Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Alicia Cartelli on Abiogenesis

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Please see the note and apology at the end of this post.

—–

Over on a recent thread Alicia Cartelli responded to my request that if she had “an idea how abiogenesis works” I would post it as a head post for discussion.

I have not yet had time to parse through all this, other than to note that most of what Alicia discusses below was already granted for discussion purposes in my Abiogenesis Challenge. Thus, even if we were to grant the very questionable and optimistic claims, it still does not address the central issues needed for the origin of life, including the issue of information content.

That said, I appreciate Alicia taking time to put together the below and would invite commenters to weigh in, both with respect to the evidentiary claims made, as well as the relevance to a materialistic origins scenario.

The language below is directly from Alicia, although I have added paragraph numbers to allow comments to focus on particular claims and to facilitate discussion.

—–

Alicia Cartelli:

Here’s a very brief overview of the basic supporting work done on abiogenesis and I have taken it a step further for EA at the end and talk briefly about a simplified example of the evolution of the first living organism. Enjoy.

1. Miller-Urey demonstrated that methane, ammonia, and hydrogen gases in a highly favorable early earth model could produce cyanide, formaldehyde, and amino acids. Subsequent studies demonstrated similar results in more realistic models. Amino acids are repeatedly produced by early earth models and have also been found in meteorites. Mimicking volcanic gases flowing through rock crevices produces amino acids and in fact, it tends to produce some of the natural amino acids over the other, unnatural residues. UV light in early earth models produce aldehydes, which are still important intermediates in amino acid synthesis. Polymerization of amino acids, although unfavorable, can be driven by certain conditions. Simply through energy input in the presence of minerals, researchers have demonstrated the formation of protein polymers. We have also observed amino acid polymerization at hydrothermal vents. Amino acids in cooler water have been shown to polymerize when carbon and sulfur-containing gases (commonly ejected by hydrothermal vents) are also present.

2. Important reactants have been hypothesized to accumulate on layers of mineral deposits in the early earth environment; dissolved gases are attracted to these minerals which helps to concentrate them to drive chemical reactions. The minerals function as catalysts as they are reactive in solution and their importance can still be seen at the active site of many enzymes today.

3. The production of acetic acid from dissolved carbon dioxide and hydrogen is spontaneous and still used today by bacteria. Acetic acid is also an important intermediate in the pathway that produces acetyl-CoA, a molecule still used by all living organisms. Recent research has shown that a variety of larger organic molecules can be produced by early earth models, including those important to the eventual synthesis of nucleotides.

4. Free radical production is much more likely in the early earth atmosphere, where there is no ozone layer. Free radicals are highly reactive and computer models have demonstrated the formation of formaldehyde through these types of reactions. In the presence of heat or UV radiation, formaldehyde molecules are able to link together, forming more complicated organic molecules such as sugars. Both 5- and 6-carbon sugars are produced in these models and other studies have shown that enrichment of the 5-carbon sugars occurs on minerals outside of hydrothermal vents. 3-carbon ketoses and other molecules related to sugars have also been found in meteorites.

5. Hydrogen cyanide was also likely produced in the early earth atmosphere as shown in Miller-Urey, and it is an important precursor for nucleic base production. Early earth atmospheric models eventually led to the production of all five nucleic bases. Prebiotic simulations have demonstrated activation of nucleotides through addition of phosphate groups, and further studies have shown that these nucleotides can polymerize in the presence of minerals. Even without nucleotide activation, polymerization of nucleic acids over 90 bases long has been demonstrated to occur when both heat and small lipids are included.

6. Recent studies have shown that, starting with a ribozyme capable of joining two ribonucleotides together, random mutations and copying produces ribozymes capable of replication activity. This enzyme is now capable of using itself as a template, to copy fragments of itself. Other studies have demonstrated molecular evolution by starting with random pools of nucleic acids and selection of nucleic acids that connect uracil base to ribose sugar. After 11 rounds of selection, the ribozyme population was 1,000,000x better at catalyzing the reaction in comparison to the uncatalyzed reaction. Numerous other studies have produced ribozymes with a host of different catalytic activities.

7. Simple lipids have been produced through early earth model systems using hydrogen, carbon dioxide and mineral catalysts. Lipids with amphipathic properties have also been discovered in meteorites. These molecules form simple membrane structures spontaneously due to the hydrophobic effect and provide an environment more suitable for life inside the first protocells. These early cell membranes provide the ability to concentrate reactants and protect products of chemical reactions. Membrane permeability of small molecules can be altered by simple proteins that span the hydrophobic layer and also by temperature changes. Simple vesicles can join together, in essence “growing” and vibrations of the surrounding media can cause them to replicate. Ions and ribonucleotides are known to diffuse through fatty acid membranes and the formation of these membranes is facilitated by minerals as well.

8. It is hypothesized that the first replicating molecule did not consist of RNA, but instead was made up of simpler nucleic acids, which consisted of simpler nucleotide molecules. Nucleic acid-polypeptide hybrid molecules have been proposed, in which nucleic bases are connected by peptide bonds instead of phosphodiester bonds. These simpler molecules are capable of both catalytic activity and acting as a template; and their ability to direct synthesis of RNA as we know it today has been demonstrated, as they have similar 3D geometries. This would allow for evolution from a pre-RNA world to an RNA world. The catalytic repertoire of ribozymes seen in nature today is quite small, however synthetic ribozymes have demonstrated a wide variety of reactions, even rivaling proteins. The distinction between proteinaceous enzymes and ribozymes seems to be the efficiency with which they catalyze reactions, not the range of possible reactions. The ability of ribozymes to catalyze their own replication has been demonstrated, but only in fragments. Ribozymes able to ligate short nucleotide strands, which has already been demonstrated, would piece these fragments together, producing more replicating ribozymes. The efficiency of this ligation reaction would be increased by containing the replicating ribozyme and nucleic acid fragments within a membrane consisting of fatty acids or some derivative of these amphipathic molecules. This would be the first living cell.

9. Sealing these ribozymes into protocells allows for evolution of these first organisms based on not just structure of subcellular components, but also how these components interact with each other. Replication of these protocells would be driven by physical agitation, unevenly splitting the intracellular components into new protocells and providing more variation for selection to act on.

10. Experiments have demonstrated that selection from pools of random RNA molecules can produce RNA polymers that bind tightly to amino acids. These RNA molecules tend to have sequences identical to the codons still used by today’s translational system. This shows the potential for a limited genetic code, of which the remnants cans still be seen today. Synthetic ribozymes have been shown to catalyze tRNA charging, moving the early translational system closer to the more efficient system seen today. Evolution of this early translational system would make protein synthesis more efficient and eventually lead to a protein-dominated world.

—–

EA Note for Readers:

I was away from UD for several weeks and just this week realized that the above post was still in my “Drafts” section in my UD Dashboard, with a date stamp of November 24, 2015. I did not get time to review Alicia’s discussion as I had hoped, and then forgot I hadn’t published this, in between the Thanksgiving trip with the in-laws, various obligations in early December and then Christmas and New Year’s.

My sincere apologies to Alicia for the long delay. Alicia, if there is anything you would like to add to your description, having had a few additional weeks to think about it, please let me know and I will add it to your above description.

Comments
"Carbonates can form abiogenetically in the presence of water." Calcium carbonate only forms biogenetically. See Krumbein link above ("In a nutshell: Carbonate minerals are formed exclusively under the control of biochemical processes. Biochemical processes need life as a prerequisite.”). Bada added calcium carbonate as a buffer to the acidic product of his neutral gas mixture. Bada also added ferrous iron as a reducing agent; thus, instead of Miller's incorrect reducing atmosphere, Bada designed a speculative reducing ocean that could counter the destructive effects of a neutral atmosphere comprising N2 and CO2. Interesting from the standpoint of investigator interference, but hardly worth celebrating as a breakthrough in abiogenesis.praxeology
January 20, 2016
January
01
Jan
20
20
2016
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT
Mung: Prior to the LUCA is ignorance. It's largely obscure, but not completely so. Mung: Perhaps Zachriel is proposing something like independent birth of organisms. The evidence doesn't support independent origins.Zachriel
January 20, 2016
January
01
Jan
20
20
2016
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT
Once replication begins, then competition for resources will lead to adaptation. Handwaving.Mung
January 20, 2016
January
01
Jan
20
20
2016
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT
Prior to the LUCA is ignorance. Wishful Thinking. Handwaving. Fantasy. Fiction. Zachriels. Take the idea of HGT prior to the LUCA. Our reasons for believing in HGT come from looking at organisms that evolved AFTER the LUCA, not from looking at the LUCA or organisms that were hypothetically prior to the LUCA. Perhaps Zachriel is proposing something like independent birth of organisms.Mung
January 20, 2016
January
01
Jan
20
20
2016
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT
Phinehas: Nope. But then I recognize that there is a nearly infinite gap between the possible and the mindbogglingly improbable. So it's possible, though you would presumably say it would have to be contrived. That's all you had to say. So we have evidence that RNA can act as a replicator (partial replication has been observed) and as a genetic memory. Eric Anderson: We’re talking about abiogenesis, keep in mind. That's right. The LUCA is posited to be highly derived from the first life, and the evidence supports horizontal mechanisms at play before the LUCA. Naïve notions of common descent would lead one to posit a singularity; however, nature is rarely so simple. Eric Anderson: Or are you suggesting that abiogenesis occurred multiple times, with the fledgling self-reproducing molecules turning into different organisms, thereby forming a population? The most likely case, based on current understanding, is that life arose once, but that it diversified rapidly into an ecosystem of many different types of organisms that had low thresholds for individual identity. Eric Anderson: This is nothing but pure, unadulterated speculation. It is highly speculative, but not purely so. See Woese, On the evolution of cells, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2002. Eric Anderson: (ii) there are serious theoretical problems with the idea of a self-replicating molecule as the first step in the history of life, as I have detailed in a prior post; That's not the question, but whether it is possible for RNA to self-replicate. We know that RNA can self-catalyze, including partial sequence replication, and also replicate in highly contrived situations. These results are hardly trivial, and are an entailment of the RNA World Hypothesis.Zachriel
January 20, 2016
January
01
Jan
20
20
2016
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT
It makes me wonder whether such harbor something very like a religious belief in chance and its god-like capabilities. Such faith is quite remarkable indeed.
Well said.Eric Anderson
January 20, 2016
January
01
Jan
20
20
2016
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
As noted, with many “singularities”, the reality may be anything but simple. The LUCA is thought to have been an ancestral population, not an individual.
We're talking about abiogenesis, keep in mind. You can call LUCA an ancestral population all you want, but you still have to start with a living organism that somehow reproduces and then diversifies into an ancestral population. Or are you suggesting that abiogenesis occurred multiple times, with the fledgling self-reproducing molecules turning into different organisms, thereby forming a population?
Horizontal gene transfer was probably rampant before the LUCA . . .
This is nothing but pure, unadulterated speculation. You have no way of knowing anything of the kind. Furthermore, it is completely irrelevant to the questions at hand.
Does your use of the word “remarkable” imply you don’t think it is possible, rather than a limitation of current scientific knowledge?
My use of the word underscores the following facts: (i) a self-replicating molecule, to my knowledge, has never been seen or identified, notwithstanding its central role to the abiogenesis creation story and the unfailing efforts of numerous researchers over many years to produce such a thing; (ii) there are serious theoretical problems with the idea of a self-replicating molecule as the first step in the history of life, as I have detailed in a prior post; (iii) from an engineering standpoint it is an open question whether such a thing could actually exist, at least in the alleged "simple" form we are often told; and (iv) even if such a thing could be achieved under very carefully-controlled conditions in the lab, there is good reason to think it would not be able to function in the real world. Thus, my use of the word is based on what we actually know. Unfortunately, people keep naively throwing out the idea of this self-replicating molecule as though it really exists, as though it answers some questions about how life starts. As I said in my prior post, it may be possible to design a self-replicating molecule in the lab. But it will not be as simple as the materialist creation story would like us to believe and it will have little chance of functioning in the real world -- not without a lot of additional structures and machinery in place.
Once replication begins, then competition for resources will lead to adaptation.
Yes, yes, we know what the theory is (setting aside for a moment the technical problem with your loose statement about how adaptation comes about). You don't need to keep repeating the vague claims of the theory. You need to show why we should take the theory seriously. ----- Part of what we're seeing here, and much of what makes up the disconnect in the discussions about abiogenesis is that skeptics want to see some actual evidence, some carefully-thought-through analyses. In contrast, true believers are all too often perfectly content with made-up stories, half-baked ideas, vague assertions, and wild speculations.Eric Anderson
January 20, 2016
January
01
Jan
20
20
2016
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT
Z:
Are you also ruling out the possibility that RNA can self-replicate?
Nope. But then I recognize that there is a nearly infinite gap between the possible and the mindbogglingly improbable. And I do find it remarkable when folks swallow the mindbogglingly improbable as though it were no great thing. It makes me wonder whether such harbor something very like a religious belief in chance and its god-like capabilities. Such faith is quite remarkable indeed.Phinehas
January 20, 2016
January
01
Jan
20
20
2016
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT
Phinehas: Possible? That’s setting the bar rather low, isn’t it? It was a legitimate question. Are you also ruling out the possibility that RNA can self-replicate?Zachriel
January 20, 2016
January
01
Jan
20
20
2016
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT
Z:
Does your use of the word “remarkable” imply you don’t think it is possible, rather than a limitation of current scientific knowledge?
Possible? That's setting the bar rather low, isn't it? Follow that up with a false dichotomy, and the type of reasoning helpful for believing in abiogenesis starts to become apparent.Phinehas
January 20, 2016
January
01
Jan
20
20
2016
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
Eric Anderson: Meaning, from other LUCA’s? As noted, with many “singularities”, the reality may be anything but simple. The LUCA is thought to have been an ancestral population, not an individual. Eric Anderson: Or presumably you are hypothesizing that horizontal gene transfer occurred after LUCA had already reproduced, split into various populations, various different genes had arisen through some hypothetical and unspecified means, and so on. Horizontal gene transfer was probably rampant before the LUCA, and still significant after that period. Eric Anderson: Let’s assume this is true. You don't have to assume it, as it has been repeatedly tested. Eric Anderson: And then the molecules do what? There's no complete theory of abiogenesis. However, there are a number hypotheses, each of which attempt to explain a part of the process. Eric Anderson: Please provide some evidence for this remarkable claim. While complete sequence replication hasn't been achieved, partial replication has been observed, and the evidence indicates that it is within the capability of RNA to self-replicate. Does your use of the word "remarkable" imply you don't think it is possible, rather than a limitation of current scientific knowledge? Eric Anderson: Are you talking about a self-replicating molecule here, or some more advanced form of replicating entity? Once replication begins, then competition for resources will lead to adaptation. Eric Anderson: And what evidence do you have that Darwinian evolution would have resulted in any changes? The evolutionary diversification of life from primitive forms.Zachriel
January 20, 2016
January
01
Jan
20
20
2016
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
The evidence indicates that the LUCA was part of a complex ecosystem that had a history of rampant horizontal gene transfer.
Rampant horizontal gene transfer. Really? Meaning, from other LUCA's? :) Or presumably you are hypothesizing that horizontal gene transfer occurred after LUCA had already reproduced, split into various populations, various different genes had arisen through some hypothetical and unspecified means, and so on.
Evidence indicates that complex molecules can form in plausible primordial conditions, including possibly nucleotides.
Let's assume this is true. And then the molecules do what? Sit around and wait for the right other molecule to come along so that they can carefully build up the chain of molecules needed for the next step in the process? Or do they promptly start reacting with whatever they can react with in their environment, quickly eliminating their usefulness as individualized building blocks? Thought so.
RNA can apparently act as a self-replicator.
Please provide some evidence for this remarkable claim. The hypothetical self-replicating molecule has never been seen or heard from, to my knowledge, but I would love to know where you are getting your claim from.
. . . though once replication began, darwinian evolution would have resulted in continued adaptation.
Are you talking about a self-replicating molecule here, or some more advanced form of replicating entity? And what evidence do you have that Darwinian evolution would have resulted in any changes? Look, we understand that this is the theory. But just restating the theory isn't evidence.Eric Anderson
January 20, 2016
January
01
Jan
20
20
2016
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT
Mung: So we have the LUCA. Now what do we know about the history of life prior to the LUCA and how do we know it? Little. The evidence indicates that the LUCA was part of a complex ecosystem that had a history of rampant horizontal gene transfer. As with many "singularities", the reality may be anything but simple. Before that, events are obscured. Evidence indicates that complex molecules can form in plausible primordial conditions, including possibly nucleotides. RNA can apparently act as a self-replicator. There is evidence in ribosomes that RNA is the primitive condition, which has led to the hypothesis of RNA World. There is little certainty, however, concerning the origin of life, though once replication began, darwinian evolution would have resulted in continued adaptation.Zachriel
January 20, 2016
January
01
Jan
20
20
2016
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT
Zachriel: What we know about the history of life is clearly important to understanding its origin. Glad you're finally on board! So we have the LUCA. Now what do we know about the history of life prior to the LUCA and how do we know it? Or are you claiming the LUCA was a vesicle?Mung
January 19, 2016
January
01
Jan
19
19
2016
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
Zachriel:
What we know about the history of life is clearly important to understanding its origin.
That is your opinion and only an opinion. Too bad we will never know the history of life.Virgil Cain
January 19, 2016
January
01
Jan
19
19
2016
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT
Mung: so? Eric Anderson: What the . . . !? What we know about the history of life is clearly important to understanding its origin. praxeology: carbonates ... which require the prior existence of living organisms) Carbonates can form abiogenetically in the presence of water.Zachriel
January 19, 2016
January
01
Jan
19
19
2016
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
The alleged primordial cell needs either ATP or it's poor relative acetyl phosphate. Without either of those you cannot manufacture polypeptides in a solution. Acetyl phosphate may be available in the vent pores but it wouldn't be inside the primordial cell. ATP requires ATP synthase and that is an impossibility for a primordial cell.Virgil Cain
January 19, 2016
January
01
Jan
19
19
2016
03:38 AM
3
03
38
AM
PDT
@Zachriel: "Complex organic compounds have been shown to form in a wide variety of different environments, so the availability of such compounds is not in serious question." Relevant and brilliant. Thank you! I suggest you immediately inform Jeffrey Bada of your profound insights and exhort him to repeat yet again Stanley Miller's experiment, but next time NOT to add carbonates as the alkalizing agent (which he did last time, and which require the prior existence of living organisms) but some other "complex organic compounds" in order to undo the destructive effects of nitrites and acids that would otherwise form. And please: don't feel compelled to be specific about which complex organic compounds, precisely, or in what proportions, would be needed to make the experiment come out the way it "ought to." The more generic your suggestion to him, the better. In any case, I know Jeffrey Bada would appreciate hearing from someone as well-informed as you. In fact, we all appreciate it. Honest.praxeology
January 19, 2016
January
01
Jan
19
19
2016
01:24 AM
1
01
24
AM
PDT
Any reasonable discussion of abiogenesis will presuppose Darwinian evolution.
What the . . . !? Did someone actually say that!? Good grief. Now we see where things have gone off the rails from the get-go.Eric Anderson
January 18, 2016
January
01
Jan
18
18
2016
09:38 PM
9
09
38
PM
PDT
Alicia @16: Rarely have I read such bald-faced, unsupported, hand-waving claims. You have no theory, no proposal, nothing that even passes the laugh test for abiogenesis. Claiming that very significant hurdles -- which have been acknowledged by serious researchers and on which a great deal of time and money has been spent -- are non-issues or simple to overcome is too facile and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the issues. Also, the hand-waving dismissal of the fitness question in a pre-biotic environment likely stems from the fact that you have never even thought of that important point before. It is the typical vague, Darwinian fantasy: once fitness, whatever that means, comes along, magic does the rest. Further:
RNA structures have been shown to preferentially bind amino acids. This means there is a direct link between nucleotide sequence and amino acid specification and the chemical leftovers can still be seen in the genetic code today.
It is not at all clear what you are trying to say, but as near as I can figure out what you are getting at, this is pure nonsense. Preferential binding in no way provides a direct link between nucleotide sequence and amino acid specification. Even if there were a link, you can't get from that paltry observation to the claim that the "chemical leftovers" can be seen in the genetic code today. It doesn't even make sense. Look, I don't expect everyone to have an keen interest in abiogenesis or to follow the area closely. There is no shame in acknowledging that you are relatively new to the area and are still learning. We would welcome such an honest approach. Your views would be a lot more respectable if you would acknowledge the significant hurdles serious researchers are spending millions of dollars working on, rather than spouting a bunch of bald assertions and trying to give the impression that abiogenesis is pretty much a done deal -- just filling in the details folks. There is absolutely no credibility in such an approach.Eric Anderson
January 18, 2016
January
01
Jan
18
18
2016
09:36 PM
9
09
36
PM
PDT
Zachriel: The modern cell is not a vesicle. We’re discussing the posited primordial cell. That’s like saying, when someone proposes a primitive precursor, “It’s not a cat!” You can't possibly be denying that the vesicles in modern cells are actually vesicles. I don't know what that has to do with cats, but if anyone is screaming not a cat it's you, not me.Mung
January 18, 2016
January
01
Jan
18
18
2016
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT
The vast majority of biologists accept the evidence for common descent so? which points to a common ancestor of all life so? and that this primordial ancestor appeared soon after Earth cooled enough for liquid water to form. so? The vast majority of biologists accept the evidence for a LUCA. Without that, any such discussion is without foundation. And that's where you are, far away from the LUCA. Facts, Zachriel, if you have any. Story time is over.Mung
January 18, 2016
January
01
Jan
18
18
2016
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT
The vast majority of biologists accept the evidence for common descent,
The same evidence can be used for a common design and there isn't any way to scientifically test Common Descent. And no, we don't have to assume Common Descent in order to discuss abiogenesis. That is just stupid talk.Virgil Cain
January 18, 2016
January
01
Jan
18
18
2016
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT
Mung: Any reasonable discussion of abiogenesis will start with the facts. The vast majority of biologists accept the evidence for common descent, which points to a common ancestor of all life, and that this primordial ancestor appeared soon after Earth cooled enough for liquid water to form. That's the beginning of any reasonable discussion of abiogenesis. Without that, any such discussion is without foundation. Mung: The cell is not a vesicle. The modern cell is not a vesicle. We're discussing the posited primordial cell. That's like saying, when someone proposes a primitive precursor, "It's not a cat!"Zachriel
January 18, 2016
January
01
Jan
18
18
2016
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
Zachriel: Any reasonable discussion of abiogenesis will presuppose Darwinian evolution. Any reasonable discussion of abiogenesis will start with the facts. Zachriel: Amphiphiles will spontaneously form into vesicles The cell is not a vesicle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesicle_%28biology_and_chemistry%29Mung
January 18, 2016
January
01
Jan
18
18
2016
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
Mung: That’s immaterial. Any reasonable discussion of abiogenesis will presuppose Darwinian evolution. See Mung's citation @17. Mung: Amphiphiles are not membranes. Amphiphiles will spontaneously form into vesicles, which are permeable to small molecules, but act to contain complex molecular products. Hence, they act as a membrane. praxeology: And as we all know, the experiment was soon criticized for lack of plausibility Complex organic compounds have been shown to form in a wide variety of different environments, so the availability of such compounds is not in serious question.Zachriel
January 18, 2016
January
01
Jan
18
18
2016
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT
Steenking, they don't need any steenking evidence. For them their steenking word is their steenking evidence. So thereVirgil Cain
January 17, 2016
January
01
Jan
17
17
2016
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT
Virgil, they don't need any stinking evidence. All they need is to say that cell membranes must have been simpler, therefore they were simpler.Mung
January 17, 2016
January
01
Jan
17
17
2016
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT
RE- Membranes-> Bacteria have a different type of membrane from archaea and there isn't any way to get one from the other nor any evidence they shared a common ancestor.Virgil Cain
January 17, 2016
January
01
Jan
17
17
2016
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT
Miller-Urey demonstrated that methane, ammonia, and hydrogen gases in a highly favorable early earth model could produce cyanide, formaldehyde, and amino acids. True. And as we all know, the experiment was soon criticized for lack of plausibility: the early earth atmosphere was not a reducing one. When Miller repeated his experiment, he found tar, not amino acids. Subsequent studies demonstrated similar results in more realistic models. The "subsequent studies" phrase refers to the work of Miller's graduate student, Jeffrey Bada, who repeated the experiment with a "more realistic" combination of gases (i.e., carbon dioxide and nitrogen) which produced nitrites, preventing the amino acids from forming. See: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/primordial-soup-urey-miller-evolution-experiment-repeated/ "Bada discovered that the reactions were producing chemicals called nitrites, which destroy amino acids as quickly as they form. They were also turning the water acidic—which prevents amino acids from forming." However, "...primitive Earth would have contained iron and carbonate minerals that neutralized nitrites and acids. So Bada added chemicals to the experiment to duplicate these functions. When he reran it, he still got the same watery liquid as Miller did in 1983, but this time it was chock-full of amino acids." Problem: Carbonates are themselves formed by biological activity: http://goldschmidt.info/2009/abstracts/finalPDFs/A699.pdf How and where on Earth were and are carbonate minerals formed? W.E. KRUMBEIN Geomicrobiology, ICBM, Carl von Ossietzky Universitaet Oldenburg, D-26111 Oldenburg "Calcium and magnesium carbonates are formed practically exclusively by microbial decay of organic carbon compounds, by photosynthesis and by Golgi related biochemical activity of macro-organisms. "In a nutshell: Carbonate minerals are formed exclusively under the control of biochemical processes. Biochemical processes need life as a prerequisite." Bada's attempt at rehabilitating the conclusion of Miller's experiment suffers from question-begging, by using a product of pre-existing biological activity in order to demonstrate the plausibility of abiogenesis.praxeology
January 17, 2016
January
01
Jan
17
17
2016
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply