This article by Michael Marshall on the The Secret of How Life on Earth Began is probably the best summary on the topic I have read to date. I compiled a quick glossary below.
It’s not just about the “smoker” vs “souper” debate (sometimes referred to as the Metabolism First vs RNA World Brouhaha). This article also examines other disparate competing hypotheses regarding the origin of life and even suggests that a unifying grand hypothesis may be possible.
A great read!
oparin haldane charles darwin atp tree of life chemiosmosis rna world franklin hershey chase peter mitchell cyanide nick lane alkaline vents hydrothermal vents clay meteorites geothermal pond volcanic pond ultraviolet compartmentalisation first lipid world genetics first montmorillonite citrate magnesium copper lipid precursors hodge podge world metal ion core deborah kelley lost city william martin luca last universal common ancestor origin of life reactor pier luigi luisi glycol nucleic acid günter wächtershäuser jack corliss michael russell pyrite david bartel philipp holliger gerald joyce peter nielsen polyamide nucleic acid pna albert eschenmoser threose nucleic acid tna eric meggers miller urey watson crick orgel john sutherland thomas cech walter gilbert thomas steitz jack szostak ribozyme rna enzymes ring of life vitalism trofim lysenko alexander oparin j. b. s. haldane armen mulkidjanian jillian f. banfield friedrich wöhler benjamin moore biotic energy warm little pond
Underlying most of these lurks the same “it must have been too improbable” that make all of you laugh and mock when an IDist says it.
Actually – you are most WRONG! … yet again…
But I am not going to dirty my hands with you any more by engaging you in debate. I have no intent of becoming a codependent who enables and empowers you to bamboozle the faithful who should not suffer under the delusion that this debate can be reduced to a simple dichotomy: to wit Biblical Deism is correct or Evolution is correct but both cannot be simultaneously correct. That would constitute a false dichotomy.
Peddle your prattle on sandwalk.blogspot if you wish to persist with that puerile platitude.
Excuse me – I need to take a shower.
I didn’t say that life beginning on Earth was an empirical fact. I said that it is a fact that life begun.
You’re not answering my question. I don’t care where you think life began, are you saying it had NO beginning? Has life existed for eternity?
Life as we know it, is cells with metabolism that can grow, divide, adapt and evolve.
Because I think that would make the definition so broad as to make it vacuous. You seem to be at a point where you can scarcely point to something that isn’t alive. That would make the “law of biogenesis” that life only comes from life, a trivial statement, since apparently you don’t think there is anything that isn’t part of something that is alive.
Mung,
When you said that, you forgot to mention that your original characterization of all origin of life research to date was:
It just happened actually reminds me of a different origin of life story.
Certainly nothing resembling what can be found on the link in the OP.
It wasn’t a characterization of all OOL research to date.
I not sure how God could create random things
“Random creation” to be a something of an oxymoron like military intelligence.
I’m not sure how something “extremely basic” could produce copies of itself. I would think that producing copies of yourself would qualify as something more than basic.
I have no problem at all with a world where bits of stuff are chemically attracted to each other. Do you think “chemical attraction” is a sufficient condition for life to arise?
peace
TomMueller,
Yes, I am in agreement too. Energetics is frequently forgotten, and it does appear that ATP charging by that means is quite fundamental – especially given, as I mentioned, that ATP is an RNA monomer. It does not need to have the particular stereochemistry it does in order to have its energetic role. Many molecular species will likely be capable of being raised to a higher energy state by a primitive proton gradient. But (almost) unique among these are the pairing ATP and UTP. I’m inclined to think of these as primordial, and CTP/GTP as secondary, potentially even arising either side of the life/non-life boundary.
These pairs have the remarkable property of being capable of complementary pairing by antiparallel strands. I think that is potentially crucial, because it has the capacity to extend the half-life of the constituents beyond that available without it, thus allowing prebiotic enrichment.
So, I guess I’m backtracking a little … yes, if you want to call it metabolism, the monomers certainly have to come from somewhere, charged and all!
Mung,
Nah. They take into account actual chemistry, rather than going on about coin flips and random ASCII strings.
That’s why I referred to organic chemistry in my first post on this thread. There’s nothing random about the bonding rules of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc.
The theistic chorus that scoffs here has no clue about how constrained is the chemistry of life. They’re afraid to learn the chemical basics of life, because it will undermine their biases.
Yeah, those Artificial Life people are doofuses. Life in a computer. Hah!
I’m quite willing to entertain the idea that there are rules in operation at all levels. Maybe you don’t mean actual rules though.
“Rules” are observed regularities. What did you think they were, God’s commands?
Not here at TSZ they aren’t.
interesting
I wonder what an unobserved regularity would be in that case?
Are all rules observer dependent like entropy?
Is it not a regularity if no one is watching?
Is there such a thing as an observed irregularity?
peace
How would “God’s commands” be different empirically than observed regularities?
peace
God’s commands would not be Pedant ic.
None . as long as the angels are pushing the planets around are in accordance laws of physics.
Laws are better than rules. Laws are not like rules, because laws are not “observed regularities.” Therefore, Laws are better than Rules.
Amen.
A great thinker of grand ideas: Graham Cairns-Smith passed away on 26 August 2016
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160823-the-idea-that-life-began-as-clay-crystals-is-50-years-old
Likewise, Thor’s commands would also be indistinguishable. As would the Invisible Pink Unicorns.
But, whatever helps you sleep at night FMM.
Mung,
Most? Not all? Which are in the set of most? Why? Get specific!
You mean, unless they weren’t observed as regularities?
Maybe like miracles?
As best I know, non-regularity is considered evidence of God, and regularities are too. The kind of “test” that takes anything that happens as evidence of God. ID is great that way, understanding the regularities of the universe as necessarily dependent on God, while life depends on God breaking those regularities. Not actually (logically) impossible, just sort of, well, convenient for their presuppositions.
Glen Davidson
If you have laws I’m not sure why you need angels.
On the other hand laws do seem to suggest a law maker
peace
Do you think that Thor and the invisible pink would give you the same laws that Yahweh?
I would think that the laws that Thor made would be more aimed at keeping the frost giants at bay. So empirically the more conducive the laws are to allowing the existence of frost the less likely that Thor is the law giver.
By the same token Invisible Pink Unicorns would I assume want to minimize the things that a 10 year old girl would find icky. So empirically the more the laws allow the existence of icky things the less likely that the invisible pink unicorn is the law giver.
If on the other hand you are saying that Thor and the invisible pink unicorn have exactly the same nature as Yahweh then you might have a point. But then again if they are exactly the same as Yahweh I’m not sure why we bother giving them a different name
peace
I can think of all kinds of things that would serve as evidence against God.
For one thing I have just said that I would consider true randomness as evidence against God. I could think of other things as well like if the underlying laws of nature were not universal or if human beings were incapable of understanding those laws.
Is there any thing whatsoever that you would consider as evidence for God rather than for advanced Aliens or Thor?
If not I think your methodology is whacked.
peace
I would not say life depends on breaking the Laws of nature just that the laws of nature are insufficient to account for the origin of life as far as we know.
peace
That in fact was the argument of Louis Pasteur whose accomplishments are caricaturized here:
As the discoverer of “Racemic Mixtures”, Pasteur believed that some version of “Vitalism” must be operative and that not only are the laws of nature insufficient to account for the origin of life, but that the laws of nature cannot even account for the continuation of life’ s unique”biochemistry”
That was before science resolved the “chirality problem” with the realization that enzyme active site specificity will always generate one enantiomer and never the other.
I only bring this up because this article in the OP ignores the chirality problem inherent in the abiogenic origins of life from presumptive racemic mixtures.
Pasteur was wrong on one point: why always one enantiomer vs another in biochemistry? (Ans: science just didn’t understand enzymology back then)
Pasteur (of swan-neck flask fame) is similarly wrong on his other point: one entantiomer vs another can be selected in natural settings that gave rise to proto-life. Alternatively, chirality may not have been an issue in the simpler archaic primitive biochemistry of proto-life. I have read various versions of both suggestions in the literature.
What would you take as evidence of ‘true randomness’? Quantum indeterminacy doesn’t do it for you, apparently,
Seen any frost giants lately?
I’ll also note that Thor wields a hammer and your god died nailed to a cross. You might want to reevaluate your beliefs.
“Within metaphysics, there are two competing theories of Laws of Nature. On one account, the Regularity Theory, Laws of Nature are statements of the uniformities or regularities in the world; they are mere descriptions of the way the world is. On the other account, the Necessitarian Theory, Laws of Nature are the “principles” which govern the natural phenomena of the world. That is, the natural world “obeys” the Laws of Nature. “
Mung,
So they go on about coin flips and random ASCII strings?
TomMueller,
Chirality is neatly solved by the complementary stabilisation of Watson-Crick bonded pairs of molecules. As, indeed, is the origination of replicatable entities, and the peculiar stereochemical properties of the ‘A’ part of ATP. Homochiral pairs are more stable. Of course both kinds of pairing would have emerged, L and D. Both may have produced replicating entities. One won.
It explains it.
Certainly a possibility
peace
This reminds me of what the duck says to Babe (the pig) in the movie Babe when Babe reminds him that animals are not allowed to go into the farmer’s house.
I’ve added clarifying comments to some of your replies in parenthesis>
I asked if you have any empirical evidence of examples of life not coming from life? Why do you think that your belief about the beginning of life counts as empirical evidence for this?
I am not saying that physical life had no beginning. I believe that anything and everything physical is transient, not eternal and so had a beginning.
It comes from observing life on earth that without exception every living organism we come across is the product of a previous living organisms. This is not a trivial statement, it is a fact.
But at the same time death is all around us. Growth and decay are essential to all living things, including our own bodies. We carry life and death within us at all times. So dead matter is definitely something that we observe and experience.
Every origin of life theory I’ve heard here so far begins with the assumption that life is an incidental product of dead matter. Other options aren’t even considered. I believe that if we are seeking the truth these other options should be investigated.
Then you wouldn’t exist. It’s an utterly meaningless “test.”
I may not know what you mean by “true randomness,” but took it to mean that the universe is simply random and not ordered. Otherwise it’s rather meaningless, as “true randomness” could well be said to exist (at least so far as we know) in QM as well as in classical physics under fairly normal definitions.
Why would laws of nature not being universal show that there’s no God? Again, if we didn’t understand the laws, no “law-giver God” would even be considered.
That’s your problem.
You think that I’m supposed to come up with tests for your meaningless fantasy? Clearly there could be a path of evidence toward recognizing “God’s” existence, but making up meaningless “tests” as you do is not how epistemically-sound discovery occurs.
No, the problem is that you don’t have a meaningfully-entailed hypothesis, nor the evidence that could specifically get to God. Various fantasies are interchangeable, and that’s a problem for those proposing fantasies, not for those who ask for meaningful evidence for your claims.
Glen Davidson
Here’s a prediction: when scientists DO manage to create living from non-living matter, the bar will rise. It will just be stuff like this:
And BTW, Why can’t humans master flight?
That’s convenient.
Glen Davidson
Yea, funny that.
Being in a purposeless, un-designed world and all. Funny.
“I see nothing. Don’t make me look! Nothing.”
If and when scientist do manage to create living from non-living matter that will count as life creating life (scientists are a form of life after all).
Multi-celled beings have been seen to emerge from single-celled beings ever time zygotes develop.
We cannot say that the organisms you mentioned have developed one from the other. What we can say is that there is good evidence that they share common ancestors. It is entirely feasible that mammals and fish share a fish-like common ancestor. And if that is the case would you agree that mammals have undergone a more radical change than fish since they diverged?
I do believe that humans have mastered flight.
Hahaha. Awesome.
Ask and you shall receive
Stick a bucket in the middle of the room, then wait with a stick to beat back whatever hideous monster emerges. That’s the only way to demonstrate life from non-life. Oh, hang on, the bucket …
Two points:
The pious are no further ahead and no further behind whether or not a scientist manages to recreate abiogenesis in the lab. Such a feat is a nonchallenge to faith, just as the heliocentric theory of our solar system ended up being a nonchallenge.
That said, some naifs still incorrectly believe that such a conjecture is indeed a challenge to faith. They persist in clutching to the ultimate deal-breaker supposing the astronomical improbability of solving the homochirality problem.
http://tinyurl.com/gvvpxvl
I have real issues when demolishing such silly rebuttal on TSZ and other similar fora, but remain unable to present such arguments on the fora of Creationists who would never allow the minds of the faithful to be challenged on their sites.
Cool. Then science can by definition not demonstrate that non-life can do anything. Not the most elementary thing. Like heat flows into the cool. Or that opposite charges attract. Nope, none of it counts, it’s all “life making it happen”.
Your position isn’t rational Charlie.
No, since it was the fish that changed into mammals.
LOL.
I’m kidding though, since I don’t really know how to quantify the total degree of morphological and physiological change in a rigorous way. Is the difference between squirrels and Rhinos greater than the difference between flounders and whale sharks? How the hell do you tell?
TomMueller,
Chirality-first – amino-acid chirality-first – is but one of many reasons to ditch proteins-first. But some will refuse to even entertain the notion that protein is not an essential component of life. “Where are the non-protein organisms now?”. Extinct. But apparently that doesn’t happen. Everything ever must be represented somewhere in extant life.
I seem to recall that John Harshman wrote a really well-articulate summary on this very subject a few months back. I’ll see if I can find it if John doesn’t reference it first (assuming of course that I’m not having some delusion of some kind…)
Plus, who stuck it in the middle of the room and is waiting with a stick?
You want to demonstrate life from non-life, you can’t be there to do the demonstrating, apparently. If only Godel were still around, maybe he could suss this problem out with his giant forehead.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/c8/e4/b5/c8e4b557aa474889b5397e95f12a5100.jpg
I know, right? Even in my dreams I suck at flying.