Posted on 02/21/2006 9:53:32 AM PST by presidio9
NEVER make forecasts, especially about the future. Samuel Goldwyn's wise advice is well illustrated by a pair of scientific papers published in 1953. Both were thought by their authors to be milestones on the path to the secret of life, but only one has so far amounted to much, and it was not the one that caught the public imagination at the time.
James Watson and Francis Crick, who wrote “A structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid”, have become as famous as rock stars for asking how life works and thereby starting a line of inquiry that led to the Human Genome Project. Stanley Miller, by contrast, though lauded by his peers, languishes in obscurity as far as the wider world is concerned. Yet when it appeared, “Production of amino acids under possible primitive Earth conditions” was expected to begin a scientific process that would solve a problem in some ways more profound than how life works at the moment—namely how it got going in the first place on the surface of a sterile rock 150m km from a small, unregarded yellow star.
Dr Miller was the first to address this question experimentally. Inspired by one of Charles Darwin's ideas, that the ingredients of life might have formed by chemical reactions in a “warm, little pond”, he mixed the gases then thought to have formed the atmosphere of the primitive Earth—methane, ammonia and hydrogen—in a flask half-full of boiling water, and passed electric sparks, mimicking lightning, through them for several days to see what would happen. What happened, as the name of the paper suggests, was amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. The origin of life then seemed within grasp. But it has eluded researchers ever since. They are still looking, though, and this week several of them met at the Royal Society, in London, to review progress.
The origin of pieces The origin question is really three sub-questions. One is, where did the raw materials for life come from? That is what Dr Miller was asking. The second is, how did those raw materials spontaneously assemble themselves into the first object to which the term “alive” might reasonably be applied? The third is, how, having once come into existence, did it survive conditions in the early solar system?
The first question was addressed by Patrick Thaddeus, of the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, and Max Bernstein, who works at the Ames laboratory, in California, part of America's space agency, NASA. As Dr Bernstein succinctly put it, the chemical raw materials for life, in the form of simple compounds that could then be assembled into more complex biomolecules, could come from above, below or beyond.
The “above” theory—ie, that the raw materials were formed in the atmosphere, and which Dr Miller's original experiment was intended to investigate—has fallen out of favour. That is because it depends on the atmosphere being composed of chemicals rich in hydrogen, which methane and ammonia are. Dr Miller thought this was likely because it was known in the 1950s that Jupiter's atmosphere contains these gases. Modern thinking, though, favours an early terrestrial atmosphere rich in carbon dioxide, as is found on Venus and Mars. Such an atmosphere is no good for making amino acids.
The “beyond” theory is that the raw materials were formed in space, and came to Earth either while it was being formed, or in the form of a later chemical “top up” from comets and interstellar dust. Dr Thaddeus waxed eloquent in support of this, pointing out that radio astronomy has now identified 135 different molecules in outer space (each gives out a specific pattern of radio waves when its atoms are shaken, allowing it to be identified from afar). Moreover, these molecules tend to be concentrated in the sorts of nebulae in which stars and their associated planetary systems are known to form.
Sadly, though, few of the 135 chemicals found so far resemble any important building block of life. That leaves the “below” hypothesis, which is the one Dr Bernstein favours. His theory is that the crucial raw materials were built up in hydrothermal vents like those found today in the deep ocean. These do, indeed, leak chemicals of the sort that Dr Miller used, though they provide reaction-encouraging energy in the form of heat alone, with no electricity. Nevertheless, modern vents do seem to produce not only simple amino acids but also short amino-acid chains—in other words, tiny proteins.
Going from the raw materials to the finished product, though, is a big step. In this case, the definition of “finished product” is something that is recognisably the ancestor of life today. Such an ancestor would store information in DNA, or a molecule similar to it, that was able to replicate, and thus breed. It would also use that information to make proteins. And it would probably do all this inside a membrane made of fatty molecules. In other words, it would be a living cell.
Worlds without end The favoured theory at the moment is that the first genetic material was not DNA, but its cousin RNA. In the wake of the Watson and Crick paper, a series of experiments showed that RNA acts as a messenger for the DNA, and as a fetcher and carrier of amino acids for the factories in which proteins are made. Until recently, therefore, it was seen as a rather humble substance—a molecular hewer of wood and drawer of water for the presiding DNA genius in the cell nucleus. But it is also an important component of the protein factories themselves. Indeed, these factories are known as ribosomes because of it. And the past few years have seen the discovery of more and more roles for RNA, including some in which it acts as a chemical catalyst—a job that had previously been thought to be restricted to protein-based enzymes.
This ubiquity, combined with the fact that RNA can catalyse chemical reactions, has led to the idea of an RNA world that preceded the modern DNA/protein world—and it seems very likely that RNA did, indeed, precede DNA, if only because it is the more chemically stable of the two. But that does not explain either where the RNA came from in the first place, or how the RNA/protein interdependence came about—a question known as the “breakout” problem.
There are several ideas for how large molecules such as RNA (and also early proteins) might have been generated out of the chemical raw materials that came from above or below or beyond. Two of the most persistent, though, are that clay was the catalyst, and that iron and nickel sulphides were the catalysts.
The clay theory is widely held, but needs tightening up. James Ferris of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, in New York state, explained to the meeting that his research on a type of clay called montmorillonite showed that it catalysed the formation of RNA molecules up to 50 units long. (A unit, in this context, is one of the four chemical bases that make up the alphabet of the genetic code, attached to some sugar and phosphate.) He also showed that the process was selective, with the same relatively small set of RNA molecules emerging every time. That is important, because if all possible permutations of the four bases were equally likely, none of them would ever become common enough for anything interesting to happen.
The iron/nickel/sulphur model is the brainchild of Günter Wächtershauser of Munich University. It, too, relies on catalysis, though in this case the best-tested chemical pathways generate amino acids and proteins, rather than RNA. Unfortunately, neither the clay route nor the iron/nickel route answers the breakout question. But a third, and novel, model described at the meeting might.
This was devised by Trevor Dale of Cardiff University, in Wales. He has come up with a way that proteins and RNA might catalyse each other's production.
The protein involved would crystallise in the form of long, and easily formed, fibres called amyloid. (This is the form that proteins take in brain diseases such as Alzheimer's and Creutzfeldt-Jakob.) The amyloid fibres would then act as surfaces on which RNA molecules could grow.
Crucially, RNA forming on a fibre this way would grow as double strands, like the DNA in a cell nucleus, rather than as the single strands in which the molecule normally comes. When the strands separated, each would act as a template for a new double-stranded molecule, just as happens when a DNA molecule divides.
The protein, meanwhile, would grow because the protruding end of the RNA would act as a catalyst, adding amino acids on to the end of the amyloid fibre. When the fibre grew too long to be stable, it would break in two. Thus both RNA and protein would replicate.
Such a system, Dr Dale thinks, could be the ancestor of the ribosome and, if wrapped in a fatty membrane, of the cell. And, as David Deamer, of the University of California, Santa Cruz, told the meeting, such membranes will assemble spontaneously in certain conditions.
Dr Dale's idea is certainly chemically plausible, though it has yet to be tested in a laboratory. But he is conducting tests at the moment, and hopes to have the results later this year.
The third sub-question—of how life managed to get going at all in the hostile arena of the early Earth, was neatly addressed by Charles Cockell, of Britain's Open University. The perceived problem is that for the first 600m years of its existence, the planet was being bombarded by bits of debris left over from the formation of the solar system. Yet chemical signatures in the few rocks left over from this period suggest that life—presumably in the form of bacteria—was well established by the end of it. How, then, did that life survive the constant rain of asteroids?
Beginnings are such delicate times Dr Cockell turned the question neatly on its head by showing that impact craters are ideal places for life to get going. The heat generated by an impact produces local hydrothermal springs. These start off hot, thus favouring the formation of amino acids and RNA-forming bases. They then cool over the centuries to the point where these individual molecules can get together in more complex chains. And they also have lots of microscopic nooks and crannies with space for micro-organisms to breed, and interesting chemicals in them for bugs to feed on.
The biggest irony of all, then, might be that the conditions once thought a near-insuperable obstacle to the emergence of life on Earth may actually have enabled it to come about.
> I know my biases - do you understand yours?
Yup. Mine are based on the concept of "cause and effect."
It is far more irrational to suppose an unintelligent process randomly created something more intelligent than the creative process itself.
Consider that we now know at least 10 dimensions exist and our universe only appears in 4 of those dimensions (1 of them being time). Scientists readily acknowledge that those other dimensions may include orthogonal time dimensions, meaning that they would be "timeless".
Furthermore there may be far more intellignet beings in the other 6 dimensions than exist in our 4 (supposition, but logical and rational to postulate)).
Furthermore we know there are interactions and influences from those other dimensions into our 4 dimensions (as apparent in quantum electrodynamics, quantum mechanics research labs).
Fair enough.
So - what caused life?
And of course the answer is - you don't know. Which brings us right back to my previous post. In our ignorance of the "what caused", we "fill in" with whatever we've adopted as our belief system.
This begs the question: how did you arrive at your belief system, if you have no "cause & effect" knowledge of what initially caused life?
I can tell you part of the answer: faith
Science cannot prove the existence of love, yet we know personally the truth about love, just as we Christians know the truth about the power and influence of the Holy Spirit within our souls. It is part of us and is as real as any scientific proof.
I believe in Jesus Christ with more absolute certainty than I believe in any scientific truth. It has been proven to me directly as a fact. I do not have to have "faith", I know.
Sir Isaac Newton invented the modern scientific process that all of the Darwinians rely upon to discredit the concept of ID, yet here is what Sir Isaac had to say;
"This beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being...." -- Sir Isaac Newton"There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than any in profane history." -- Sir Isaac Newton
Einstein was also a "Creationist". He believed that an intelligence was behind our creation.
So it is irrational to base your disbelief in a Creator strictly and wholly in science, because some of the worlds greatest scientists would tell you that science cannot comprehend Creation, yet.
> Many of the greatest scientists in the world know the absolute truth that Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour and others affirm the existence of an Intelligent Creator.
Uh-huh. And the vast bulk of the "evolutionists" are Christians. So your point is...?
> Science cannot prove the existence of love
Sure it can, just as it can prove the existence of any emotion. There are chemcial and electrical changes to the human brain that are associated with emotions.
> Sir Isaac Newton invented the modern scientific process that all of the Darwinians rely upon to discredit the concept of ID...
You don't *honestly* believe that bringing up the views of a scientist who lived hundreds of years prior to the formation of a theory is a good refutation of that theory... do you?
>Einstein was also a "Creationist". He believed that an intelligence was behind our creation.
He also wasn't Christian. So does that ruin your hypothesis?
Sheesh. It sure would be a nice change of pace if the ID arguement could be expressed from something other than pure emotionalism, but I'm not seeing it happening anytime soon.
Your point is excellent and essential. Einstein said much the same. he said that by understanding some of the deficiencies and limitations of the human mind he was able to arrive at his famous theories of relativity.
In cosmology theory now we are at a near standstill because we are awaiting for that next person who will step outside of our current box of thinking and propose some new revolutionary way of thinking about the universe. (and still the Bible remains unrefuted by science after earlier scientific theories discredited the Bible. Now the Bible comes back as even more scientifically consistent.)
In quantum theory now so many more scientists are beginning to understand that the beauty and harmony that they are witnessing could not be the product of random processes, particularly as it applies to string theory.
Discoveries that indicate 10 dimensions exist not just our 4 has them really scratching their heads about the possibility of intelligent beings existing in timeless, eternal other dimensions (as the Bible states). (BTW: any communications or interaction from those other dimensions would be through force fields, most likely (radio uses force fields) which would otherwise meet the definition of "spirit" [without mass but conveying information and force])
Other scientists are trying to avoid believing that God is a possibility so they are conjecturing outrageous theories that are far less plausible than the existence of God, such as the multiverse theory which has now been more widely discussed among scientists than the theories of an Intelligent Creator.
Multiverse acknowledges that our universe cannot exist by random process because the probability that so many of the parameters that define our universe would just happen to assume the precise values necessary for life to exist becomes almost infinitely improbable.
Thus, they propose that there are an almost infinite number of universes all with different physical parameters. The vast majority would not support life but we happen to be in the 1 universe that has the right parameters.
> And of course the answer is - you don't know.
No more than I know that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, I suppose. However, there comes a point when the evidence is sufficient to render doubts unreasonable. Evolution long ago passed that point.
> In our ignorance of the "what caused", we "fill in" with whatever we've adopted as our belief system.
If you are simply looking for any convenient answer, I suppose that's true. But the scientific method does not permit that. The greatest sceintists are those who discovered somethign they were *not* looking for. Kepler and Darwin of course spring immediately to mind.
"And the vast bulk of the "evolutionists" are Christians. So your point is...? "
I am a Christian evolutionist in the sense that I believe in the power of evolution to adapt species to the environment. I know we that we are subject to evolutionary processes. But no christian believes evolution created the world or created life. No Christian believes evolution created the soul in man, or created the Holy Spirit.
none, not 1, believes evolution created life. You cannot be a Christian and believe Jesus was a liar.
"Sure it can, just as it can prove the existence of any emotion. There are chemcial and electrical changes to the human brain that are associated with emotions"
Wrong. dead wrong. None of the measurments of brain waves or cerebral bloodflow are proof that love exists. They show that emotions exist and that our brains change states as we perform cognitive tasks or emote.
If such were the criteria then science has already proven that the Holy Spirit exists within man because those same changes in brain states occur as people feel the presence of the Holy Spirit.
That is not scientific proof of love, or the Holy spirit. It is merely proof that we, well, alive and the brain functions in different ways.
"You don't *honestly* believe that bringing up the views of a scientist who lived hundreds of years prior to the formation of a theory is a good refutation of that theory... do you?
Sir Isaac newton was the father of modern science. My point clearly stated that he did not require or rely upon modern scientific theories to prove what he knew to be true already. he did not need any new theories to prove what had already been proven to be true by personal revelation.
Newton affirms that revelation is valid and that science does not replace or supplant revelation.
My point was clear so please do not create false strawmen. I did not say Newton refuted Darwin. Newton refuted the idea that science provided supreme knowledge to man.
"He [Einstein] also wasn't Christian. So does that ruin your hypothesis? "
groan...of course not. Einstein destroys your idea that there cannot be a Creator. He was a deist. he did not dispute Christianity. No man is a Christian or can believe in Christianity until they themselves personally ask Jesus Christ to come into their heqart. At that time they will be shown the absolute truth, by revelation of the Holy Spirit. Just because Einstein had chosen to accept Christ does not mean he refutes Christ, he could not know.
Sheesh. It sure would be a nice change of pace if the ID arguement could be expressed from something other than pure emotionalism,...
yes, it would. Everything I have told you is a fact or a legitimate hypothesis that has not been refuted by fact. Yet you react only with emotional, and often irrelevent, remarks.
> But no christian believes evolution created the world or created life.
No *evolutionist* believes any such thing either. Nor does much of anybody believe that evolution created the moon, clouds, rainbows or gold nuggest.
See, this is why people like yourself are so difficult to take seriously: not only do you spout these strawman arguements, you don't even bother to come up with *good* strawman arguements.
It's difficult to tell which is worse: that you knowingly use such dis-honest tactics, knowing that you are being dishonest... or that you are either too dim or too lazy to recognize that you are spouting utter nonsense.
And see, this nonsense doesn't help your case either: "Einstein destroys your idea that there cannot be a Creator." No, Einstien did no such thing. Einstein provided not one jot of evidence for a creator. He may (or may not) have believed in such, but he certainly did not demonstrate.
Sigh. Some people...
You have ignored or misunderstood the points I have made and then you get all emotional and reactionary.
For instance, I told YOU what an evolutionist was. You did not tell me. I am likely far more experienced and knowledgeable than you on evolution. I've spent many months involved in technical research on evolutionary systems and techniques. I've used such techniques to develop algorithms.
Tell me ONE dishonest statement I have made. I do not lie. period. I may be wrong but I will not lie.
Furthermore, you claim that no evolutionist believes evolution is responsible for the origins of life. You are wrong again. Many evolutionists believe evolutionary processes are responsbile for the origins of life.
Here is a list of scientific papers from Univ of California that seek to do just that! (took me 30 seconds to find) "Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere"
Here are the titles of just a few of those papers that deal with evolution TO CREATE LIFE. All of these papers deal with, in their own words, "Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere";
"Chemical Evolution in the Atmosphere of Titan: Comparison to the Prebiotic Earth." -- David Clarke and Jim Ferris. p. 249-262. (Evolutionary processes on another planet that does not yet even have life)
"Evolutionary Consideration on 5-Aminolevulinic Synthase in Nature". P. 405-412. ;
"Primary Sources of Phosphorus and Phosphates in Chemical Evolution." E. Macia, H. V. Hernandez and J. Oro. p. 459-480.
"Studies on Order in Prebiological Systems at the Laboratory of Chemical Evolution". M. Hobish
"First Steps in Eukarogenesis: Physical Phenomena in the Origin and Evolution of Chromosome Structure, J. Chela-Flores.
"Electrical Energy Sources for Organic Synthesis on the Early Earth," Christopher Chyba and Carl Sagan.
Many of the papers proposed that life came from extraterrestrial substances yet to be found.
Many of these papers are articles of faith (forget the pun) proposing low probability theories and then searching for evidence.
""Einstein destroys your idea that there cannot be a Creator." No, Einstien did no such thing. Einstein provided not one jot of evidence for a creator. He may (or may not) have believed in such, but he certainly did not demonstrate."
Again you contrive a strawman for me. Einstein destroys your argument by his intellect and the fact that he was a scientist that acknowledges that science is not required for a man of science to believe in a creator.
Einstein and Newton show that science is inadequate to prove the existence of a Creator, and unnessary since the Creator proves to us already that He exists.
God does not do parlor tricks, nor does he provide "stool samples" for scientists to put under a microscope to "prove" he exists using wholly primitive techniques of human scientists.
You too can know the absolute truth. You just have to ask the right questions and do what God has already told us to do to discover Him.
God gave us an instruction book. Use it!
And a simple book is just a "complex" assemblage of letters. That doesn't mean letters fell together to create "War and Peace".
You're wasting your time.
Crick mentioned that there has not been time for evolution to produce the variety of lifeforms on earth in the 4.5 billion years since earth formed.
Actually, that is your problem. You assign "fact" to speculation.
And your problem is that you assign "fact" and "ultimate truth" to just-so fairy tales. Excuse me if I prefer evidence.
Excuse me if I don't accept your characterization. The most recent "fairy tale" I can recall was outlined in "Nature" magazine by a Korean scientist.
> Excuse me if I don't accept your characterization.
Most zealots don't.
That is because most people of any type won't accept your characterization.
And yet you choose to mischaracterize science, and choose to mischaracterize people who use logic and evidence.
Go back to your fairy tales.
Proof?
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.