Posted on 06/06/2013 12:16:27 PM PDT by kimtom
Maybe on land, but not necessarily in the ocean.
When Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species 150 years ago, he deliberately avoided the subject of the origin of life. This, coupled with the mention of the ‘Creator’ in the last paragraph of the book, led us to believe he was not willing to commit on the matter. An international team, led by Juli Peretó of the Cavanilles Institute in Valencia, now refutes that idea and shows that the British naturalist did explain in other documents how our first ancestors could have come into being.
“All organic beings that have lived on Earth could be descended from some primordial form”, explained Darwin in The Origin of Species in 1859. Despite this statement, the scientist took it upon himself to understand the evolutional processes underlying biodiversity.
“Darwin was convinced of the incredible importance of this issue for his theory and he had an amazingly modern materialist and evolutional vision about the transition of inanimate chemical matter into living matter, despite being very aware of Pasteur’s experiments in opposition to spontaneous generation”, Juli Peretó, principal author of this study and researcher at the Cavanilles Institute of Evolutional Biology and Biodiversity at the University of Valencia, explains to SINC.
The study, which is published in the latest issue of the journal Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres, demonstrates that Darwin had an advanced idea on the origin of the first species, and was troubled by the problem. “It is utterly wrong to think that he was invoking a divine intervention; it is also well documented that the mention of the ‘Creator’ in The Origin of the Species was an addition for appearance’s sake that he later regretted”, affirms Peretó.
According to the researchers, all Darwin’s opinions on the origin of life can be found in his private correspondence and in his notebooks. The exception is a review of a book on foraminiferous microorganisms published in 1863 in the London social club Athenaeum, where Darwin “lets his opinion on the spontaneous generation be known”.
The international team, comprising Spanish, US and Mexican scientists, has not only examined in detail the phrases, texts and paragraphs of the letters, but has also put into context all Darwin’s opinions on the origins of life, available online and in the original manuscripts.
The origin of life hypothesis
A comment in a notebook dating back to 1837, in which Darwin explains that “the intimate relationship between the vital phenomena with chemistry and its laws makes the idea of spontaneous generation conceivable”, gave the researchers their clue.
In another famous letter sent in 1871 to his friend, the English botanist and explorer Joseph D. Hooker, Charles Darwin imagines a small, warm pool where the inanimate matter would arrange itself into evolutionary matter, aided by chemical components and sufficient sources of energy.
In other letters, the naturalist admitted to colleagues such as Alfred Russel Wallace or Ernst Haeckel that spontaneous generation was important to the coherence of the theory. However, “at the same time, he acknowledged that science was not advanced enough to deal with the question (hence his reluctance to speak of it in public) and that he would not live to see it resolved”, Peretó points out.
More information: Pereto, Juli; Bada, Jeffrey L.; Lazcano, Antonio. “Charles Darwin and the Origin of Life” Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres 39(5): 395-406 Oct 2009.
Source: FECYT - Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology
Read more at: http://phys.org/news175861437.html#jCp
Paleo-geology is a best guess, we shall never know....
Thanks for the research which clearly points out that Darwin was unwilling to claim anything regarding the origin of life. He may have discussed various conjectures and may have considered how various explanations would impact other ideas but that’s just ruminations. His scholarly publications do not take a position and Miller should have know such a basic fact.
“another famous letter sent in 1871 to his friend, the English botanist and explorer Joseph D. Hooker, Charles Darwin imagines a small, warm pool where the inanimate matter would arrange itself into evolutionary matter, aided by chemical components and sufficient sources of energy...”
this sounds like abiogenesis to me.
But that could be conjecture.
Darwin, has become the icon for evolutionary thought whether he wanted that distinction or not.
You have been repeatedly NONRESPONSIVE and MISDIRECTION.
Everything I posted is relevant to the topic.
It’s pretty straightforward. If you have iron and oxygen, in such a state that they can react, they will react. That iron oxide occurs in the geological record in a thick layer around the world, is a great indicator that the two were combining, and continued to combine, in an uninterrupted manner for a very long time.
Importantly, the rarest elements in the crust are not the heaviest, but those most inclined to combine with iron, which mostly happened early in Earth’s history, because once combined with iron, they sank deep into the mantle. Once the crust had cooled, this could no longer happen. So this meant that oxygen had to come about after the crust had cooled.
And the fastest way to generate vast amounts of free oxygen is with anaerobic microorganisms. Free oxygen meeting atmospheric iron then precipitates, stripping the iron from the atmosphere. Then the anaerobic microorganisms continue to produce oxygen until they pollute the atmosphere with so much of this waste that they die off and are replaced with microorganisms that can live in an oxygen rich environment.
“..If you’re singling out just one theory to apply special treatment to, then you do not have any arguable claim of objectivity.
..”
I disagree.
Thanks!
“..And the fastest way to generate vast amounts of free oxygen is with anaerobic microorganisms. ...”
how did the organism get there???
You can do that.
It's a one-way ticket on the short bus to \dev\null, but you can do it.
“That’s not true, according to the scientific evidence. While the individual asserting this is a mechanical and biomechanical engineer, his expertise is not in genetics or biology..”
Not once have scientists ever observed it happening—but almost all of them hold fast to the concept that nonliving material gave rise to living material. If their cherished evolutionary theory is correct, then spontaneous generation must have occurred at some point in the distant past. George Wald, Nobel Laureate of Harvard University, once stated: “Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation” (see Bowen, 1979, pp. 287-306, emp. added). As such, our classrooms and textbooks still contain the false idea that scientists have created life.
The most famous example is the 1953 experiment carried out by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey. Using a system of glass flasks, Miller and Urey attempted to simulate “early atmospheric conditions.” They passed an electrical spark through a mixture of water, ammonia, methane, and hydrogen. However, their experiment was carried out in the absence of oxygen (something evolutionists now admit does not reflect the early Earth’s atmosphere), because they knew that oxygen quickly would oxidize any amino acids that were formed. At the bottom of the apparatus was a trap to capture any molecules produced by the reaction. This trap prevented the newly formed chemicals from being destroyed by the next electrical discharge. On the first attempt, after a week of electrical discharges in the reaction chamber the sides of the chamber turned black and the liquid mixture turned a cloudy red. The predominant product was a sticky, black substance made up of countless carbon atoms strung together in what was essentially tar (a common nuisance in organic reactions). Miller was able to produce a mixture containing two simple amino acids—the building blocks of proteins. Yet the highly praised Miller-Urey experiment did not produce any of the fundamental building blocks of life itself. It produced 85% tar, 13% carbolic acid, 1.05% glycine, 0.85% alanine, and trace amounts of other chemicals.
One article on this subject in the respected Encyclopaedia Britannica affirmed that modern findings “pose grave difficulties” for spontaneous generation theories once supported by the Miller-Urey experiment. The article went on to state: “…due to a rapid and efficient photochemical consumption of CH4 and NH3, a methane-ammonia atmosphere would have a maximum lifetime of about 1,000,000 years. This finding is of interest because it has been suggested that life originated from mixtures of organic compounds synthesized by non-biological reactions starting from methane and ammonia. Recognition of the short atmospheric lifetimes of these materials poses grave difficulties for such a theory” (see Encyclopaedia Britannica). Many scientists now believe that the Earth’s early atmosphere would have made the synthesis of organic molecules virtually impossible under conditions simulated in the Miller-Urey experiment. For example, NASA has reported that a “reducing atmosphere” never has existed, although the experiment assume one (Levine, 1983). Scientists also now realize that the ultraviolet radiation from sunlight is destructive to any developing life. Regarding the products of the Miller-Urey experiment, evolutionist Robert Shapiro stated: “Let us sum up. The experiment performed by Miller yielded tar as its most abundant product. There are about fifty small organic compounds that are called ‘building blocks.’ Only two of these fifty occurred among the preferential Miller-Urey products” (1986, p. 105).
However, more recent discoveries once again have evolutionists clamoring that life has been “created.” In the June 16, 2000 issue of Science, Gerard Wong and colleagues reported a mechanism by which chemicals can spontaneously self-assemble themselves into ribbon-like tubules that resemble bacterial cell walls (288: 2035). This discovery has led some to suggest that “artificial bacteria” were created—when, in fact, they were not! The researchers simply mixed actin with special liposomes to make actin-membrane capsules, which is a gargantuan step from “creating life.” Actin is a protein that provides the structural framework for cells. The actin molecule does not possess DNA, it does not actively metabolize, and it does not reproduce. It is therefore a far cry from being “living.” Spontaneous organization does not equal spontaneous generation. So while this composite membrane is indeed similar to the plasma membrane that surrounds most cells—due to the fact that it can organize itself into three different layers, including a middle lipid layer—it has none of the qualities scientists use to identify life.
In a similar study, Jeffrey Hartgerink and colleagues reported that they had made self-assembling synthetic bone (2001). Using pH-induced self-assembly, these scientists have been able to form a composite that may one day be able to replace diseased bone tissue. These synthetic molecules assemble into fibers that “coax” minerals into growing on top of them—bringing us closer to better prosthetic devices. News services were quick to describe this discovery as “man-made bone.” However, even if scientists were able to manufacture bone tissue, that in and of itself is not “life.” A bone lying on a stainless steel table is of little use in the quest to form living material from nonliving material. Artificial bone is not able to reproduce itself, and without a blood supply it quickly dies. A close inspection of the report reveals that the bonds within this fibrous matrix can be reversed (by reducing the disulfides back into thiols). Does this sound like any living tissue with which you are familiar? The fact is, life always comes from life—a fact that nails the lid shut on the coffin in which evolutionary theory rests.
- Brad Harrub, Ph.D.
REFERENCES
Bowen, M.E., and J.A. Mazzeo (1979), Writing About Science (New York: Oxford).
Encyclopaedia Britannica “Atmosphere: Photochemical Reactions” [On-line] URL: http://members.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=118221&sctn=9.
Hartgerink, Jeffrey D., Elia Beniash, and Samuel I. Stupp (2001), “Self-Assembly and Mineralization of Peptide-Amphiphile Nanofibers,” Science, 294:1684-1688, November 23.
Levine, J. (1983), “New Ideas About the Early Atmosphere,” NASA Special Report, No. 225, Langley Research Center, August 11.
Shapiro, Robert (1986), Origins—A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth (New York: Summit).
Wong, Gerard C.L., Jay Tang, Alison Lin, Youli Li, Paul Janmey, and Cyrus Safinya (2000), “Hierarchical Self-assembly of F-Actin and Cationic Lipid Complexes: Stacked, Three-Layer Tubule Networks,” Science, 288:2035-2039, June 16.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/god.html
“It’s a one-way ticket on the short bus to \dev\null, but you can do it...”
Ha! you made my day!!
Thanks!!
Have a good day, and a good weekend!
Heck, have a good life while you're at it :).
I don’t argue against evolution per se or Darwinian evolution as it is quaintly and correctly defined, but the term Darwinism now covers far more than the Beagleman wrote about or probably envisioned. It connotes government science now and all that implies.
Well, IMO the scientific consensus on Darwinism vastly overstates what the theory is capable of addressing.
It can provide zero insight on how life got started and even less on how the universe came into existence.
But I think it is a very useful tool where it can be used.
Interestingly, I think there are considerable indications in the Bible of dimensions not accessible to our senses.
What else is the spirit world but a dimension we cannot see? And angels and demons (and possibly other critters) the inhabitants of those dimensions?
Is it possible that the propensity of evil spirits to be “connected” to particular people or items may be because they have spotty ability to connect with our dimensions directly and need a “connection” to have effect here?
Wild speculation, I know, but I think at least the other dimensions and spirit world bit makes some sense.
Simultaneously God seems to find us rather hard of hearing ~
Com links may be few and far between, with no duplex possible.
He was a scientist. He had to be free to investigate ideas and bounce them off other scientists and people he respected. Scientists are responsible for what they publish or make plain in public pronouncements. To search his letters for evidence of conjecture is not to fully understand the process and/or the nature of scientific inquiry. Miller looks even worse for this inability to understand the basics of the process.
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.