Answering a century-old question on the origins of life

[Frank Robert]

A team of Japanese scientists found the missing link between chemistry and biology in the origins of life.

"The missing link isn't a not-yet-discovered fossil, after all. It's a tiny, self-replicating globule called a coacervate droplet, developed by two researchers in Japan to represent the evolution of chemistry into biology."

"A droplet-based protocell could have served as a link between 'chemistry' and 'biology'
during the origins of life," Matsuo said."

"By constructing peptide droplets that proliferate with feeding on novel amino acid derivatives, we have experimentally elucidated the long-standing mystery of how prebiotic ancestors were able to proliferate and survive by selectively concentrating prebiotic chemicals," Matsuo said. "Rather than an RNA world, we found that 'droplet world' may be a more accurate description, as our results suggest that droplets became evolvable molecular aggregates—one of which became our common ancestor."​

 

[disciple Clint]

A team of Japanese scientists found the missing link between chemistry and biology in the origins of life.

"The missing link isn't a not-yet-discovered fossil, after all. It's a tiny, self-replicating globule called a coacervate droplet, developed by two researchers in Japan to represent the evolution of chemistry into biology."

"A droplet-based protocell could have served as a link between 'chemistry' and 'biology'
during the origins of life," Matsuo said."

"By constructing peptide droplets that proliferate with feeding on novel amino acid derivatives, we have experimentally elucidated the long-standing mystery of how prebiotic ancestors were able to proliferate and survive by selectively concentrating prebiotic chemicals," Matsuo said. "Rather than an RNA world, we found that 'droplet world' may be a more accurate description, as our results suggest that droplets became evolvable molecular aggregates—one of which became our common ancestor."​

looks more like a "maybe, could be" than a fact. I am reminded of The Miller–Urey experiment.

 

[Yttrium]

Okay, now we need to go see if we can find them somewhere in nature.

 

[Frank Robert]

looks more like a "maybe, could be" than a fact. I am reminded of The Miller–Urey experiment.

That is one way to look at it. The scientific way is that it answers many questions and is a promising area of for further research.

 

[tas8831]

I am reminded of The Miller–Urey experiment.

Are you? How so?

 

[disciple Clint]

Are you? How so?

big claims and expectations, no substance in the final analysis

 

[tas8831]

big claims and expectations, no substance in the final analysis

Can you provide more detail? What were their 'claims and expectations'?
And how were the results "no substance"?

 

[disciple Clint]

Can you provide more detail? What were their 'claims and expectations'?
And how were the results "no substance"?

Do you have access to Google? I am not interested in engaging in an argument, the facts are available for anyone who wants to know.

 

[tas8831]

Do you have access to Google? I am not interested in engaging in an argument, the facts are available for anyone who wants to know.

Yes, and have for some time. I was curious as to where you got your information from because here is Miller's paper:
https://faculty.jsd.claremont.edu/dmcfarlane/bio145mcfarlane/PDFs/miller_prebiotic souppdf.pdf

This is the 'abstract':

"The idea that the organic compounds that serve as the basis of life were formed when the earth had an atmosphere of methane, ammonia, water, and hydrogen instead of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, oxygen, and water was suggested by Oparin (1) and has been-given emphasis recently by Urey (2) and Bernal (3). In order to test this hypothesis, an apparatus was built to circulate CHI4, NH3, H2O, and H2 past an electric discharge. The resulting mixture has been tested for amino acids by paper chromatography. Electrical discharge was used to form free radicals instead of ultraviolet light, because quartz absorbs wavelengths short enough to cause photo-dissociation of the gases. Electrical discharge may have played a significant role in the formation of compounds in the primitive atmosphere. "​

Testing hypotheses about the formation of organic molecules in a reducing atmosphere does not seem to equate to "big claims and expectations." Given what the goals of the experiments actually were, the results seem pretty substantive, yet 'humble':

"In this apparatus an attempt was made to duplicate a primitive atmosphere of the earth, and not to obtain the optimum conditions for the formation of amino acids. Although in this case the total yield was small for the energy expended,- it is possible, that, with more efficient apparatus (such as mixing of the free radicals in a flow system, use of higher hydrocarbons from natural gas or petroleum, carbon dioxide, etc., and optimum ratios of gases), this type of process would be a way of commercially producing amino acids. A more complete analysis of the amino acids and other products of the discharge is now being performed and will be reported in detail shortly."​

We can also look at what Miller said in an interview, decades later:

Who came up with the idea of the reducing atmosphere?

Miller: Oparin, a Russian scientist, began the modern idea of the origin of life when he published a pamphlet in 1924. His idea was called the heterotrophic hypothesis: that the first organisms were heterotrophic, meaning they got their organic material from the environment, rather than having to make it, like blue-green algae. This was an important idea. Oparin also suggested that the less biosynthesis there is, the easier it is to form a living organism. Then he proposed the idea of the reducing atmosphere where you might make organic compounds.

He also proposed that the first organisms were coacervates, a special type of colloid. Nobody takes that last part very seriously anymore, but in 1936, this was reasonable since DNA was not known to be the genetic material..

In 1951, unaware of Oparin's work, Harold Urey came to the same conclusion about the reducing atmosphere. He knew enough chemistry and biology to figure that you might get the building blocks of life under these conditions.

Tell us about the famous electrical discharge experiment.

Miller: The experiments were done in Urey's lab when I was a graduate student. Urey gave a lecture in October of 1951 when I first arrived at Chicago and suggested that someone do these experiments. So I went to him and said, "I'd like to do those experiments". The first thing he tried to do was talk me out of it. Then he realized I was determined. He said the problem was that it was really a very risky experiment and probably wouldn't work, and he was responsible that I get a degree in three years or so. So we agreed to give it six months or a year. If it worked out fine, if not, on to something else. As it turned out I got some results in a matter of weeks.
​

From here.




RE: having Google, you may want to use it again, but this time, avoid creationist websites. They have an agenda to push.

 

[Frank Robert]

Do you have access to Google? I am not interested in engaging in an argument, the facts are available for anyone who wants to know.

You are making a specific claim of "no substance" w/o any substantial reasoning from the scientific research on this topic.

 

[disciple Clint]

You are making a specific claim of "no substance" w/o any substantial reasoning from the scientific research on this topic.

Clearly I am making a comparison to an experiment that while originally thought to be revolutionary discovery turned out upon full investigation to have not been at all what it had been believed initially to be.

 

[disciple Clint]

Yes, and have for some time. I was curious as to where you got your information from because here is Miller's paper:
https://faculty.jsd.claremont.edu/dmcfarlane/bio145mcfarlane/PDFs/miller_prebiotic souppdf.pdf

This is the 'abstract':

"The idea that the organic compounds that serve as the basis of life were formed when the earth had an atmosphere of methane, ammonia, water, and hydrogen instead of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, oxygen, and water was suggested by Oparin (1) and has been-given emphasis recently by Urey (2) and Bernal (3). In order to test this hypothesis, an apparatus was built to circulate CHI4, NH3, H2O, and H2 past an electric discharge. The resulting mixture has been tested for amino acids by paper chromatography. Electrical discharge was used to form free radicals instead of ultraviolet light, because quartz absorbs wavelengths short enough to cause photo-dissociation of the gases. Electrical discharge may have played a significant role in the formation of compounds in the primitive atmosphere. "​

Testing hypotheses about the formation of organic molecules in a reducing atmosphere does not seem to equate to "big claims and expectations." Given what the goals of the experiments actually were, the results seem pretty substantive, yet 'humble':

"In this apparatus an attempt was made to duplicate a primitive atmosphere of the earth, and not to obtain the optimum conditions for the formation of amino acids. Although in this case the total yield was small for the energy expended,- it is possible, that, with more efficient apparatus (such as mixing of the free radicals in a flow system, use of higher hydrocarbons from natural gas or petroleum, carbon dioxide, etc., and optimum ratios of gases), this type of process would be a way of commercially producing amino acids. A more complete analysis of the amino acids and other products of the discharge is now being performed and will be reported in detail shortly."​

We can also look at what Miller said in an interview, decades later:

Who came up with the idea of the reducing atmosphere?

Miller: Oparin, a Russian scientist, began the modern idea of the origin of life when he published a pamphlet in 1924. His idea was called the heterotrophic hypothesis: that the first organisms were heterotrophic, meaning they got their organic material from the environment, rather than having to make it, like blue-green algae. This was an important idea. Oparin also suggested that the less biosynthesis there is, the easier it is to form a living organism. Then he proposed the idea of the reducing atmosphere where you might make organic compounds.

He also proposed that the first organisms were coacervates, a special type of colloid. Nobody takes that last part very seriously anymore, but in 1936, this was reasonable since DNA was not known to be the genetic material..

In 1951, unaware of Oparin's work, Harold Urey came to the same conclusion about the reducing atmosphere. He knew enough chemistry and biology to figure that you might get the building blocks of life under these conditions.

Tell us about the famous electrical discharge experiment.

Miller: The experiments were done in Urey's lab when I was a graduate student. Urey gave a lecture in October of 1951 when I first arrived at Chicago and suggested that someone do these experiments. So I went to him and said, "I'd like to do those experiments". The first thing he tried to do was talk me out of it. Then he realized I was determined. He said the problem was that it was really a very risky experiment and probably wouldn't work, and he was responsible that I get a degree in three years or so. So we agreed to give it six months or a year. If it worked out fine, if not, on to something else. As it turned out I got some results in a matter of weeks.
​

From here.




RE: having Google, you may want to use it again, but this time, avoid creationist websites. They have an agenda to push.

You seem to be avoiding the fact that the experiment turned out not to have proven what it originally claimed.

 

[Frank Robert]

Clearly I am making a comparison to an experiment that while originally thought to be revolutionary discovery turned out upon full investigation to have not been at all what it had been believed initially to be.

You are making a senseless claim about the Miller–Urey experiment. In fact the finding was so significant that it kick-started an entirely new field of study: Prebiotic Chemistry.

 

[disciple Clint]

You are making a senseless claim about the Miller–Urey experiment. In fact the finding was so significant that it kick-started an entirely new field of study: Prebiotic Chemistry.

(1) They still used the wrong gasses: methane, ammonia, and water vapor. For decades, geochemists have not considered it likely these gasses were abundant in the early Earth atmosphere.

(2) They still ignored the presence of oxygen, which destroys the desired products. Wells explained that oxygen was likely abundant due to photodissociation of water in the atmosphere. The oxygen would remain, while the hydrogen would quickly escape to space.

(3) Even if trace amounts of ammonia or methane and other reducing gasses were present, they would have been rapidly destroyed by ultraviolet radiation.

(4) No amino acids have been generated in spark-discharge experiments using a realistic atmosphere of nitrogen, carbon dioxide and water vapor, even in the absence of oxygen.

To this we could add more problems:


(5) The amino acids produced were racemic (mixtures of left- and right-handed forms). Except in rare exceptions, life uses only the left-handed form. Astrobiologists need to explain how the first replicator isolated one hand out of the mixture, or obtained function from mixed-form amino acids initially, then converted to single-handed forms later. Neither is plausible for unguided natural processes — especially when natural selection would be unavailable until accurate replication was achieved.

(6) Undesirable cross-reactions with other products would generate tar, destroying the amino acids. Only by isolating the desired products (a form of investigator interference — one might call it intelligent design) could they claim partial success.

(7) Amino acids tend to fall apart in water, not join. Under the best conditions with cyanamide, Bada and Parker only got dipeptides. Repeated cycles of wetting and drying would need to be imagined for polymerization, but many astrobiologists today think life originated at deep sea hydrothermal vents.

(8) The desired reagents would be extremely dilute in the oceans without plausible concentrating mechanisms. Even then, they would disperse without plausible vessels, like cell membranes, to keep them in proximity.

(9) Lifeless polypeptides would go nowhere without a genetic code to direct them.

(10) The Miller experiments cannot speak to the origin of other complex molecules needed by life: nucleic acids, sugars, and lipids. Some of these require vastly different conditions than pictured for amino acid synthesis: e.g., a desert environment with boron for the synthesis of ribose (essential for RNA).

NASA’s celebration of the iconic Miller experiments as "a piece of scientific history" is, therefore, much ado about nothing. But since it is such a valuable icon to Darwinists, there will be a lot of ado:
Squeezing the Last Life Out of the Miller Experiment | Evolution News

 

[Frank Robert]

(1) They still used the wrong gasses: methane, ammonia, and water vapor. For decades, geochemists have not considered it likely these gasses were abundant in the early Earth atmosphere.

(2) They still ignored the presence of oxygen, which destroys the desired products. Wells explained that oxygen was likely abundant due to photodissociation of water in the atmosphere. The oxygen would remain, while the hydrogen would quickly escape to space.

(3) Even if trace amounts of ammonia or methane and other reducing gasses were present, they would have been rapidly destroyed by ultraviolet radiation.

(4) No amino acids have been generated in spark-discharge experiments using a realistic atmosphere of nitrogen, carbon dioxide and water vapor, even in the absence of oxygen.

To this we could add more problems:


(5) The amino acids produced were racemic (mixtures of left- and right-handed forms). Except in rare exceptions, life uses only the left-handed form. Astrobiologists need to explain how the first replicator isolated one hand out of the mixture, or obtained function from mixed-form amino acids initially, then converted to single-handed forms later. Neither is plausible for unguided natural processes — especially when natural selection would be unavailable until accurate replication was achieved.

(6) Undesirable cross-reactions with other products would generate tar, destroying the amino acids. Only by isolating the desired products (a form of investigator interference — one might call it intelligent design) could they claim partial success.

(7) Amino acids tend to fall apart in water, not join. Under the best conditions with cyanamide, Bada and Parker only got dipeptides. Repeated cycles of wetting and drying would need to be imagined for polymerization, but many astrobiologists today think life originated at deep sea hydrothermal vents.

(8) The desired reagents would be extremely dilute in the oceans without plausible concentrating mechanisms. Even then, they would disperse without plausible vessels, like cell membranes, to keep them in proximity.

(9) Lifeless polypeptides would go nowhere without a genetic code to direct them.

(10) The Miller experiments cannot speak to the origin of other complex molecules needed by life: nucleic acids, sugars, and lipids. Some of these require vastly different conditions than pictured for amino acid synthesis: e.g., a desert environment with boron for the synthesis of ribose (essential for RNA).

NASA’s celebration of the iconic Miller experiments as "a piece of scientific history" is, therefore, much ado about nothing. But since it is such a valuable icon to Darwinists, there will be a lot of ado:
Squeezing the Last Life Out of the Miller Experiment | Evolution News

You are regurgitating senseless creationist apologentics and more nonsense to make a case which was been lost years ago. For starters if you believe that prebiotic chemistry is a field to ridicule you can do yourself an enormous favor by learning a bit of hs science especially the differences between origin of life and evolution.

Note: perhaps you can remind the people at Evolution News that perhaps if they actually preformed science research that they might be gain a modicum or respect outside of their closed circle.

 

[disciple Clint]

You are regurgitating senseless creationist apologentics and more nonsense to make a case which was been lost years ago. For starters if you believe that prebiotic chemistry is a field to ridicule you can do yourself an enormous favor by learning a bit of hs science especially the differences between origin of life and evolution.

Note: perhaps you can remind the people at Evolution News that perhaps if they actually preformed science research that they might be gain a modicum or respect outside of their closed circle.

Since ancient times people have believed in “spontaneous generation” of life from lifeless matter. But science has shown all spontaneous generation theories to be wrong. The Urey-Miller experiment did not show how to awaken matter into life, and neither has any other experiment since. Getting life from non-life has so far been impossible, even on Earth where we know life happens.
From the Vatican Observatory: Commentary on ‘Cosmos: Possible Worlds’

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Since ancient times people have believed in “spontaneous generation” of life from lifeless matter. But science has shown all spontaneous generation theories to be wrong. The Urey-Miller experiment did not show how to awaken matter into life, and neither has any other experiment since. Getting life from non-life has so far been impossible, even on Earth where we know life happens.
From the Vatican Observatory: Commentary on ‘Cosmos: Possible Worlds’

Spontaneous generation was the idea that whole organisms (maggots, flies, worms, etc) could spontaneously arise from non-living matter. Abiogenesis is something different.

BTW, you need to update your list of problems or criticisms of abiogenesis, as most of the items you list are now known to be invalid or have been resolved.

 

[Frank Robert]

Since ancient times people have believed in “spontaneous generation” of life from lifeless matter. But science has shown all spontaneous generation theories to be wrong. The Urey-Miller experiment did not show how to awaken matter into life, and neither has any other experiment since. Getting life from non-life has so far been impossible, even on Earth where we know life happens.
From the Vatican Observatory: Commentary on ‘Cosmos: Possible Worlds’

Thanks for the God-of-the-gaps fallacy.

Like the Urey-Miller experiment "God-of-the-gaps" suffers the same fate. Similar to Urey-Miller, if a deity started life no one has shown how that deity did it. Suppose it turns out that a deity started life via natural laws and at some point in time science conducts a successful experiment that provides evidence for the natural causes underlying the origin of life?

 

[disciple Clint]

Thanks for the God-of-the-gaps fallacy.

Like the Urey-Miller experiment "God-of-the-gaps" suffers the same fate. Similar to Urey-Miller, if a deity started life no one has shown how that deity did it. Suppose it turns out that a deity started life via natural laws and at some point in time science conducts a successful experiment that provides evidence for the natural causes underlying the origin of life?

And why not, after all God and science are not at odds, God made the world using intelligent design so it should be logical and consistent with our understanding of science. How or why God made everything is not something that we are ever likely to understand.

 

[Frank Robert]

God made the world using intelligent design so it should be logical and consistent with our understanding of science.

Unfortunately no one knows for sure so it is simply a belief and like I said before the difference between religion and science is science is based on evidence and religion on belief without evidence. I hope that simplifies the difference between them for you.