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
Erik,
By conflating evolution and abiogenesis. One sneer fits all.
Could you flesh that out? What do I accept without evidence, and what doesn’t suit me?
Where’s the secret?
What a load of crap.
You want to know what would be really amazing? It would be truly amazing if they were all on the same track. It would be truly amazing if they were all on the right track. But alas, they are not. But they all have objective empirical evidence to back up their confidence.
What does their “confidence” have to do with anything?
The article gives the impression that because species of bacteria outnumber the diversity of any other “kind” that bacteria must have come first, which is simply nonsense.
But the article never explains why vitalism is plain wrong.
I honestly fail to see what people find entertaining about these sorts of articles.
More crap. May as well conclude that no Christian agreed with Darwin and no non-Christian disagreed with Darwin.
Why are you promoting this bullshit Tom?
Mung,
That is not the impression given by the text you quoted, which is strange if you quoted that text to support your contention. The ‘shape of the tree’ is not determined by the number of twigs – by present diversity.
You seem to be pushing this ‘eukaryotes first’ notion lately. Why? What do you consider good evidence for it?
No, that’s just a fact.
There had been a few people who held similar ideas to Darwin, but they weren’t widely known and had done little to amass the evidence for a case similar to Darwin’s. The statement is largely correct. It’s certainly not a “load of crap”.
The article also doesn’t explain the electromagnetic basis of biochemical attraction. Yeah what a shit article Tom.
Wasn’t Darwin’s book called Origin of the Species and didn’t he deal with the question of the very first life-forms there?
In your own words:
For you it’s just fine that there’s no evidence to your theory of how life came about. As for anybody else’s theory how life came about, you demand evidence, don’t you?
Yes, that’s usually what happens. The history of science is full of people with a diverse set of competing ideas, and eventually the wrong ones are weeded out. Do you know for a fact this will not happen here?
Wait, you know for a fact that none of them are on the right track, or are you merely saying that not all of them are on the right track, but that possibly a few of them could be? If so, what a trivial statement. Did that really have to be said?
That’s not what that says. Nowhere is it implied by Allan that because there’s “no evidence” to the theory of how life came about, that’s good enough to believe life came about in some particular way.
NOWHERE is that stated or even implied. Seriously, where do you get this crap from Erik? What he writes there is an explanation for why scientists can’t just assemble a living cell at the molecular level. We don’t have that level of control over matter at those scales.
How can you conclude from this simple factoid that Allan therefore believes that the origin of life took place in a specific way on no evidence at all? How? How do you reach this conclusion? Explain yourself!
But it is, if you know everything else Allan Miller holds. For example:
Either he is being consistent or not.
By the way, there IS evidence that life came about through a natural process. The distribution of used amino acids in the oldest protein folds strongly correlates with the distribution of amino acids you get from natural chemical processes that are used to produce them. As in those would have been the amino acids available in the environment for an emerging protein synthesizing system to use to make proteins with, and to incorporate in the genetic code and translation system.
See for example: Amino acid biogenesis, evolution of the genetic code and aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases.
and
A thermodynamic basis for prebiotic amino acid synthesis and the nature of the first genetic code.
and
Evolution of amino acid frequencies in proteins over deep time: inferred order of introduction of amino acids into the genetic code.
This fact is more probable on the hypothesis that life itself came about through a natural process, than through design. Because a designer with an unconstrained control over matter could design life with ANY desired distribution of amino acids.
And here he says he doesn’t see a fundamental barrier in physics and chemistry getting to a self-replicating configuration. How does this translate into him believing life arose in a specific way on no evidence?
How does him stating “I don’t see a barrier to this happening” become “there is no evidence this happened but I believe it”? Explain how you get there, Erik.
Erik,
So what? Darwin wasn’t conflating abiogenesis and evolution. You were. In response to a point of mine about abiogenesis, and the perfectly rational possibility that it both happened and we are technologically unable to reproduce it, you sneered: “I get that there’s this thing called evolution …’
You have misunderstood the passage quoted. I am not saying there is no evidence for abiogenesis but never mind. I am saying that our inability to recreate life is not a strong argument against its having a natural origin, on at least two counts.
And the extent to which I demand evidence from theists is simply reflecting back on them their own demands. It’s the ‘pathetic detail’ crap all over again. I have a double standard because I ask people to adhere to their own apparent standards regarding evidence? Come off it.
Erik,
There is no inconsistency between those various statements. I DO think it plausible that, given that life adheres firmly to the ‘rules’ of physics and chemistry, physics and chemistry can provide an initial starting condition. I DON’T see the failure of scientists to elucidate the ‘how’, nor the fact that novel life is not an everyday occurrence, as reasons to abandon that position. I ALSO think it funny when theists demand exquisite detail of scientists while having none of their own to offer.
I have to say I am quite impressed with Michael Marshall’s BBC article, The secret of how life on Earth began. I would have to agree with Sutherland’s comment, “Things are looking a lot more achievable.”
I also found the article, Evolution of amino acid frequencies in proteins over deep time: inferred order of introduction of amino acids into the genetic code, recommended by Rumraket, quite intriguing. I have to admit that it counts as evidence in favor of the hypothesis that abiogenesis occurred on the primordial Earth. As the abstract states, “Relative to the modern protein set, LUA [Last Universal Ancestor] proteins were found to be generally richer in those amino acids that are believed to have been most abundant in the prebiotic environment and poorer in those amino acids that are believed to have been unavailable or scarce.” That’s a singular prediction of abiogenesis that has been borne out by the evidence.
The real question is: what implications does this have for Intelligent Design? Evidence suggesting that primitive life may have arisen naturally does not establish that molecular machines arose naturally. The new evidence is of great interest, but let’s not overblow it.
So, Origin of Species is not about origin of species. I knew that. but thanks for confirming.
To reflect your own argument back to you: Things not popping into existence ex nihilo is not a strong argument against things popping into existence ex nihilo. (I think it is, but you don’t think so, so let’s just disagree on this point. Call it sneer if you want.)
I agree, this evidence is not “proof” that abiogenesis was a natural process. It’s evidence, it fits one model better than another. It doesn’t rule that other model out.
It also does not constitute a model in itself, it is a piece of data. There is still so much unexplained that we simply don’t know.
Ex nihilo means from nothing. Do you have a “nothing” laying around somewhere so that we can observationally verify that things don’t “pop into existence” from it?
That things don’t pop into existence in mid air is an observational fact. But all the worlds physicists and theologians will tell you we are surrounded by something. “In mid air” is something. It is an area of spacetime, it has volume and location. It is usually filled with gas and radiation.
In all of our experience, we have never come into contact with “nothing”.
Prove it.
We have no layer of “nothing”. We have no relevant observations. We cannot prove it one way or the other. All we can do is ball the burden of proof around. The point is that by Allan Miller’s standard, none of this constitutes a compelling argument against the ex nihilo theory.
ETA: And you are probably conflating “nothing” with “mid-air” there. They may seem the same thing to you, but not to me, because I go by distinctions. Darwin, on the other hand, goes by conflations. Since he insists on common descent, the distinction between evolution and origin of life is a distinction without a difference. A distinction in mid-air, so to say.
Prove what? I asked you a question.
What the hell is a “layer” of nothing?
I agree, we have no idea what “nothing” is like. It is wholly beyond experience and reason.
Burden of proof for what?
None of what?
There is an ex nihilo theory now? Seriously, what the flying fuck are you on about? Do you even know?
How can I be the one conflating “nothing” with “mid air” when, in fact, I was the one pointing out the distinction?
Erik, this makes no sense at all. Are you okay? Is there someone you can call that can help read out posts to you?
It’s always amusing when they declare that everything has an origin except the thing they claim created the universe, which does not because it’s always been there.
How convenient for them. And how do they know that amazing fact? Well, come study theology for 20 years and you’ll be so addled by then you’ll believe any old shit. I knew a guy once who was going to reform the priesthood ‘from the inside out’. How do you suppose that worked out?
When Darwin himself make his thoughts on the connection between the origin of life and Evolution known you have to wonder at the motivations of those like Erik that pretend those words don’t exist.
Except I don’t wonder at all, it’s quite clear.
Ah, more vacuous nonsense from our self-described resident “rationalist,” I see.
Very good; carry on.
Indeed. This isn’t someone who cares about discovering the truth, because he just knows that everything he says is true.
Since I’m no longer able to pretend that I believe Erik is arguing in good faith, I’m putting him on ignore, just like I have with all the other “theists” here.
Kantian Naturalist,
Are you trying to impress by demonstrating your unwillingness to accept any views besides your own?
Are you thinking of “molecular machines” as pre-existing the most simple life-forms, or of “molecular machines” as somehow necessary for the evolution of life beyond exceedingly primitive cells?
It would be an interesting version of ID to say that the intervention of the designer was necessary after life had evolved naturally. But I doubt it’s promising; why can’t more complex cellular chemistry evolve by self-organization and natural selection once life has come onto the scene?
Far safer, I think, to go with cosmological ID: the Designer is the best explanation for the fact that the universe has the right set of physical parameters (laws of physics and values for the physical constants) such that life can come into existence without the need for any further intervention. In short, something like Michael Denton’s position in Nature’s Destiny or Conway’s Life’s Solution.
Of course at this point the distinction between intelligent design and theistic evolution collapses.
I found this criticism of Denton interesting, especially this remark:
“If there is hope for ID as a serious intellectual movement, it lies in the deep cosmic concepts that unite the work of Simon Conway Morris and Michael Denton. But as long as ID propagandists believe that Denton has wrecked evolutionary explanation, they will purvey ignorance and confusion, and prolong the degeneration that gives us Casey Luskin and the disastrously bad Edge of Evolution.”
Gee, what a deep philosophical stance.
Kantian Naturalist,
Here is a better synopsis of the link KN shared:
Wow, someone on the internet found the book unpersuasive. That’s worth an entire blog post!
Not much else to see.
It’s always amusing when the most basic of distinctions escapes people.
Says the committed anti-foundationalist. If you are really committed to anti-foundationalism, you have no foundation to call anything nonsense or non-nonsense. Be committed to it or find something (else) to stand on.
Why?
For one, right now I am not even arguing with you or against you, so good or bad faith should not be an issue for you personally.
For another, I have always earlier proven my case. Is that the thing you don’t like, as a believer in anti-foundationalism?
Present the relevant quote from Darwin. I can present my case by a quote from Darwin – I already have in another thread. Can you?
Wow. Just wow.
If you think that anti-foundationalism entails not having a definite position or commitments, you’re even more ignorant of the past two hundred years of Western philosophy than I thought.
Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle.
For those who want to learn some contemporary philosophy, try this: foundationalist theories of epistemic justification.
Erik,
Take it up with Darwin. My own view is that ‘species’ as we commonly understand the term originated with the advent of sexual reproduction. I have no idea what Darwin thought. His title has been subject to much scrutiny, but what the hell, I didn’t write the thing.
And I do not make that argument. My point was directed at people who think scientists’ failure to create life is evidence against its having a natural origin. I did not make the point unasked in a vacuum! When a theist demands evidence for ‘detailedDarwinism’, am I barred from pointing out the complete absence of an equivalent narrative on their side? And now you turn the point through 360 degrees and feel clever.
Erik,
That is hogwash. Common descent can take place from any kind of origin – naturalistic, deistic or ‘ex nihilo’. Evolution can occur in any population of replicating entities, regardless where they came from.
1) Are you saying that subordinate and limited are better than sovereign and unlimited?
2) Ever hear of the incarnation and hypostatic union?
peace
I wonder if anybody who is praising the article actually read it. Particularly the following:
Everybody starting with Darwin knows the conflict with theism here. Can there be made a case that this scientific quest for non-theistic beginnings is not ideological?
Or this:
First question: Are amino acids the building blocks of life or does life consist of metabolical, self-sustaining and reproductive processes? Biologists study life, but have they defined life?
Second question: Does it prove that there’s no God when man experimentally takes the role of God?
Suppose for a moment it’s all driven, at bottom, by ideology and the hatred of the christian god.
Does that make it false? No.
For man to “experimentally take the role of God”, God would have to be shown to exist and have that supposed role in the first place.
A car is made of gears, wheels, axles, steel, plastic, carbon fibres and so on. But a car is also how they are put together, and what they can do when they are.
The components are the building blocks, but a car is more than it’s building blocks.
Some have, yes. Most origins researchers use a definition of life that roughly corresponds to cellular life as we know it. That usually means a DNA or RNA based genetic system with protein translation, encapsulated by a phospholipid bilayer membrane, the totality of which can synthesize it’s own components from simpler precursors, grow, divide and evolve.
So the origin of life is the challenge of identifying the mechanism by which such an entity (cellular life) came to exist.
First, it makes it emotionally driven instead of rationally or scientifically. Second, it doesn’t make it right either. Third, the ultimate decider becomes the evidence. Except that with standards like Allan Miller’s, it’s already been arbitrarily decided.
Good to see you agree with my point.
The components are building blocks; they are not a car. This is particularly relevant when car is, as you say, more than the building blocks put together. Therefore the cited experiment proves nothing relevant to life. You’d need to define the “more than” and experimentally replicate that. In case of a car, it looks like the “more than” is the driver. Without the driver, the car has no function. The function of the car is to serve the driver.
The definition of life is “cellular life”? Doesn’t it seem sort of tautological to you? I suggest that the researchers try a definition that makes sense.
If Yahweh can’t play dice because of His nature doesn’t allow it, I think you are the one saying subordinate and limited is better.
Sovereign would be another issue
Yes, what is your point?
The $64,000 question in abiogenesis is, in a nutshell, how to understand teleology as a special case of the Second Law of Thermodynamics? How can a far-from-equilibrium process emerge, and not only emerge but sustain itself as far-from-equilibrium from its environment?
I’m intrigued by the suggestion that volcanic pools and/or meteorite impact sites had the right combination of organic molecules, metals, water, and heat to drive the emergence of protocells. I’d heard of the hydrothermal vent hypothesis and the RNA world hypothesis, but neither seemed helpful to me. The hydrothermal vent hypothesis doesn’t seem conducive to cellular formation, and the RNA world puts replication ahead of metabolism. That seems wrong to me, but that’s basically because I prefer autopoiesis theory as a formal definition of life. Looking closely at volcanic pools or meteorite impact sites seem like much more promising explanations.
In my own work, I’ve gotten very interested in the free energy principle as the key to cognition, and I’ve been reading up on the debate about whether the so-called “Bayesian brain hypothesis supports or undermines more embodied/enactive approaches. (There’s a lively debate in the literature!)
The suggestion seems to be that life and cognition are not deviations from the Second Law of Thermodynamics — deviations that would require some sort of intelligent agent to circumvent them — but rather just the Second Law itself at work under constrained conditions, where the constraints themselves are unusual but not unnatural.
The ultimate decider has always been the evidence, regardless of people’s actual motivations.
You mean the standards you failed to point out a problem with?
Who the hell would not agree with that?
Of course it proves something relevant to life, since you can’t have life without it’s building blocks. It proves that the building blocks can emerge through a natural process.
No, this alone has not explained how life started. But it has shown that the building blocks can be made, and it gives imortant information about the relative proportions these building blocks could be expected to exist in. This then raises additional question, such as “what is the next step?”
… In order to show how life originated, yes. Nobody has so far done that. This isn’t news to anyone.
No. After all that is what we want to explain how came about. Life as we know it, CELLULAR life. So to define life as cellular life is to define it as that which we want to explain how came about. How did there come to be cellular life? That is the challenge of origin of life research. What is “tautological” about this?