# Chances of life appearing **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 8, 2009, 10:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737 "2009-05-08T10:40:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/81 "2009-05-12T15:49:29Z")
NM, wasn’t the first to post Murchison ---
**Author:** ![WarmNPrickly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d78d45/32.png) [@WarmNPrickly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WarmNPrickly)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/82 "2009-05-12T19:14:39Z")
I didn’t read the entire thread so I apologize if it has been mentioned, but there is often a misunderstanding with regards to the source of handedness among the amino acids. I think it was Isaac Asimov that once explained that everything evolved from a single organism and that is why the biologic molecules are all the same chirality. This may have been a reasonable idea in the 70’s, but since then much has been discovered. There is no need for life at all in order to propagate molecules of a single chirality from a complex system. Asymmetric autocatalytic amplification is a phenomenon that will very quickly turn a racemic mixture to one hand or another. Since it is very likely that the initial formation of complex molecules was an autocatalytic process, the result is inevitable that one configuration would dominate long before life began. Keep in mind, you are discussing a sequence of events that took place over a billion years. Normal kinetics simply cannot be relied on over that length of time. Reaction rates are inversely proportional to seconds. Over the course of a billion years throughout the volume of the entire ocean things like the deprotonation of methane become plausible. We can’t even begin to conceive of the reaction mechanisms that occur. The earth was a perfect system for complex molecules to form. You had every type of energy, oceans of solvent, and a reducing atmosphere. The fact that complex molecules can be found in the vacuum of space is interesting as a demonstration that these molecules are easy to form even in extremely unlikely situations. Chemistry is near impossible in a vacuum and for that reason alone I find the idea that the seeds of life came from outer-space to be needlessly complicated. We may never know how life forms. We simply can’t wait a billion years to see if an experiment plays out. Even if we could, the nay-sayers would simply play their little god of the gaps game. It is not a conversation worth having. I’ve known decent creationists. It is rare that these conversations produce mutual understanding. As to the OP’s question of the probability of life beginning, I am at the exact opposite of the spectrum. I not only think that the probability of life beginning on earth is near one, but I think that life began multiple times in multiple places. I even consider that right now there exists a nonzero probability that the process is continuing in some form. Right now though, the process would be quite different since it is being supplied with ready made complex molecules. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/83 "2009-05-12T19:41:18Z")
> [@WarmNPrickly](#): > > I even consider that right now there exists a nonzero probability that the process is continuing in some form. [Oh yeah, then how come I never find a living creature when I open a jar of peanut butter?](http://www.wired.com/table_of_malcontents/2007/03/peanut_butter_d/) Huh? 'Splain that! ---
**Author:** ![JimOfAllTrades](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@JimOfAllTrades](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JimOfAllTrades)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/84 "2009-05-13T21:12:58Z")
Just today I was forwarded a link to an article that appeared in the New York Times which cites an experiment that (according to them) many chemists are hailing as a breakthrough in the formation of RNA during the early days of the earth. [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/science/14rna.html?\_r=1&pagewanted=all](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/science/14rna.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all) The article says that > [@](#): > > An English chemist has found the hidden gateway to the RNA world, the chemical milieu from which the first forms of life are thought to have emerged on earth some 3.8 billion years ago. > > He has solved a problem that for 20 years has thwarted researchers trying to understand the origin of life — how the building blocks of RNA, called nucleotides, could have spontaneously assembled themselves in the conditions of the primitive earth. The discovery, if correct, should set researchers on the right track to solving many other mysteries about the origin of life. It will also mean that for the first time a plausible explanation exists for how an information-carrying biological molecule could have emerged through natural processes from chemicals on the primitive earth. > > The author, John D. Sutherland, a chemist at the University of Manchester, likened his work to a crossword puzzle in which doing the first clues makes the others easier. “Whether we’ve done one across is an open question,” he said. “Our worry is that it may not be right.” The thing they’ve done differently seems to be mainly in the order of the reactions they used. They don’t mention any difficulty in creating the ribose, which according to **ITR champion** was a big stumbling block, so I don’t know if this experiment addresses that concern or not. And although the chemist himself is definitely being cautious in saying they’ve really made a break through (as befits a scientist), the article paints the feedback from the scientific community as being quite positive. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/85 "2009-05-13T22:06:41Z")
By the way, adenine’s nitrogen base can be formed from five molecules of cyanide. It’s been speculated that its simplicity means it was the first nucleotide to show up, and perhaps that’s why ATP is the standard currency of metabolic energy. ---
**Author:** ![RevSteve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e47774/32.png) [@RevSteve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RevSteve)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/86 "2009-05-21T17:58:58Z")
The arguments presented are good but they all neglect to consider that there is no chance, probility or staistical possiblity of a universe if there is no system to create it. One can’t be dealt a royal flush if there are no cards, no table, no prize to win or lose, no dealer and no players to observe and evaluate the results. We even need a place to play these cards in order to have a game. We can’t roll 7’s or 11’s or snake eyes for that matter if there are no dice. Probability works only if there is a system with rules to govern this probability. The author of this thread has presumed a result without a system to provide that result. The universe is the result of a system in action, without a system there is no result. The rules of probability cannot be applied to nothingness. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/87 "2009-05-21T18:18:32Z")
> [@RevSteve](#): > > The arguments presented are good but they all neglect to consider that there is no chance, probility or staistical possiblity of a universe if there is no system to create it. One can’t be dealt a royal flush if there are no cards, no table, no prize to win or lose, no dealer and no players to observe and evaluate the results. We even need a place to play these cards in order to have a game. We can’t roll 7’s or 11’s or snake eyes for that matter if there are no dice. Probability works only if there is a system with rules to govern this probability. The author of this thread has presumed a result without a system to provide that result. The universe is the result of a system in action, without a system there is no result. The rules of probability cannot be applied to nothingness. That’s really sort of a [different disucssion altogether](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=516651). ---
**Author:** ![WarmNPrickly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d78d45/32.png) [@WarmNPrickly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WarmNPrickly)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/88 "2009-05-21T18:57:33Z")
> [@RevSteve](#): > > The arguments presented are good but they all neglect to consider that there is no chance, probility or staistical possiblity of a universe if there is no system to create it. One can’t be dealt a royal flush if there are no cards, no table, no prize to win or lose, no dealer and no players to observe and evaluate the results. We even need a place to play these cards in order to have a game. We can’t roll 7’s or 11’s or snake eyes for that matter if there are no dice. Probability works only if there is a system with rules to govern this probability. The author of this thread has presumed a result without a system to provide that result. The universe is the result of a system in action, without a system there is no result. The rules of probability cannot be applied to nothingness. I agree. Nobody is really arguing this. It is similar to the antidarwinists claiming that natural selection doesn’t explain how life began. They are right, it doesn’t. It doesn’t intend to. Likewise, abiogenesis doesn’t explain where the universe came from. Nobody really knows how abiogenesis occured, but there may be many hypothesis. I think they know even less about where the universe came from. As far as I can tell, every hypothesis is as valid as any other since there is basically no evidence for any of them. “God did it” is just as valid as “it just happened for no reason”. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2009, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/89 "2009-05-21T20:19:41Z")
> [@WarmNPrickly](#): > > “God did it” is just as valid as “it just happened for no reason”. “God did it” doesn’t even answer the question - if the issue is that things-regardless-of-probability cannot exist “if there is no system to create it”, then all that one does by placing God at the start of the chain of creation is raise the question of what created God. “It just happened for no reason” at least has the dual advantages of 1) being simple, and 2) actually answering the question. (I feel guilty even addressing this off-topic subject in this thread.) ---
**Author:** ![RevSteve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e47774/32.png) [@RevSteve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RevSteve)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2009, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/90 "2009-05-22T00:29:02Z")
My point is that life is inseperable from the universe. If the universe is the product of some grand engineered system, than life, as part of the universe is also engineered and did not arise on it’s own. Life in this universe was the deliberate result of some grand mind’s intention and is not the result of chance. Call that mind what you will. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2009, 8:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/91 "2009-05-22T08:39:56Z")
> [@RevSteve](#): > > If the universe is the product of some grand engineered system That’s a big “If”. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2009, 9:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/92 "2009-05-22T09:48:53Z")
Hah, and for a moment as I saw this thread pop up in my ‘subscribed’ list, I thought maybe **ITR Champion** had returned to acknowledge that some of his assertions may have been a little bold. Fool that I am! Instead, it’s that immeasurably brilliant and compelling argument of ‘I don’t know, so god’. Sing hallelujah. ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/93 "2009-06-08T08:13:47Z")
Hi, I was wondering if anyone has answers to this? [![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/U6QYDdgP9eg/hqdefault.jpg "The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg) > [@](#): > > …I watched the first video with interest and I was left with more questions than when I started. > Their premise assumes that proteins, lipids, amino acids and the like are there because they are there. They do not try to explain their existence. They must be assumed to have originated from nothing in order to have their consequences. Cause and effect. > It also assumes that forces such as thermodynamics (heat / cold) also had no origin (because God cannot exist???). > The laws of thermodynamics and entropy necessitate 1.the origin of a heat source and 2. a higher life form. > Again cause and effect come into function. > I am not convinced that they have solved any dilemma’s. Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/94 "2009-06-08T10:32:20Z")
[QUOTE=ITR Champion] The results of such experiments have not come out in your favor. Thus you’re trying to change the terms of the debate, so that it no longer involves any experiments at all, but only involves philosophical wrangling. Philosophical wrangling has the widely-known characteristic that it is immune to experimental evidence and is never settled, and it seems that’s the best that you can hope for right now. [/QUOTE] I’ve got to hand it to you, man. Your balls are way, way bigger than mine. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/95 "2009-06-08T14:12:21Z")
JohnClay, here I’m quoting your quote as if it’s your own words… > [@JohnClay](#): > > Their premise assumes that proteins, lipids, amino acids and the like are there because they are there. They do not try to explain their existence. They must be assumed to have originated from nothing in order to have their consequences. Cause and effect. Yes, simple amino acids and lipids spontaneously form when the right ingredients are present. > [@](#): > > It also assumes that forces such as thermodynamics (heat / cold) also had no origin (because God cannot exist???). What? Heat and cold aren’t forces, and I don’t see the connection to God. > [@](#): > > The laws of thermodynamics and entropy necessitate 1.the origin of a heat source and 2. a higher life form. What? Sure, the laws of thermodynamics presuppose some heat energy, because it’s the study of how heat energy gets transferred around. It doesn’t attempt to explain where the first energy came from. So? And higher life form? Where the hell did that come from? That makes no sense! ---
**Author:** ![Busy\_Scissors](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/d78d45/32.png) [@Busy\_Scissors](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Busy_Scissors)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/96 "2009-06-08T15:11:26Z")
> [@RJKUgly](#): > > Just today I was forwarded a link to an article that appeared in the New York Times which cites an experiment that (according to them) many chemists are hailing as a breakthrough in the formation of RNA during the early days of the earth. > > [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/science/14rna.html?\_r=1&pagewanted=all](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/science/14rna.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all) > > The article says that > > The thing they’ve done differently seems to be mainly in the order of the reactions they used. They don’t mention any difficulty in creating the ribose, which according to **ITR champion** was a big stumbling block, so I don’t know if this experiment addresses that concern or not. > > And although the chemist himself is definitely being cautious in saying they’ve really made a break through (as befits a scientist), the article paints the feedback from the scientific community as being quite positive. That really is an outstanding paper - brings together ideas that the PI has been thinking about for a long time. It will need some digestion of course, but could well be a breakthrough in pre-biotic chemistry. I don’t know if it’s available online without a subscription, but it’s very well written and OK to follow if you know a bit of chemistry, worth reading if you can. The key point of the paper is that just because RNA comprises phosphate, ribose and a nucleobase, doesn’t mean it has to be synthesised from phosphate, ribose and a base. This has been an infamous problem - the bases don’t react with ribose under any plausible conditions. The solution to this is an elegant piece of thinking that makes a pivotal C-N bond very early on in the synthesis. ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/97 "2009-06-09T03:41:44Z")
I’m pretty confident that this will never change the ideas of anyone in this thread, but I do have to wonder what the OP thinks of this: > [@Lincoln and Joyce 2009](#): > > A long-standing research goal has been to devise a nonbiological system that undergoes replication in a self-sustained manner, brought about by enzymatic machinery that is part of the system being replicated. One way to realize this goal, inspired by the notion of primitive RNA-based life, would be for an RNA enzyme to catalyze the replication of RNA molecules, including the RNA enzyme itself (1-4). This has now been achieved in a cross-catalytic system involving two RNA enzymes that catalyze each other’s synthesis from a total of four component substrates. From [Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA enzyme](http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/323/5918/1229) (behind a paywall, but you can also find a related press release [here](http://www.scripps.edu/news/press/010809.html).) It seems to me that progress is being made in the process of locating self-replicating non-biological systems that provide the basic machinery for self-replicating biological systems. ---
**Author:** ![JohnClay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c37758/32.png) [@JohnClay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnClay)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/98 "2009-06-09T07:03:16Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > JohnClay, here I’m quoting your quote as if it’s your own words… > > Yes, simple amino acids and lipids spontaneously form when the right ingredients are present. About lipids and the lipid theory: > **[Abiogenesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Lipid_World)** > > Abiogenesis or the origin of life (sometimes called biopoesis) is the natural process by which life arises from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities on Earth was not a single event, but a process of increasing complexity involving the formation of a habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, and the emerge... “Still, no biochemical mechanism has been offered to support the Lipid World theory.” Does that mean that the lipid thing works in theory? Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/99 "2009-06-09T08:46:34Z")
> [@JohnClay](#): > > Sorry if my maths or science is wrong… > note: I don’t believe in intelligent design. The reason why I think life seems incredibly unlikely and yet it happened is because I think there are a near-infinite number of parallel histories of the universe and therefore whatever could happen did in some of the parallel histories. So some universes could even have life independently appearing billions of times. > > Firstly, some stuff about the origin of life: > [http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/A/AbioticSynthesis.html](http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/A/AbioticSynthesis.html) > > I was wondering what people think would be the number of units big a sequence of bases would be in order for it to be considered “life” or at least be self-replicating… > > I have assumed it would be a million units long. > > To make it as likely as possible let’s assume there are only 2 bases. The odds of a random sequence of a million bases being in the right sequence would be 1 in 2^million (2 to the power of a million). 2^10 = 1000 = 10^3, so 2^million = 10^300,000. > Say there are 10^100,000 (1 with 100,000 zeroes) different combinations that also result in a self-replicating molecule. > That means the odds of a random sequence of a million bases resulting in life is 1 in 10^200,000. > > Let’s assume that every bit of space in the observable universe is only made up of those 2 bases: > [Observable universe - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Size) > = 10^80 cubic metres. > > 1 cubic metre = 1,000 litres = 1,000 kg = 1,000,000 grams of water. > > Say the bases are about as dense as water. > > [http://library.thinkquest.org/19957/atomic/molebody.html](http://library.thinkquest.org/19957/atomic/molebody.html) > [http://tannerm.com/avogadro.htm](http://tannerm.com/avogadro.htm) > (a mole) 6.02 x 10^23 water molecules would weigh 18.0153g. > > 1,000,000g / 18.0153g = 55,508 moles = (\* 6.02 x 10^23) > = 33,415,816,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 > = 3.3 x 10^28 > = 10^30 (being generous) base molecules per cubic metre > = 10^110 base molecules if they filled the observeable universe > > or let’s try to put even more molecules into a cubic metre… > > [Planck units - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length) > smallest unit of length = 10^-35 metres > so a cubic metre would contain 10^105 cubic planck lengths. > = 10^185 base molecules if they filled the observeable universe > in that case the molecules would be smaller than subatomic particles though… > > say the molecules are each conveniently divided into groups of a million… > = 10^179 sets of a million molecules. > > [Planck units - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time) > smallest unit of time = 10^-44 seconds > > number of seconds in history of universe > = 14,000,000,000 yrs x 365 x 24 x 60 x 60 > = 441,504,000,000,000,000 > = 10^18 seconds > = 10^18 \* 10^44 = 10^62 units of time in history of universe > > say every planck time, the 10^179 sets of molecules randomly change… > > in the history of the universe there would be > 10^(62+179) = 10^241 combinations of molecules. > > It would take almost 10^200,000 histories of the universe to create a self-replicating molecule… and there would have to be a mechanism to stop it from being automatically changed into another combination of molecules. > > [Rubik's Cube - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubik's_Cube#Permutations) > BTW, apparently there are about 10^19 combinations in the rubik’s cube… with one 1 right combination. I stopped reading somewhere along the way. I’m sure you’ve put a lot of thought into this, and I’d like to encourage you to continue thinking. Of course, it’s a far better course to try to reason something out than just adopt the “God of the gaps” as is vogue now. But problem with trying to predict the odds of something happening that has already happened is that you lose the predictive power of probability. (I am very, very sorry for the alliteration). It simply doesn’t do to take someone who, oh say, won the lottery and then calculate the odds they won it. The odds that they won it are, well, 1. The proof is that they actually did it. Probability doesn’t work that way. Now, it would have been impressive to know the odds of that person winning, and then saying, “I now predict this person will win, given that they have a 1 in \_\_\_\_\_ chance of winning.” Then it’d be curious if that person won. The odds of life arising on Earth? 100%. It’s here. You also must factor in that the trials for the right combination, even if random, aren’t subsequent. They’re simultaneous. The little chemicals that first sprang life weren’t waiting in a long line milling around and going to one guy and seeing if they matched, then to another. You have many, many trials happening all at the same time. Also, and this is where I stopped reading, it isn’t a random process. Chemistry doesn’t work that way. Chemicals don’t just go bonding all willy nilly. It’s an orderly process. ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2009, 9:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737/100 "2009-06-09T09:00:40Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Why are we stopping, exactly? That page confirms exactly what I said in my post, namely that the evidence is against early earth having a supply of amino acids, much less a supply dense enough and varied enough to provide a good breeding ground for primitive life. The only thing on the Wikipedia page that might challenge that result is this paragraph > > There are two problems with this paragraph. First of all, the source cited to back it up does not exist. Second, it is wrong. > > The source is linked to in footnote 19 of the Wikipedia page, or at least that’s how it appears. In reality, when I click on the link, I get an error. To double-check, I searched on Google for the title “PHYSIOLOGY & BIOCHEMISTRY of MICROORGANISMS: The Origin of Life” and all that came up was copies of the Wikipedia article. > > Now, what actually happens when people duplicate the Miller-Urey experiment with a mixture that includes nitrogen? The answer is that they don’t get _any_ amino acids. From [this article in the Journal of the American Chemical Society](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja00844a007), we learn that “no amino acids were detected when nitrogen was added to the reaction mixture”. > > There’s actually even more about this experiment that the atheists would prefer people not know. In the original versions of the experiment, no amino acids were produced at all. In order to get any amino acids at all, Miller had to use an artificial device called a [cold trap](http://www.answers.com/topic/cold-trap), which separates out liquids and solids from permanent gases by running the mixture through a vacuum tube surrounded by liquid nitrogen. This was the only way that Miller could get any amino acids from the reaction ([cite](http://whiteman0o0.wordpress.com/2008/01/11/millerurey-experiment-fact-or-fraud/)). On early earth, there was no cold trap, hence there would be no amino acids even if the atmosphere was methane and ammonia, which it wasn’t. > > To summarize, the first step in **Half Man Half Wit** ’s explanation of the origin of life is based on junk science. What does atheism, or even theism have to do with this? Science is religion-neutral. Any theory in science can incorporate any god, or no god. Postulating a god just isn’t necessary for the science itself, though it seems to comfort individual scientists. It’s a red herring to say the atheists want . . . As it turns out, many Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Last Thursdayists, whatever are also scientists. This would seem to render your assertion wrong; whether you do so out of intention or ignorance is a question for you and your god to sort out. I’d also like to mention that I should have read all of the posts here before I posted my last reply. Alas, I couldn’t edit it, which sucked because I attempted to add: I should have read through all these before replying, because though what I’ve said is quite accurate it’s been said already. And in some cases said better. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chances-of-life-appearing/495737.md?page=6)