Posted on 02/28/2011 1:23:34 PM PST by Abathar
Exactly 20 years ago, I wrote an article for Scientific American that, in draft form, had the headline above. My editor nixed it, so we went with something less dramatic: "In the Beginning…: Scientists are having a hard time agreeing on when, where and—most important—how life first emerged on the earth." That editor is gone now, so I get to use my old headline, which is even more apt today.
Dennis Overbye just wrote a status report for The New York Times on research into life's origin, based on a conference on the topic at Arizona State University. Geologists, chemists, astronomers and biologists are as stumped as ever by the riddle of life.
After its formation 4.5 billion years ago, Earth was bombarded for millions of years by huge meteorites, which would have wiped out any fledgling organisms. Researchers have found evidence of microbial life dating back 3.5 billion years ago, suggesting that life emerged fairly quickly—"like Athena springing from the head of Zeus," as one scientist quoted by Overbye put it. But how exactly did chemistry first make the transition to biology?
As recently as the middle of the 20th century, many scientists thought that the first organisms were made of self-replicating proteins. After Francis Crick and James Watson showed that DNA is the basis for genetic transmission in the 1950s, many researchers began to favor nucleic acids over proteins as the ur-molecules. But there was a major hitch in this scenario. DNA can make neither proteins nor copies of itself without the help of catalytic proteins called enzymes. This fact turned the origin of life into a classic chicken-or-egg puzzle: Which came first, proteins or DNA?
RNA, DNA's helpmate, remains the most popular answer to this conundrum, just as it was when I wrote "In the Beginning…" Certain forms of RNA can act as their own enzymes, snipping themselves in two and splicing themselves back together again. If RNA could act as an enzyme, then it might be able to replicate itself without help from proteins. RNA could serve as gene and catalyst, egg and chicken.
But the "RNA-world" hypothesis remains problematic. RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize under the best of circumstances, in a laboratory, let alone under plausible prebiotic conditions. Once RNA is synthesized, it can make new copies of itself only with a great deal of chemical coaxing from the scientist. Overbye notes that "even if RNA did appear naturally, the odds that it would happen in the right sequence to drive Darwinian evolution seem small."
The RNA world is so dissatisfying that some frustrated scientists are resorting to much more far out—literally—speculation. The most startling revelation in Overbye's article is that scientists have resuscitated a proposal once floated by Crick. Dissatisfied with conventional theories of life's beginning, Crick conjectured that aliens came to Earth in a spaceship and planted the seeds of life here billions of years ago. This notion is called directed panspermia. In less dramatic versions of panspermia, microbes arrived on our planet via asteroids, comets or meteorites, or drifted down like confetti.
One enormous change in the past two decades in the quest to understand our origins—which Overbye also reported on recently—is that astronomers have identified more than 1,000 possible planets orbiting other stars. Some seem to be in the "Goldilocks" zone, neither too far nor too close to their respective stars for life as we know it to prosper. Perhaps we are descended from life that emerged on one of those planets.
Of course, panspermia theories merely push the problem of life's origin into outer space. If life didn’t begin here, how did it begin out there? Creationists are no doubt thrilled that origin-of-life research has reached such an impasse (see for example the screed "Darwinism Refuted," which cites my 1991 article), but they shouldn't be. Their explanations suffer from the same flaw: What created the divine Creator? And at least scientists are making an honest effort to solve life's mystery instead of blaming it all on God.
The argument for either or is specious at best. Creationism and adaptation are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
I’ve know this since I was maybe 10 years old................
I don’t believe creationists are trying to destroy science.
I don’t believe life science is trying to destroy faith.
The more I learn about God’s natural world the more in awe I am in his creative power. Science is the tool that helps us appreciate what He reveals about Himself to us through His creation.
I call for a cease fire and good will on both sides. I don’t even see the basis for sides.
Non-theistic evolution says that biological material is self-organizing. This has not been the results of experiments (Miller-Urey "filtered" the results and is not valid). There isn't a naturalistic explanation for life if the material is not self-organizing.
If biological material is not self-organizing, who put the information into life? The believer says, "God", the creator of the universe.
Scientists who want to discount God don't have another answer, which is why the panspermia hypothesis has become popular. But that just pushes the origin of life question back by one planet: if someone seeded Earth, where did that someone come from?
“Billions and billions of years ago, in billions and billions of galaxies, billions and billions of mutations...OK...yes, I am pulling this out of my behind because I prayed once and Susie Smith went out with Billy instead of me. I’ll teach God!”
Life began on Saturday night.
Ad hominem is par for the course for evolutionists.
Unless, of course, it’s due to ignorance rather than logical bankruptcy.
Actually, I think a majority of the issue isn’t a scientific one. I believe it is ideology - socialist ideology that drives the controversy.
> when you ask about the origin of God.
A being that exists outside of time, who in fact created time-space, cannot, by definition, have an origin.
Excellent. I have always regarded science as the profession that tries to understand what God has set in motion. One of these groups shows arrogance and bad scientific practice in proclaiming they know it all, the other group refuses to acknowledge evidence and have no business discussing science.
GOD AND THE ASTRONOMERS by Robert Jastrow (for one)
The arguments I’ve been in are along the lines of
“how can you accept adaptation without accepting evolution!”
(Logic fallacy of equivocation)
What's the latest on Pluto? Is it is or is it not a planet.
Only one answer to this question.
Arrogance.
Gerald Schroeder has some interesting thoughts on this topic. I’ve purchased a few of his books.
I believe they came up with a whole new category and name for it, to appease the upset people for them dropping it.
Kind of hilarious, when they had the vote on whether it was or wasn’t a planet there were some really heated arguments going on.
Yeah, and PCs are better than Macs!
I’m surprised they published this. Sci Am went moonbat years ago.
Hehehe, fastest way to hijack a thread known to man... :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.