Sweeping the Origin of Life Under the Rug

_{Barry Arrington

October 3, 2017

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

60 years ago origin of life (OOL) researches practically wet themselves with excitement over Miller-Urey. Now everyone knows Miller-Urey, while perhaps mildly interesting, had nothing to do with OOL, because the early earth’s atmosphere was weakly reducing and the M-U reaction simply does not occur in such an atmosphere.

No worries. We get this from a new Proceedings of the National Academy of Science paper:

As to the sources of nucleobases, early Earth’s atmosphere was likely dominated by CO2, N2, SO2, and H2O. In such a weakly reducing atmosphere, Miller–Urey-type reactions are not very efficient at producing organics. One solution is that the nucleobases were delivered by interplanetary dust particles (IDPs) and meteorites.

This is amusing. You can’t get nucleobases from known natural sources? Just invoke space particles and meteorites. This is just one step removed from “little green men did it.”

Comments

CR:
And we’re sweeping things under the rug?
Why yes you are. Didn't you read the post? Materialists are increasingly coming to understand that OOL on materialist premises is utterly hopeless. So they are resorting to disguised "little green men" theories. I understand this does not bother you, because your faith is extremely strong. But the post was aimed at people who value evidence and logic. Your faith commitments trump both of those, so I can understand why it does not move you.Barry Arrington_{October 4, 2017
October
10
Oct
4
04
2017
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

CR @13 It's unclear to whom you are responding. But, in general, when an ID-er says 'OOL is inexplicable', she means to say that neither necessity (natural law) nor chance can explain it. IOWs it is inexplicable under materialistic assumptions. However an ID-er holds that there is a third category of causation: intelligent design Didn't you know that already? ...Origenes_{October 4, 2017
October
10
Oct
4
04
2017
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

Rejecting a possibility — solely on the basis of personal aesthetics at that — before you start the investigation is bad science.
if we live in a bubble of explicability that is surrounded by a sea of inexplicability, the best explanation for anything we could have in that sea is "Zeus rules" there. However, since everting inside that bubble supposedly depends on that sea, then the best explantion for anything here inside our bubble is also "Zeus rules" here, as well. IOW, the inside of this bubble would only appear explicable if we avoided specific questions. And we're sweeping things under the rug?critical rationalist_{October 4, 2017
October
10
Oct
4
04
2017
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

rvb8, You now say you read the article. Yet, you show know comprehension of the following from the authors: “nucleobases have not been identified in IDPs."Barry Arrington_{October 4, 2017
October
10
Oct
4
04
2017
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

Again, it's unclear why we should conclude some aspects of the world are inexplicable, let along that the origin of life is just one such aspect. Of course, it is clear why *you* would expect it to remain inexplicable. Explicable things are just merely unseen processes. If the OOL was explicable, then God couldn't have done it. And you know God did it because it has been revealed to you by some supernatural source of knowledge. IOW, your assumption that it is inexplicable is based on the idea that knowledge comes from authoritative sources, which is in and of itself, and inexplicable process. As such, it's a bad explanation for the growth of knowledge.critical rationalist_{October 4, 2017
October
10
Oct
4
04
2017
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

> and since von Neumann 1948 we have had a very good idea of what a kinematic self-replicator requires. And studiously ignored it.Mung_{October 4, 2017
October
10
Oct
4
04
2017
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

That one made my day! Especially, I liked the acronym IDP. If the dust is interplanetary, everyone surely must believe the authors...EugeneS_{October 4, 2017
October
10
Oct
4
04
2017
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

--Origin Of Life MUST have come from something other than “God did it”,-- Rejecting a possibility -- solely on the basis of personal aesthetics at that -- before you start the investigation is bad science.tribune7_{October 4, 2017
October
10
Oct
4
04
2017
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

rvb I am sure you know that life is not just about chemistry. Living organisms are non-homogeneous self-reproducing autonomous decision making systems. To reproduce, life needs a semantically closed organization enabling information translation. M-U experiment is totally irrelevant to this. M-U has nothing to do with the organization of symbolic constraints on the motion of matter in the system. Not even wrong.Eugene S_{October 4, 2017
October
10
Oct
4
04
2017
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT}

Rvb8 - What organic molecules in space ? Why if organic molecule can exist in space were none found on the moon ? They say these molecules exist in space because they find organic molecules on meteorites but meteorites have to pass through the organic laden atmosphere then crash land into organic laden earth , hence organic molecules on meteorites. Just as there is no crying in baseball there are not organic molecules in space.Marfin_{October 4, 2017
October
10
Oct
4
04
2017
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT}

rvb8- You and yours don't have any explanation for the origin of life. You can have all of the molecules you want and it won't get you a living organism. Heck you and yours can't even get a replicating molecule without direct human intervention.ET_{October 4, 2017
October
10
Oct
4
04
2017
02:59 AM
2
02
59
AM
PDT}

kairos, read the article Barry linked. UD: Why don't you? The authors write: “nucleobases have not been identified in IDPs"rvb8_{October 3, 2017
October
10
Oct
3
03
2017
11:40 PM
11
11
40
PM
PDT}

Also, as the article you link plainly states cosmic dust, asteroids, and comets are known as a rich source of organic molecules, and amino acids. But even with out this well understood supply of organic molecules, the article doesn't say the RNA molecules couldn't synthsize in an old earth environment. This is not science fiction, as Barry appears to allude to. It is a well known scientific fact that these organic molecules are hurtling through space, again produced by other perfectly well understood natural forces. A question Barry. Why the link, the article in no way supports your... what exactly are you suggesting? That these crackpot evolutionists think aliens did it? Isn't that an ID position for a possible designer? UD: Why don't you read the article rvb8? The authors write: “nucleobases have not been identified in IDPs"rvb8_{October 3, 2017
October
10
Oct
3
03
2017
11:38 PM
11
11
38
PM
PDT}

RVB8, the sort of reducing suggested atmosphere used by Miller and Urey has not been credible for decades. Go to a more "realistic" model and the reactions collapse; that is the point of the OP, which then notes on how its force is evaded by appealing to a just so story on space dust. That's why it is one of the classic misleading textbook and pop sci icons of evolutionary materialism rather than part of the citation for winning a nobel prize for successfully explaining OOL on evolutionary materialism. (Which is itself revealing, and nope Prigogine was not even close, as he acknowledged.) Besides, there is a huge issue on sustaining products and/or [lack of] molar concentration, there is another on the handedness (chirality) of life molecules, and on the gap between bricks and a self-replicating house -- you need FSCO/I rich plans and since von Neumann 1948 we have had a very good idea of what a kinematic self-replicator requires. Suffice to note, we have yet to build such a vNSR seventy years later, never mind, doing that with molecular nanotech. And more. The OOL challenge chops out the root of the darwinist tree of life type model and it puts design at the table right from the start. If, people are willing to listen to the force of evidence provided by empirically well-warranted signs of design. In short, please open your mind to the actual weight of evidence. KFkairosfocus_{October 3, 2017
October
10
Oct
3
03
2017
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PDT}

That's an interesting quote and proves what exactly? The premise of the M/U experiment was to produce a possible ancient earth environment and see if organic chemicals could be produced by existing physical forces. Later experiments added to Miller's original heat, and electric discharge, by introducing bursts of steam,and ultra violet light, and different theorized atmospheric gasses. These tests, and the rechecking of the original 1950s experiment produce over 20 amino acids. It is theorised (based on knowledge we have of existing very primitive species), that the last universal common ancestor (LUA), didn't need all of these to synthisize the first replicating molecules. Once again, an article about how ID simply can't see how this could be accomplished in nature. Perhaps a little less negativity, and a little more experimentation.rvb8_{October 3, 2017
October
10
Oct
3
03
2017
09:41 PM
9
09
41
PM
PDT}

Just invoke space participles [particles?] and meteorites. This is just one step removed from “little green men did it.”
Origin Of Life MUST have come from something other than "God did it", no matter how ridiculous the proposed alternatives are. Even if God does claim to have done it, using language to tell us so (even though we have no explanation for the Origin Of Language either). And so what if He did do it a second time on Easter Sunday. Just ignore all those claiming to have witnessed that second Origin Of Life event and their fake good news! Who needs eternal life any how, when life is so easily obtained from IDPs and meteorites.awstar_{October 3, 2017
October
10
Oct
3
03
2017
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

really really small little green men. cyanobacteria.Mung_{October 3, 2017
October
10
Oct
3
03
2017
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply