It seems to me like the disasterously pessimistic assumptions in your OP are:
That self replicating molecules must be extraordinarily long (a million bases? Why not a thousand?)
Why is the change random? From all we know about synthesis of organic molecules, it’s not random. In addition, we know that survival and replication of molecules in living systems is not random. Where’s the accounting for non-randomness anywhere in the OP??
There’s no support for the numbers of self-replicating molecules. Why 10[sup]100,000[/sup]? Why not 10[sup]1,000,000,000[/sup]? Why not 10[sup]100,000,000,000[/sup]? How can you possibly know or even guess how many possible self-replicating molecules (including the ones that don’t exist!) there are?
Allow me to quote from the first paragraph of that page.
“Amino acids, often called “the building blocks of life”, occur naturally, due to chemical reactions unrelated to life.[citation needed].”
So Wikipedia claims that amino acids occur naturally, but Wikipedia cannot provide any citation to any paper that backs up that claim.
There is also a description of an experiment later on, saying that some amino acids and RNA bases formed within ice from a mixture that included ammonia and cyanide, but it makes no mention of nitrogen related to that experiment. Nothing on that page mentions any results showing that amino acids can form in the presence of nitrogen and carbon dioxide.
Well then, once again I’ll ask whether you know of any experiments showing that amino acids form from a mixture of carbon dioxide and nitrogen. If so, please post a link to a paper on that experiment, and I will read it.
You’re the one who claimed that amino acids can’t form in the presence of nitrogen, you’re the one who needs to back it up. So far all you’re done is give a paper that shows that amino acids don’t form under one specific set of circumstances when nitrogen is present. If you want to claim that amino acids don’t form in the presence of nitrogen at all then you need to present papers that show this for all specific circumstances. Then, of course, to tie it back to your previous argument, you need to show that nitrogen was omnipresent on the early earth.
Of course, if you just want to fall back on your intelligent design argument with it’s inherent false dichotomy, you’re also invited to present evidence for said intelligent designer. Either will do.
The abstract of this article does not say what you claim it does. The authors did not start with the M-U mixture and then add nitrogen. They started with methane and water only. The M-U experiment included ammonia, which was their source of nitrogen. Nitrogen, far from preventing the formation of amino acids, is an essential ingredient–what do you think “amino” means? All this experiment demonstrates is that elemental nitrogen (as opposed to ammonia) isn’t very reactive under these specific circumstances.
Obviously no amino acids could be produced from methane and water alone under any circumstances. The Ferris-Chen experiment produced no amino acids either before or after the addition of nitrogen; your impression that the presence of nitrogen somehow blocked the production of amino acids makes no sense at all.
Hey, would you like to give me a million bucks in exchange for my new process that makes gold by combining manganese and 3-bromooctyne? There’s no paper saying that it doesn’t happen.
For Earth’s early atmosphere, let’s turn to Earth’s Early Atmosphere, by James Kasting in Science.
So was there methane and ammonia present at the time in any amount? Kasting considers it in a section titled “The Atmosphere at the Time of the Origin of Life”. His first analysis shows that the initial supply of methane and ammonia would have been destroyed before life formed. The only way that those two compounds could have been present is if they were released from volcanoes. the problem is that this contradicts what we know about volcanoes.
He goes on to discuss the possibility that magma had a different oxidation state at that time than it has now. The actual results from analyzing ancient rocks suggest that magma was more oxidized back then rather than less. While in the end he says it would be “premature” to rule out the possibility of volcanoes releasing methane and ammonia, the evidence is not in favor of it.
So what does this mean for the origin of amino acids. Kasting tackles that problem as well. To synthesize amino acids, we would first need HCN and
Thus he concludes that section by acknowledging that some researchers are turning to theories such as the delivery of materials from outer space to get around these unfortunate facts.
So to sum up, (1) earth’s early atmosphere was probably CO2, CO, and N2, (2) this mixture does not react to produce amino acids.
I’m not sure if this is at all relevant (or even up to date or valid), but apparently this was done far outside a laboratory and has apparently produced some interesting results.
There’s also no paper that does. Just like there’s no paper that says that nitrogen prevents the formation of amino acids in every case.
Well, we could sum up another way, rather the sweeping fallacy you use here. We could say that (1) volcanoes probably didn’t introduce methane and/or ammonia into the atmosphere and/or water, but we’re not certain, and we can say that (2) we don’t know how these compounds formed but that this one specific way looks unlikely, it’s a good thing we’re looking elsewhere.
What? Nothing more on intelligent design? Well, you have abandoned lots of other arguments in this thread, why not that one. And I was so looking forward to that evidence for the intelligent designer.
There would be parts that lead up to the self-replicating molecule that are random though… these parts may be large though… e.g. maybe there are only 5 large parts (“bases”) that are needed to form a self-replicating molecule.
I got the figure from some other guy… but I thought I’d get better feedback from this messageboard and I overwhelmingly have.
I pretty much agree. The people in this thread are talking about much simpler self-replicating structures rather than super complex modern-day cells and also they are saying that it isn’t just a case of pure chance.
Although even at that, a lot of how the DNA is arranged is also common (or at least very similar) to all living things. There are a lot of things that all living things need to do.
I was enjoying your side of the debate up until this response.
Your opponents are offering their beliefs (however flawed or incomplete). I think it’s time to cut to the chase and offer yours (chinks in the other side’s armor does not mean you are right and they are wrong). I ask you two questions:
Do you believe in an intelligent designer?
If so, what proof can you provide of that designers existence that outweighs the Miller-Urey experiment evidence for life arising on it’s own?
I think it’s better to ask ITR champion about more recent advances e.g.
The second video at 2:24 responds to the objection “The 1953 Miller-Urey experiment did not create life”. It goes on to say “this is like claiming it’s impossible to fly to the moon simply because the Wright brothers didn’t”
BTW, here’s the Answers in Genesis article about “Why the Miller–Urey research argues against abiogenesis”
So the reason why they would mainly only be using one handedness is because the other handedness is useless (I previously thought it could have just been a sign of design or extreme chance)
Which, even if it was remotely accurate, is entirely beside the point – the OP presented an argument to evaluate the chances of life arising, and I presented a counterargument that his estimates are, based on current knowledge, flawed, and thus, the number he arrived at likely wrong. I never once said I had the definitive explanation for the origin of life, nor that anyone does – I’ve been careful to make that clear, by explicitly stating that what I paraphrased was one current hypothesis, even adding that my paraphrase was probably incorrect. It merely served to illustrate my point, namely that life did not arise from random, but from self-organizing processes.
You, however, could not stop your knee-jerk to point out that there are still gaps left for you to hide your god in, thus adding absolutely zero to the thread and just furthering your own agenda. And for the record: yes, those gaps exist, likely will for some time still, and possibly there will always remain some as long as the human race exists. So breathe easy, your god is safe, as long as he is content to cram himself into the ever shrinking nooks and crannies of ignorance still left in our understanding of the world, hiding there in the dark like vermin feeding on our refuse. Why you would worship such a pathetic creature, of course, I can’t fathom; but that’s entirely your call.
… and as for the amino acids, as I have already pointed out to you before, they also occur in meteorites. No, not all of those necessary for live as today we know it have been found there. Yes, that’s a gap. I’m certain god will fit, if you’re just willing to make him small enough.
I’m not prepared to discuss whether it is wrong, or not, but the source certainly does exist.
The link is written incorrectly, beginning with http://www.science.siu.edu (possibly the url changed between the time the quote was used in the wiki article and now). I wiki’d “siu” and got a hit that suggested I would profit by looking under Southern Illinois University, and that the Carbondale campus would be most fruitful. So I did a search in that campus’s science department on the term “origin of life.” This led me to a number of hits on this page. Note that the url for the first article replaces “science.siu” with “micro.siu”.
Unfortunately, the page would not load from that link, but it did load from the cached link. Here. Searching for the character string “Originally it was thought” takes you right to the section quoted in the wikipedia article.
Oh joy, Answers in Genesis. Sorry, AiG is just more Intelligent Design garbage. It contains more fallacies, quote mining, half truths, and outright lies than most sites on the internet. Just as a quick example:
And of course they fail to leave out the ‘yet’. No scientists has ever said they have proof they have the answer, no one has ever said that the Miller Urey experiment was proof, research continues, we know we don’t have the answer yet, etc. And yet, because the Miller Urey experiment didn’t produce life, somehow ‘intelligent designer’ is the only answer. This is false dilemma, claiming that the only choice is between research 60 years out date and sky faeries is wrong. Pinning your hopes on Answers in Genesis is not a winning move.
:rolleyes: Man, talk about moving the goal posts. Now super complex modern day cells have to have spontaneously emerged fully functional? Please. The only thing abiogenesis has to do is produce self replicating molecules or very simple replicating structures. Once that happens evolution takes over as these structures try to reproduce under various environmental pressures. You need a better basic understanding of the science involved.
You ask about “the Miller-Urey experiment evidence for life arising on its own.” The Miller-Urey experiment offers no such evidence, nor did Stanley Miller ever believe that it did. As I’ve already gone over in earlier posts in this thread: (1) The Miller-Urey experiment was famous for producing amino acids, often incorrectly described as ‘building blocks of life’. In reality amino acids are building blocks pf proteins, but other components are necessary for life. (2) The Miller-Urey experiment used an artificial cold trap to separate amino acids from permanent gases. Without the cold trap, no amino acids form. (3) The mixture of gases that went into the Miller-Urey experiment was not the mixture present on early earth. The mixture present in the early earth atmosphere does not produce amino acids. So that experiment does not provide any evidence for life arising on its own. In the journal Earth, in a 1998 article, Stanley Miller was quoted agreeing with this assessment. (Now, before anyone leaps on me for not responding to more recent research, I intend to respond to that in a later post.)
As for why I believe in an intelligent designer, many things, most of which are not relevant to this thread. Those would be things such as (1) There is no other explanation for why the universe exists at all. (2) There is no other explanation for why the physical constants of the universe are fine-tuned to permit the existence of complex structures such as stars. (3) There is no other explanation for why nebulae should results in a ready supply of atoms and molecules that are necessary for life, such as carbon and water. (4) There is no other explanation for why our Sun and our Earth should have a large number of properties that make them just right for supporting life. (5) Numerous people have seen, heard, and had a personal relationship with a supreme intelligence behind the universe. (6) Fulfilled prophecies. (7) Miracles. (8-50) Lots of other things too numerous to list here. (Obviously many readers of this thread will bash this list; if so feel free, but in another thread, since it’s not relevant to this one.)
As for whether the origin of life on earth results from an intelligent designer, there are two possibilities, yes and no. If no, then it must be the result of random motion of molecules. We can do experiments to determine whether random motion of the molecules present on early earth leads to life. If the answer is no, then we need a designer, more or less by definition. (Random means “occurring without prior plan or design”, according to my dictionary.) The necessity of a designer for the origin of life is not in any way a basis for my belief in God, so Half Man Half Wit’s spree of juvenile insults was a complete waste of time.