Intelligent Design Origin Of Life

New recipe for early life on Earth is marketed as merely “plausible”?

Spread the love

Image result for origin of life NASA From Scripps Research Institute:

Chemists discover plausible recipe for early life on Earth

Their experiments, described today in the journal Nature Communications, demonstrate that key chemical reactions that support life today could have been carried out with ingredients likely present on the planet four billion years ago.

The new study outlines how two non-biological cycles—called the HKG cycle and the malonate cycle—could have come together to kick-start a crude version of the citric acid cycle. The two cycles use reactions that perform the same fundamental chemistry of a-ketoacids and b-ketoacids as in the citric acid cycle. These shared reactions include aldol additions, which bring new source molecules into the cycles, as well as beta and oxidative decarboxylations, which release the molecules as carbon dioxide (CO2).

Paper. (public access) The experiment is interesting but it says a lot about the (lack of) progress in a field when the best that can currently be said of a scenario is that it is plausible. On the other hand, the concept tested deserves a lot of respect, in these times, for not just being another what-if, of which we seem to go through dozens around here every year.

Curiously, we read,

“The chemistry could have stayed the same over time, it was just the nature of the molecules that changed,” says Krishnamurthy. “The molecules evolved to be more complicated over time based on what biology needed.” More.

How did “biology” come to “need” anything, such that molecules “evolved to be more complicated”? Something unacknowledged lurks there, something J. Scott Turner touches on in Purpose and Desire: What Makes Something “Alive” and Why Modern Darwinism Has Failed to Explain It, that life forms seek to remain alive.

See also: What we know and don’t know about the origin of life

9 Replies to “New recipe for early life on Earth is marketed as merely “plausible”?

  1. 1
    Dionisio says:

    This hogwash is a beaten horse they keep bringing up to pretend it’s alive.
    The best computer microprocessors with the most advanced operating system on top could be a more conducive environment for a bunch of talented software developers to try all kinds of things over and over, but they would never -I repeat never- have come up with the successful engineering design software that my brilliant project leader -an experienced engineer- imagined and managed to have my fellow programmers and their mediocre colleague work on for quite some time until it became a usable reality. The product existed in my boss’ mind lone before we started to develop it. The physical conditions and functional capacity was comparably much better than the primordial soup these folks keep daydreaming about.

  2. 2
    Mung says:

    I read a book recently where the author claimed all he had to do was make a plausible list of steps for how an eye could evolve in order to overcome the design argument. I honestly didn’t know why he thought his scenario was in any way plausible.

  3. 3
    tribune7 says:

    @Mung

    I remember why back how a University of Delaware professor illustrated a possible evolution of a mousetrap to “refute” the principle of irreducible complexity.

    I remain amazed that it never dawned on him that the mousetrap was designed and actually has a patent number.

  4. 4
    News says:

    tribune7 at 3, being a prof has been dumbed down in recent years. So has being a student, so it all works until an encounter with the real world ensues.

  5. 5
    tribune7 says:

    News

    being a prof has been dumbed down in recent years. So has being a student, so it all works until an encounter with the real world ensues.

    Follow the money. Students pay for a degree not an education and it’s the vested interested of the institution to provide a degree regardless of whether it reflects useful knowledge, and to make them as easy as possible to obtain. This maximizes their profit albeit their victims end up with useless degrees and crushing debt.

    Regarding the professors, if they can follow the path of least resistance to a nice lifestyle, it’s a tempting path to follow.

  6. 6
    JSmith says:

    When dealing with possible origin of life scenarios, I don’t think that you will ever get past “plausible”. Even if their controlled experiments were capable of producing the simplest possible replicator that could subsequently “evolve”, there is no way of knowing if that is how it actually happened. All you could say is that it is a plausible mechanism.

  7. 7
    ET says:

    JS:

    When dealing with possible origin of life scenarios, I don’t think that you will ever get past “plausible”.

    You and yours can’t even get to “plausible”.

    Even if their controlled experiments were capable of producing the simplest possible replicator that could subsequently “evolve”,…

    They have, then they met Spiegelman’s Monster and no one can get beyond that.

  8. 8
    Eric Anderson says:

    No, this is not plausible. My dictionary defines “plausible” as an argument or proposition that “seems reasonable or probable.”

    This idea proposed in the Scripps press release is most certainly not reasonable or probable as a starting place for abiogenesis. There are way too many problems with this idea for it to be taken seriously. It is interesting chemical research, to be sure, but as a precursor for OOL, it is in the same boat with all the other abiogenesis dead ends.

  9. 9
    Eric Anderson says:

    ET, thanks for mentioning Spiegelman’s Monster.

    Just one clarification: let’s keep in mind that it was not self-replicating.

Leave a Reply