The_Evelyonian
Old-School Member
Danmac, this thread is for you. Now we can discuss Abiogenesis to your heart's content.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
For Danmac - Abiogenesis
- Thread starter The_Evelyonian
- Start date
The_Evelyonian
Old-School Member
Maybe you're right.
Hopefully that's better
Hopefully that's better
DarkSun
:eltiT
DeitySlayer
President of Chindia
Five quid says he sidetracks this into a discussion on atheism.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
I doubt it.This should be a good discussion.
Especially if Danmac actually has the nerve to show up here.
I bet he knows even less about abiogenesis than he does about evolution.
And that is saying something.
The_Evelyonian
Old-School Member
I'm betting that he doesn't show, but I could be wrong
JustWondering2
Just the facts Ma'am
I agree! You guys beat him down pretty badly! But he deserved it.
Runlikethewind
Monk in Training
Not to jump into the middle of your debate here but since this is about abiogenesis I thought I would ask. I remember learning about an experiment that was conducted to test the effects of impact events on the formation of complex molecules (impacts from asteroids comets etc). From what I remember, this experiment showed that taking simple amino acids (which have been shown to form from other natural processes, primordial soup + electrical storms) and subjecting them to a high-energy impact that more complex proteins were formed. So as the theory goes the massive energy released by an impact from space would have been a vital step in the abiogenesis of complex chemicals needed for the first living cells to emerge.
Now this is a great experiment but for the life of me I cannot remember who conducted it or where (I think it may have been a university in California). I have scoured the internet and my notes from the class I learned of it it in and have been unable to find anything about this experiment. If anyone knows anything more about this experiment please help me out here. If true, this is an important experiment in explaining the natural origin of life on earth.
Now this is a great experiment but for the life of me I cannot remember who conducted it or where (I think it may have been a university in California). I have scoured the internet and my notes from the class I learned of it it in and have been unable to find anything about this experiment. If anyone knows anything more about this experiment please help me out here. If true, this is an important experiment in explaining the natural origin of life on earth.
JustWondering2
Just the facts Ma'am
MillerâUrey experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is this the experiment you were looking for? Even if not, it's an interesting read.
Runlikethewind
Monk in Training
No that isn't the experiment I'm referring to. These types of experiments tend to only produce very simple chemical compounds. The one I am talking about would have taken the chemicals resulting from these experiments and subject them to a high-energy impact event to produce even more complex chemicals, getting us one step closer to life.
Danmac
Well-Known Member
Whenever scientists interfere with natural processes they are conducting intelligent design.
Not if there trying to produce similar atmospheres to early earth.
Danmac
Well-Known Member
This process would not have worked without the aid of Miller/Urey. Therefore it is intelligent design and not natural processes.
And again. When you're trying to create an atmosphere that has similarities to the early earth, than no.
Gunfingers
Happiness Incarnate
They were simulating a circumstance that did occur naturally.
Commoner
Headache
Put down the creationist handbook just for a second and think about what you're saying. Trying to recreate the conditions that would have been present at the time the molecules were being formed is not interfering with any natural process.
If it is, then there is no experiment that could ever be conducted to test any hypothesis. I thought you said you agreed with the scientific method, or am I mistaken?
Danmac
Well-Known Member
The organic molecules he produced were not the organic molecules necessary for life, and they weren't produced in an environment that simulated the primitive Earth's atmosphere,.
Forgive me for such a long cut and paste, but it explains why your statement is incorrect. I will include the link at the bottom.
There is much more to life than just some amino acids and proteins. For life to begin, all the chemicals have to have a method of reproducing themselves, and passing along genetic information to the offspring. Modern living things use deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) to do this. But DNA is a much too complex molecule for it to have originated in the first living cell, and the biologic processes needed to decode it are much too complicated, too. Therefore, evolutionists have been looking for a simpler molecule than DNA that might have the required properties. One such candidate is ribonucleic acid (RNA), which spawned the RNA world hypothesis. But Dr. Miller wisely observed,
Numerous problems exist with the current thinking of RNA as the first genetic material. No plausible prebiotic processes have yet been demonstrated to produce the nucleosides or nucleotides or for efficient two-way nonenzymatic replication. 4
The discovery of the catalytic activity of RNA brought the concept of an RNA world into wide acceptance. However, the instability of ribose and other sugars, the great difficulty of prebiotic synthesis of the glycosidic bonds of the necessary nucleotides, and the inability to achieve two-way non-enzymatic template polymerizations have raised serious questions about whether RNA could have been the first genetic material, although there are dissenting opinions. 5
Dr. Miller recognized that the RNA world hypothesis was a non-starter. So, he was looking for another way. In his final paper he said,
One proposal offers peptide nucleic acids (PNA) as a possible precursor to RNA because PNA binds DNA and forms double and triple helical structures that are related to the Watson-Crick helix. 6
Peptide nucleic acid (PNA) is a promising precursor to RNA, consisting of N-(2-aminoethyl)glycine (AEG) and the adenine, uracil, guanine, and cytosine-N-acetic acids. However, PNA has not yet been demonstrated to be prebiotic. We show here that AEG is produced directly in electric discharge reactions from CH4, N2, NH3, and H2O. Preliminary experiments suggest that AEG may polymerize rapidly at 100oC to give the polypeptide backbone of PNA. The ease of synthesis of the components of PNA and possibility of polymerization of AEG reinforce the possibility that PNA may have been the first genetic material. 7
He admits that, PNA has not yet been demonstrated to be prebiotic. In other words, there is no evidence that PNA existed before life began. But, for PNA to exist, AEG (and adenine, uracil, guanine, and cytosine) would have had to exist. He was looking for a way to produce AEG naturally as a stepping stone to PNA.
In his 1953 experiment, he used an atmosphere consisting of methane, hydrogen, ammonia, and water vapor. In his last reported experiment he substituted nitrogen for hydrogen. Thats reasonable because todays atmosphere is 79% nitrogen and 0% hydrogen. If the present really is the key to the past, then it is reasonable to assume life began with nitrogen in the atmosphere (and water vapor, too). But the only place you are likely to find methane and ammonia in the air today is near a diaper pail.
Notice, too, that his simulated atmosphere is still oxygen-free. All origin of life experiments use oxygen-free atmospheres. That, of course, is because oxygen would immediately break down any AEG his experiment produced. The only reason for believing the Earth ever had an oxygen-free environment is because organic compounds could not possibly have originated naturally in the presence of oxygen.
His last experiment showed that a spark in an atmosphere radically different that Earths present atmosphere could produce AEG at 100o C (the boiling point of water). He concludes that if AEG existed, it might possibly have helped in the natural formation of PNA, which might somehow have acted sort of like RNA in some sort of unknown replication process. But let us not unfairly put words in his mouth. Here is the concluding paragraph of his last published paper.
Polymerizability and Suitability as the First Genetic Material. The above results show that the components of PNA are likely prebiotic compounds and, under favorable conditions, could be major constituents of the primitive milieu. Still to be worked out are the prebiotic syntheses of the monomers and mechanisms for their polymerization, but prebiotic polymerizations are imposing problems for any potential early genetic system. Our preliminary experiments indicate that AEG polymerizes readily at 100oC to give AEG oligomers and does so much more efficiently than mixtures of -amino acids at higher temperatures. Although PNA also has stability problems of its own, they are highly sequence-dependent and may be alleviated by blocking or acetylating the N terminus. There is also the more difficult problem of PNA replication, which may be complicated by cyclization of the monomers. Nevertheless, this demonstration that the PNA components are prebiotic suggests the possibility that PNA or similar molecules may have been the first genetic material. However, other possibilities need to be considered because there may be other backbones and bases that were more abundant and more efficient for prebiotic replication. 8 Just in case you didnt follow all that, he found a way to produce AEG which might have allowed PNA to form through a process that is still to be worked out in spite of imposing problems for any potential early genetic system. But, if it did form naturally it might have disintegrated before it had a chance to replicate because PNA also has stability problems of its own. And then, there is also the more difficult problem of PNA replication.
So, after all that work, Dr. Miller never found what legend says he didthe building blocks of life. Some might say he wasted his whole life on a wild goose chase, but we would disagree. We say that if there had been a wild goose, Dr. Miller would have caught it. He left behind a wonderful legacy of research showing the insurmountable difficulties that prevent life from arising naturally.
Hopefully, years from now, history will correct the errors of the careless popular press. Dr. Miller should not be celebrated for being the first to demonstrate that the organic molecules necessary for life could be generated in a laboratory flask simulating the primitive Earth's atmosphere. He should be celebrated for being the one who most conclusively showed that the organic molecules necessary for life could not have been generated in the primitive Earth's atmosphere through his exhaustive research down every blind alley.
Stanley Millers Final Word
Runlikethewind
Monk in Training
Yes!! That is exactly what I was referring to. I must not have used the right keywords in my search...
The point of both these experiments is not to prove how life did emerge but to show that it is possible to start with simply molecules and produce more complex ones through purely natural processes. It is possible that the introduction of electricity through electrical storms could lead to the emergence of more complex molecules. It is possible that the energy released by an asteroid impact could cause chemical reactions leading to the emergence of more complex molecules. It is a work in progress and it doesn't prove anything, yet. But it does support the idea that natural processes may have been sufficient for the emergence of life without God's direct intervention.