On the Origin of Life on Earth

Science ^ | January 8, 2009 | Carl Zimmer

[js1138]

An Amazon of words flowed from Charles Darwin's pen. His books covered the gamut from barnacles to orchids, from geology to domestication. At the same time, he filled notebooks with his ruminations and scribbled thousands of letters packed with observations and speculations on nature. Yet Darwin dedicated only a few words of his great verbal flood to one of the biggest questions in all of biology: how life began.

[Coyoteman]

...yes theories are guessing or making things up. But some guesses are better than others...

Sorry, your conception of a scientific theory is incorrect. That may be the way a layman uses the term, but in science a theory is very much more formal. Here are some definitions that may help:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.

There are more definitions on my FR home page.

[chuck_the_tv_out]

DNA is a digital self-correcting code. It absolutely cannot be made by chance.

Creation TV

[Islander7]

The universe, as we understand it, is roughly 4 times older than earth. I would wager that if we ever do detect life beyond our solar system it will be based on carbon and have DNA in its genes. The basic building blocks of life on earth are found through out the universe. It seems logical that given time, a suitable environment and abundant water, life similar to earth based organisms would arise with most of the same characteristics.

Having said that, I firmly believe there is a God, as we understand the concept. Darwin described evolution and we have witnessed it in motion in our lifetimes with the rise of drug resistant microbes. Adaption and survival of certain pathogens in the face of poisons is clearly an evolutionary process.

However, Darwin’s theory does nothing to explain the rise of man. Survival of the fittest works well in a natural setting, but it does no explain the fierce intelligence of the human specie. In fact, we humans are a good argument against Darwin while the remainder of life forms clearly support his thesis.

There are no evolutionary forces driving the development of such a high degree of human intelligence to develop space flight or a thousand other sources of knowledge and wonder.

We are an enigma. I have faith those mysteries will be revealed one day, in this life or the next.

Just MHO.

[Dr. Thorne]

My friend, it takes the greatest faith to be an atheist. Atheists' faith is so intense that they are blinded to truth, even the most basic. You see, their faith is grounded in their own wisdom and, thus, is as irremediably flawed as their wisdom.

Those who worship themselves have a fool for a god.

[SampleMan]

The greatest biologist of all time died. After which, he was surprised to find himself outside of Heaven's gate.

Cautiously he approached the gate and demanded to be let in. God then appeared on the other side and asked the man why he should be let in. Without hesitation the man stated that he was not unlike God.

God reached down picked up a handful of dirt, breathed into his hand and sat down a fig tree. The scientist not being deterred stated that it was a good trick, but with the proper lab, he too could create life. With this God presented the scientist with the most impressive laboratory ever assembled and stated, “If you can create life from dirt, I will allow you to enter into Heaven.”

The scientist smiled smugly and reached down for a handful of dirt, but there wasn't any. Looking at the perplexed man before Him, God said, “I'm sorry, but you'll have to get your own dirt.”

[sickoflibs]

OK, you got me, I was simplying it. Yes, a true scientific theory needs to be testable. But as creationists will point out, you really can’t test historical science theories directly, you cant prove something happened directly. Then, you know their argument.....

You definitely can’t test the random origins of life theories.

I knwo I am going to regret posting on this thread LOL. Friday afternoon.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Darwinists tell us that all living things are descended from one common ancestor. Therefore whatever caused the creation of the first living thing either happened only once, or if it happened more than once, only one of the first living creatures managed to spawn all life as we know it. Darwinists avoid the question of origins because they have no evidence that all species are descended from a common ancestor. If whatever caused the creation of life happened more than once, then all life may not be descended from one common ancestor. Darwinists don't look for the origins of life because if they found them, then it would probably blow their whole theory of evolution away.

[Sopater]

Without competition for limited resources, the self-replicator would quickly propagate throughout the entire ocean until it ran out of primordial fluid to consume...

You'd think someone should be able to find one of these bad-boys laying around somewhere...

[Sopater]

Not sure if origins fit in ID or not.

As long as the original is irreducibly complex, I would imagine that it does.

[NicknamedBob]

"The only way we will know how life or the universe started is to invent a time machine."

Maybe somebody did, or will, and then accidentally sneezed.

[js1138]

Darwinists don't look for the origins of life because if they found them, then it would probably blow their whole theory of evolution away.

[js1138]

Bad HTML. Left out my response.

Darwinists don't look for the origins of life because if they found them, then it would probably blow their whole theory of evolution away.

That explains why there is so much new research on the origin of life. Everyone is afraid of the answer.

[mtg]

At least the article was honest enough to concede that the conditions in the Miller-Urey simulation were not an accurate representation of the early earth environment.

What always astonished me about the Miller experiment is the idea of simulating lightning (which produces millions and millions and millions of volts of electricity in just one or two seconds) by applying a small amount of continuous voltage over a period of five days.

[NicknamedBob]

P(X) = f(V,t,C0,W)

where

X := an event variable marking the rise of a self-replicating organic system
V := a volume of primordial fluid
t := a time duration
C0 := a set describing the initial (abiotic) composition of the primordial fluid
W := a function describing the influx of energy into the volume 
(for example, describing energy input by sunlight over a day/night cycle, 
or describing the intermittent massive energy in a lightning discharge, etc.)

Nothing in this is inherently calculable, but some reasonably accurate estimates can be made.

The volume, time duration, and mix of substances can be established within workable parameters, as can the available energy.

What can't be known is the probability of this primordial soup producing something. However, if one assumes that probability to be non-zero, then the end result will be life, no matter how long it takes.

I would suspect that something similar to punctuated equilibrium could have been happening on primordial Earth. That some chemical combinations might have originated, and accumulated, that under more normal circumstances could not.

Then when the circumstances changed again, those ready materials may have been the feedstock for more intricate reactions.

It is, of course, unimaginable that lifeless chemicals could have assembled themselves into a self-replicating thing. But our failure of imagination can be assuaged by that concept of a non-zero probability.

A lot of evolution had to occur on Earth before any of the first animals could arrive. Just the building of an oxygen rich atmosphere took not only time, but some pretty interesting footwork among the earliest single cell organisms as well.

If Adam had been plunked down on Earth before those innumerable entities had done their work, he would have had nothing to breathe.

But once those single cells learned how to trap and utilize sunlight to get its energy, life in general was off to the races.

[NicknamedBob]

"What always astonished me about the Miller experiment is the idea of simulating lightning (which produces millions and millions and millions of volts of electricity in just one or two seconds) by applying a small amount of continuous voltage over a period of five days."

I don't think you could prove, by a laboratory experiment, that a bolt of lightning could start a forest fire. But we know that it happens.

[js1138]

I don't think you could prove, by a laboratory experiment, that a bolt of lightning could start a forest fire. But we know that it happens.

Silly man. Laboratory experiments are intelligently designed. They can't possibly tell you anything about what happens in nature.

Besides, lightening isn't random. It's guided by Thor, or someone like that.

[NicknamedBob]

Possibly, but he wouldn’t be Thor if he’d remembered his mittens.

[Coyoteman]

OK, you got me, I was simplying it. Yes, a true scientific theory needs to be testable. But as creationists will point out, you really can’t test historical science theories directly, you cant prove something happened directly. Then, you know their argument.....

Didn't mean that as a "gotcha." I often use such posts as an opportunity to teach a bit of science. Its easy to misremember things, as science is such a vast field and it is not always well taught.

[mtg]

I don't think you could prove, by a laboratory experiment, that a bolt of lightning could start a forest fire. But we know that it happens.

Actually, when a bolt of lightning does start a forest fire, the forest becomes the laboratory. So your statement makes little, if any, sense.

[BroJoeK]

"Here’s a nice video which summarizes Dr. Szostak’s work at Harvard."

Origin of Life Chemistry

Wonderful video, even on my way-too-slow internet connection. Thanks!