existence. That’s just bad reasoning.
Jim G says:
Why is an eternal God any less believable than an eternal universe or a spontaneous one for that matter?
The usual answer is that God, to be a person and intelligent, must be complex, but complex things come later rather than earlier.
Smoking Frog says:
March 26, 2011 at 1:46 am
Jim G says:
Why is an eternal God any less believable than an eternal universe or a spontaneous one for that matter?
“The usual answer is that God, to be a person and intelligent, must be complex, but complex things come later rather than earlier.”
Whoever said that a god needs to be a “person” or even “complex” for that matter. Einstein believed that fundamental answers to complex questions would be simple like his E=MC2 that’s one reason why he did not like the uncertainty principle and said , “God does not play dice”. And here was a guy who even when he was wrong turned out to be right! ( See the cosmological constant.)
Smoking Frog says:
March 26, 2011 at 1:46 am
“The usual answer is that God, to be a person and intelligent, must be complex, but complex things come later rather than earlier.”
What is “later”? What is “earlier”? Could beings exist like on Tralfamadore, who see time as just another dimension like any other?
Perhaps our perceived four dimensional universe is compact, and all roads eventually lead back to where you started. Who knows? We are limited in our perceptions, and have only begun to comprehend the smallest part of what the universe is.
One last comment I would like to leave on this board. We may, one day, fully understand the questions regarding How. We may say, “here is how life began, here is how it evolved.” We may even succeed in starting the process ourselves on new worlds. But, will we ever answer the question of Why? Why do these molecules with such extraordinary properties of clinging together and self-organizing even exist? Was it the effects of an improbability field?
Did a conscious entity create them for some purpose? What is the point? Is there a point? Diversion from the unbounded tedium of immortality and omniscience? How can you write a God or gods out of the picture entirely when you don’t know Why?
42
Dave – 😀