Abiogenesis

[PokerPacker]

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ukatheist/articles/abiogenesis.txt

Abiogenesis

Introduction

The concept of spontaneous generation, the notion that inanimate matter could suddenly become alive, goes back as far as Aristotle ... maybe further. "According to Descartes (viewing maggots in meat): "Since so little is required to make a being, it is certainly not surprising that so many animals, worms, and insects form spontaneously before our eyes in all putrefying substances" (Margulis and Sagan, 1995). However the same text also states that "...all worms found in meat were derived from flies, not putrefaction" (Redi). Experiments, nevertheless, continued to support the concept until, in the mid 1800’s, it was finally disproved by Pasteur.

Spontaneous generation was not a specifically evolutionary concept, simply the best explanation of a phenomenon that scientists had until Pasteur's experiments. Creationists claim, somewhat absurdly, that Pasteur was opposed by the biological establishment because of his opposition to spontaneous generation and to Darwinism. Yet, in a time of belief that at least some illnesses resulted from possession or sin, Pasteur, by recognising the microbial origin of disease, actually set the treatment of disease on a naturalistic path for the first time.

Discussion

At some point in the distant past the first living cells formed ... exactly when, and by what mechanism, is as yet unknown. The oldest speculated life forms are, at least, 1 billion years old so we can be certain that it happened sometime before that. The origin of life was not a process of evolution but of abiogenesis and scientists have speculated on the possible ways in which it might have occurred. The earliest chemical steps are believed to have been as follows:

1. The spontaneous formation of ribose. The probability for this to have occurred

is good.

2. The spontaneous formation of nucleotide bases. The probability for this to

have occurred is good.

3. The assembly of ribose and bases into nucleosides (probability of this occurring

is low).

4. The activation of these nucleosides into nucleotides. The probability for this

to have occurred is good.

It has since been demonstrated (Gunter von Kiedrowski) that oligonucleotides can replicate via ligation. Following the ligation of oligomers the synthesis of larger chains of nucleotides would become fairly certain and large chains of folding nucleic acids that could catalyse reactions a distinct possibility.

With the formation of membrane structures around the nucleic acid strands the first life would have appeared on Earth.

Whilst there can be no doubt that the above has problems and is largely speculative, that life spontaneously formed is beyond doubt ... it is only the precise mechanisms that remain to be elucidated.

The Chemicals of Life

There has been no particular mystery to the formation of the first organic chemicals ever since Friedrich Wöhler (1928) demonstrated that no special requirements were need for the spontaneous synthesis of Urea. Since then the exploration of space has further demystified organic chemistry.

Space is permeated by a tenuous “cloud” of microscopically fine particulate matter (typically referred to as “Interstellar Dust”) which contains carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulphur and silicon. These molecules tend to be highly reactive free radicals which under normal conditions (on Earth) would react with other chemicals to form stable compounds, many similar to those found in living organisms. Further, amino acids have been discovered on celestial bodies e.g. the Murchison meteorite (Australia 1969) and Haley’s comet which was analysed from spacebourne instruments during it’s recent passage through the solar system. The Murchison meteorite was carbonaceous and carried concentrations of amino acids as high as 100 ppm, the same kind that Stanley Miller’s pre-biotic experiments produced in the 1950’s. Saturn’s satellite Titan also is believed to have “seas” composed of hydrocarbons.

With evidence such as this scientists widely agree that complex organic chemicals are not necessarily the product of life but form spontaneously by banal reaction. It is highly likely that, given the proper conditions, the first building blocks of life could arise (on Earth or elsewhere) as do simple chemicals ... spontaneously and according to the rules of simple thermodynamics.

Stanley Miller (1953), a graduate student at the University of Chicago in Harold Urey’s lab (the discoverer of Heavy Hydrogen and a widely acknowledged authority on planetary formation), designed a series of experiments to test the effect of lightening on Earth’s primitive atmosphere. On the assumption that Earth’s early atmosphere was a mixture of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapour Miller found that more than 15% of the methane carbon had converted to a variety of amino acids in only a few days. Recent thought is that the atmosphere would not have been as rich in hydrogen but data from the Murchison meteorite and elsewhere strongly suggests that Miller’s results are still of significant value.

Miller’s work forms the basis of the new discipline abiotic chemistry ... the chemistry of compounds formed without life and specifically concentrating on the abiogenetic events of the early Earth. Experiments within this discipline have yielded amino acids, sugars, organic acids as well as purine & pyrimidine bases (some of the components of DNA & RNA) and other biologically significant substances. Although contrived some of the experiments give clear indication that abiogenesis is the most likely method for the formation of the early chemicals and the emergence of early life on Earth.

Conclusion

“How far in the direction of biochemical complexity the rough processes studied by abiotic chemistry may lead is not yet clear. But it seems very likely that the first building blocks of nascent life were provided by amino acids and other small organic molecules such as are known to form readily in the laboratory and on celestial bodies. To what extent these substances arose on earth or were brought in by the falling comets and asteroids that contributed to the final accretion of our planet is still being debated.” Christian de Duve

According to Miller the basic chemicals ands a reducing atmosphere are all that’s required for the formation of life. How much space dust contributed to that process is uncertain, certainly meteorites tend to feature high levels of chemicals such as hydrogen cyanide (essential to prebiotic synthesis of amino acids), but Miller feels that if they could form naturally in space then they could also do so on Earth. Ultimately, however, he feels it doesn’t really make much difference where compounds like HCN came from as long as it was present at the time and the proper conditions existed.

References

“The Probability of Abiogenesis”, Andrew Ellington (1995)

“From Primordial Soup to the Prebiotic Beach (an interview with exobiology pioneer, Dr. Stanley L. Miller, University of California San Diego )”, Sean Henahan (1996)

[chomerics]

To far over my head as far as molecular biology and organic chemistry go, but an interesting read none-the-less.

[PokerPacker]

as an athiest, this kind of science is very important. its young, and its growing!

[PokerPacker]

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/M/Mi/Miller-Urey_experiment1.htm

In 1961, (Click link for more info and facts about Joan Oro) Joan Oro found that amino acids could be made from (A highly poisonous gas or volatile liquid that smells like bitter almonds; becomes a gas at around 90 degree fahrenheit and is most dangerous when inhaled; the anhydride of hydrocyanic acid; used in manufacturing) hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in a water solution. He also found that his experiment produced a large amount of the (A phosphoric ester of a nucleoside; the basic structural unit of nucleic acids (DNA or RNA)) nucleotide base ((biochemistry) purine base found in DNA and RNA; pairs with thymine in DNA and with uracil in RNA) adenine. Experiments conducted later showed that the other ((biochemistry) a long linear polymer of nucleotides found in the nucleus but mainly in the cytoplasm of a cell where it is associated with microsomes; it transmits genetic information from DNA to the cytoplasm and controls certain chemical processes in t) RNA and ((biochemistry) a long linear polymer found in the nucleus of a cell and formed from nucleotides and shaped like a double helix; associated with the transmission of genetic information) DNA bases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere.

[PokerPacker]

i believe that abiogenesis is how life started on earth, but in my opinion, you don't have to be athiest to believe in the possibility of abiogenesis, as it does not have to be your theory on our creation, just the possibility of us creating something else.

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by PokerPacker

Whilst there can be no doubt that the above has problems and is largely speculative, that life spontaneously formed is beyond doubt ... it is only the precise mechanisms that remain to be elucidated.

That's as religious a statement of faith as I've ever seen.

[Blackwolf]

Science is a faith in your senses (and by extension, empirical measurements), with a foundation of faith in the logic of trusting them. In fact, if you don't have faith in something, you can neither believe nor explore anything.

[twa]

"That's as religious a statement of faith as I've ever seen."

I was wondering how long it would take;)

This one I almost couldn't stop myself :laugh:

"as an athiest, this kind of science is very important. its young, and its growing!"

[Prosperity]

Thanks for the post this stuff is really interesting.

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by Blackwolf

Science is a faith in your senses (and by extension, empirical measurements), with a foundation of faith in the logic of trusting them. In fact, if you don't have faith in something, you can neither believe nor explore anything.

There are all kinds of little experiments that prove your senses can lie to you -- lines that look bent that are really straight, blindfolded spinning on a stool and you can't tell if you're still spinning or not, etc.

But the point here is the guy basically said is "we know it happened this way, we just know it! We have no clue how it happened, but it did." I don't have a problem with people believing that, but to call it science is being overly generous -- especially when those same people are so condescending to people that don't buy into their theory.

[Guest Gichin13]

Originally posted by BlueTalon

That's as religious a statement of faith as I've ever seen.

I honestly do not understand the continual thrust and tension between science and religion.

I would think that the more we learn, the less we know. When folks start thinking we are getting "close to explaining everything", you can bet with certainty that the looking glass goes deeper and the onion is about to lose another layer.

That is what is so interesting about the universe God created -- things are no so simple, they are incredibly layered and complex.

[jpillian]

Good point, Gilchin!

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by Gichin13

I honestly do not understand the continual thrust and tension between science and religion.

I would think that the more we learn, the less we know. When folks start thinking we are getting "close to explaining everything", you can bet with certainty that the looking glass goes deeper and the onion is about to lose another layer.

That is what is so interesting about the universe God created -- things are no so simple, they are incredibly layered and complex.

First of all, I agree things are complex. No doubt.

The problem I have is in the suppression of debate, and in the way terms are defined. Darwinian evolution, as presented in this thread, is not science -- it is a philosophy of science. Biology is biology -- but Darwinian biology is an attempt to understand how biology got to be the way it is. Likewise, intelligent design/creation science is not religion -- it also is a philosophy of science, as it also attempts to explain how things got to be the way they are.

Instead of having any kind of debate, one side tries to monopolize the entire scope of education and publication. Thus, the Darwinians have placed themselves in the same role as the Catholic Church of the middle ages, who insisted that the world was flat, bannished those that disagreed, and forbade all study in that direction.

It's interesting, usually in these types of debates, the creationist wants to talk about science, and the evolutionist wants to talk about religion. The only reason athiests/evolutionists label intelligent design as "religion" is that there is an implication that there is some designer behind the design. But if we're going to stifle debate because of implications, then we really are no better than the middle-centuries church.

[PokerPacker]

i started this thread not as a debate thread to what should be taught in schools, but to educate a little bit more on the godless evolutionary theory. people always pose the question, if god didn't create life, how did it start. i think abiogenesis could be the explaination for that. we have created many different organic compounds through these experiments, and those were very short-term. in the Harold Urey experiment, it took seven days for results to show up. now if we knew exactly what the earth's atmosphere was made up of (most of it is speculative) we may be able to get farther in these experiments.

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by PokerPacker

i started this thread not as a debate thread to what should be taught in schools, but to educate a little bit more on the godless evolutionary theory. people always pose the question, if god didn't create life, how did it start. i think abiogenesis could be the explaination for that. we have created many different organic compounds through these experiments, and those were very short-term. in the Harold Urey experiment, it took seven days for results to show up. now if we knew exactly what the earth's atmosphere was made up of (most of it is speculative) we may be able to get farther in these experiments.

You're being generous. It's all speculative!:cool:

The problem with those experiments is that they are trying to recreate supposedly random occurances with carefully crafted plans and equipment.

There is no possible way to do that. They are aiming for a result, and so they start with compounds they presume were there. Unfortunately, the reasoning is completely circular. Their belief is in evolution, consequently they believe life must have originated in the primordial soup, so they went about concocting the soup, and the equipment and the experiments, in order to try and get the results they wanted. And, surprise surprise, they got some results that they wanted.

They have every right to do that, of course, but it's a bit disingenuous for them to present it as evidence that these things could have happened randomly.

I don't think abiogenesis can account for the beginning of life. No matter how many compounds they can come up with using the experiments they use, there's no way to assemble those compounds into a living cell that can replicate itself, consume energy and excrete waste, maintain its own internal pressure with a permeable membrane, and do a bazillion other things that living cells do.

As a matter of fact, all those compounds don't come anywhere near providing all the ingredients of a living cell. So lets say we give the scientists a boost, and provide them with ALL the ingredients of a living cell: a freshly dead cell. They can't turn that into a living cell!

Bottom line -- people are free to believe what they want to believe. But to believe that this (abiogenesis or similar things) can account for the beginning of life is every bit as religious of a belief as believing there's a designer that made it happen.

[Mooka]

Just curious Blue but what is your theory?

I tend to believe in abiogenesis and Darwin's thoery but you always run in circles.

Many people use Borel's Law to dispute abiogenesis which basically states that phenomena with very small probabilities do not occur. Read Probability and Life for more info. A quick non-mathmatical example would be the probability of someone reproducing Shakespeare who doesn't speak English and is typing at random.

It basically supports what Blue is saying here:

I don't think abiogenesis can account for the beginning of life. No matter how many compounds they can come up with using the experiments they use, there's no way to assemble those compounds into a living cell that can replicate itself, consume energy and excrete waste, maintain its own internal pressure with a permeable membrane, and do a bazillion other things that living cells do.

The chances of life spontaneously generating out of a "primordial soup" are so small that it can't happen. (Borel's Law)

Probability doesn't really count though if you think about it because the probability of life on this planet was 100%.

Always go in circles with these debates; thats why they are so good.

[PokerPacker]

blue, how much of the article did you actually read? they weren't trying to create life! they were trying to find out the effects of lightning on earth's "primative atmosphere." they just happened across these findings.

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by Mooka Always go in circles with these debates; thats why they are so good.

I like em!

Just curious Blue but what is your theory?

I tend to believe in abiogenesis and Darwin's thoery but you always run in circles.

I'm a creationist. I'm a Christian, and I believe the Genesis account of Creation. Interesting, I grew up believing in evolution, but in high school and afterward I found it to be full of holes. I really was a creationist before I was a Christian.

When I get in these debates, though, I don't preach Genesis. That's strictly a Christian/Jewish (and perhaps Muslim) belief. I just talk about the science part. One can take a similar path to the one I took, look at evolution, determine it can't hold water and default to some sort of intelligent design, without ever becoming religious per se.

The chances of life spontaneously generating out of a "primordial soup" are so small that it can't happen. (Borel's Law)

Probability doesn't really count though if you think about it because the probability of life on this planet was 100%.

However, that is circular reasoning. You can only conclude that probability of life on this planet is 100% because we are here, observing life on this planet. What would the probability be for life to appear if there was no life on the planet? We're back down to "infinitesimally small" or "zero". It takes a miracle.

Either the atmosphere and/or oceans stir up the right compounds in just the right quantities in just the right places at just the right time to be zapped by lighning or something and it holds together long enough for a membrane to form and proteins to form and RNA and DNA to form and spontaneously reproduce and find food and not get killed long enough to reproduce again and not die in its own waste and find more food.

Or God zapped a chunk of mud.

Either one is a miracle.

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by PokerPacker

blue, how much of the article did you actually read? they weren't trying to create life! they were trying to find out the effects of lightning on earth's "primative atmosphere." they just happened across these findings.

I didn't read the article -- I read about experiments such as that in college. Yes, you are correct, the weren't trying to creat life as such. The were, however, trying to create the "precursors of life". There's not much of a functional difference as far as the theory of evolution is concerned, they're still trying to accomplish the same thing.

(edit) My next question to you would be, How do they know what was in the "primative atmosphere"? The don't have any samples laying around. So they have to try to recreate it based on... their assumptions about how the world was and how life began! And we're back to the circle.

And why would they be interested in the effects of lightning on that atmosphere anyway, if not to try and explain the origins of life?

[PokerPacker]

do you believe "god" created life on earth, and earth only?

edit: let me look that up... i saw something about a retracting atmosphere or something...

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by PokerPacker

do you believe "god" created life on earth, and earth only?

Are you asking about my views about science or about theology?

[PokerPacker]

this experiment was done under the basis that earth had a "reducing atmosphere." in other words, it was rich in CH4 (methane), NH3 (ammonia), H20 (dihydrogen monoxide), an H2 (hydrogen).

it is now believed, based on volcano emissions, and effects of Ultra Violet Radiation, that the atmosphere consisted primarily of CO2 (carbon dioxide), and CO (carbon monoxide.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

[PokerPacker]

Originally posted by BlueTalon

Are you asking about my views about science or about theology?

theology

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by PokerPacker

theology

Well, angels count as life, so the technical answer to you question would be "no, I don't believe God created life only on earth." I think there is life in places other than earth.

However, in the biological sense that I think you meant, I don't know. I suspect not. I'm not going to believe there is life on other planets until I see proof that it exists -- but if I do see proof, it's not going to shatter my world.

Did that sufficiently answer your question?

[PokerPacker]

yes