Dr. Stanley Miller
by BradfordStanley L. Miller, a scientist known for his landmark origin of life study, died Sunday of heart failure at the age of 77. His name is associated with Harold Urey, a geochemist who worked with Miller, on what many subsequently referred to as the Miller Urey experiment.
As the New York Times article indicated, since the famed experiment neither Miller nor anyone else has been able to demonstrate a mechanism by which a cell was generated from a complex of cellular "building blocks." From the article:
In the last decade, a rival theory, advocated by the chemist Günter Wächtershäuser and others, held that Dr. Miller's approach was a blind alley. Dr. Wächtershäuser argued that life was more likely to have arisen in the exotic conditions near volcanoes, driven by metal catalysts, not in the more natural conditions simulated in Dr. Miller's experiments.
Dr. Miller, defending his approach, said that his rival's theory was "overblown" and that it failed to show how copious amounts of amino acids could be produced, as he had done.
History will one day judge whether Dr. Miller was the first of many pioneers who worked toward the resolution of biology's most vexing historic dilemna or whether he was one of a long list of names associated with futility in attempting to uncover life's origins.
May 24th, 2007 at 8:22 am
Bradford, could you please "unmoderate" my comments in the ID101 thread?
Comment by Raevmo — May 24, 2007 @ 8:22 am
May 24th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Proving research futile: the ultimate goal of ID.
Comment by nickmatzke — May 24, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
If a particular line of research is futile calling it that is reasonable. But let history judge an effort that has gained little traction in the more than 50 years that have passed since Miller Urey.
Comment by Bradford — May 24, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Come on, Nick. Be more reasonable. I like reading your comments, I learn alot from you. But when you make comments like this it's frustrating.
Sometimes you seem more reasonable (thought still against any sign of design in biology), other times you come across as being pretty obnoxious and hyper critical.
Just a thought.
Comment by Doug — May 24, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
I heard that Miller posted a blog saying that Wachtershauser's theory exhibited "canine qualities".
Wachtershauser immediately gave up chemistry and went into patent law, thus vindicating Miller's hypothesis.
Comment by chunkdz — May 24, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Nick Matzke said:
Rather, proving that further research continues to demonstrate that abiogenesis is impossible.
There is zero evidence of abiogenesis and lots of evidence that it is impossible. Those who believe in abiogenesis to do so only on irrational faith that stands in stark contrast to the facts. The only rational position is that life was intelligently designed. That Miller was able to carry his irrational views to the grave is a testament to the power of the delusion of athiesm.
Comment by Jehu — May 24, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Nick Matzke, "Proving research futile: the ultimate goal of ID." Lovely soundbyte. I'm sure that's why they pay you the big bucks.
Comment by bFast — May 24, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Ah, the pithy one-liner: when you care enough to send the very best.
Comment by thechristiancynic — May 24, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
May 24th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Hey, don't blame me, Bradford was the one talking about "futility in attempting to uncover life's origins."
Comment by Nick Matzke — May 24, 2007 @ 11:37 pm
May 25th, 2007 at 1:18 am
But Nick, Bradford was just stating the obvious. I have listened to the chatter from outside the profession for years. For years I have heard "we've almost got it, we've almost made life in a test tube." As I examine each claim, I find it to be devoid of reality. The latest, the RNA world, is as unsuccessful as the Miller Urey experiment at getting from nothing to life.
How many decades must we linger in the "we're almost there" zone before those who say "you can't get there from here without a designer" get some respect.
Comment by bFast — May 25, 2007 @ 1:18 am
May 25th, 2007 at 2:01 am
bFast: Wouldn't many decades of scientific research before getting there prove the very opposite of the lack of need for a designer?
Comment by DavidAnderson — May 25, 2007 @ 2:01 am
May 25th, 2007 at 4:43 am
If you seriously think origin of life research is no more advanced now than it was 50 or 100 years ago you know nothing about the field. Everything is pointing towards a natural origin of life. In rough order of discovery:
* multicellular life was preceded by single-celled life
* prokaryote-like organisms precede more complex cells in the fossil record
* the tree of life based on diverse molecules points back to a tight bottleneck ancestral population, the last common ancestor
* that last common ancestor was itself clearly evolved from a simpler ancestor, since the LCA has many gene duplicates that themselves indicate that many LCA genes share common ancestors
* this applies even to fundamental features of life such as the tRNAs involved in the genetic code
* speaking of the genetic code, the reconstruction of its evolution has advanced by leaps and bounds (just one of hundreds of articles)
* this gets us back to the RNA world, which solves a problem (which came first, DNA or proteins), which a great many creationists claimed was an unsolvable chicken-and-egg problem
* right now research on autocatalytic RNAs and similar molecules is advancing year-by-year
Obviously we don't know everything yet, but really, why should anyone who knows about these advances put their hope in a miraculous "poof" event instead? You guys are left wedging in your miraculous intervention in-between prebiotic syntheses and molecular replicators, and even that is with our currently crude level of understanding of planetary evolution, chemical diversity on a diverse planet, etc.
But hey, if you want to go the way of the people who cursed Benjamin Franklin for defying God's will by diverting lightning with lightning rods, be my guest.
Comment by Nick Matzke — May 25, 2007 @ 4:43 am
May 25th, 2007 at 5:22 am
The abstract Nick links to makes an interesting reference to Stanley Miller:
Comment by keiths — May 25, 2007 @ 5:22 am
May 25th, 2007 at 8:22 am
Nothing has been presented indicating the problem is resolved. The real chicken egg dilemna lies with an information storage system which an RNA world does nothing to address. Commencing with designed autocatalytic RNA does nothing more than illustrate what we already know namely, that researchers are adept at manipulating biomolecules and that an enzyme can catalyze its own replication. The problem of information storage is hidden behind enzyme replication and the magic chant Nick and others would have you distracted by is RNA, which has both information storage capability and enzymatic functions. But the two forms of RNA differ and conflating the two while contending that an enzyme is something akin to an information storage or messenger device is snake oil. Both being RNA is irrelevant. Autocatalytic RNA is no more genomic in nature than is a protein enzyme.
As opposed to a miraculous injection of information into nucleic acids?
What we actually have are indicators of intelligent design. Nucleotide configurations that are chemically meaningless in the absence of mechanisms enabling their translation and subsequent amino acid synthesis into meaningful polypeptides. The selective value of universal enzymes is contingent on existing, fully functional cells. There is no evidence that RNA, not the most stable of substances, would outlast many more common substances in an extra-cellular environment and nothing but a hope and a prayer that RNA, if formed in a prebiotic environment, would evolve in the direction of ever greater information capacity.
Comment by Bradford — May 25, 2007 @ 8:22 am
May 25th, 2007 at 9:39 am
bFast: How many decades must we linger in the "we're almost there" zone before those who say "you can't get there from here without a designer" get some respect.
Nick: If you seriously think origin of life research is no more advanced now than it was 50 or 100 years ago you know nothing about the field. Everything is pointing towards a natural origin of life. In rough order of discovery:
bFast, note that Nick's claim that everything points to a natural origin of life is followed by the first two claims that are relevant only to conditions where cellular life already exists. IOW, his explanations do not address life's origin, only evolution. The next two cite common ancestry which is also a phrase generally used to refer to descent from cellular life. Of course the diverse molecules reference could indicate a molecular ancestor (your ancient relative being an RNA molecule) but if that is the case then his everything is grounded in mostly speculation. Hardly a strong hand for the representive of a science promoting organization.
Comment by Bradford — May 25, 2007 @ 9:39 am
May 25th, 2007 at 9:56 am
One monkey wrench: promiscuous HGT.
Comment by Joy — May 25, 2007 @ 9:56 am
May 25th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Nick Matzke:
That is deeply delusional.
As W. Ford Doolittle and Carl Woese have pointed out, contrary to Darwinian expectations, there is no evidence of any tree of life amongst single cell organisms. Phylogeninc incongruities are such that the idea of common ancestor has been discarded. The evidence shows that there never was an entity that can be called a universal common ancestor.
The possibilty that the first cell arose by chance is further from reality than ever before. The specified complexity of even the simplest cell is far greater than was ever appreciated 50 or 100 years ago. The simplest non-parasitic cell has at least 1500 genes, many of which we do not understand and/or have not yet discovered. To believe that this kind of specified complexity can arise by chance is nothing more than irrational faith.
There is not even a single viable candidate for what could have possibly been an original mechanism to store, use, and transmit information that preceded the living cell. RNA world did not solve this chicken and egg conundrum as you claim. Gerald F. Joyce and Leslie Orgel have concluded that the spontaneous appearance of RNA chains "would have been a near miracle." Nobel Laureate Christian de Duve has stated that "improbabilities so incommensurably high that they can only be called miracles, … fall outside the scope of scientific inquiry." Based on this sound reasoning, Robert Shapiro has determined that "DNA, RNA, proteins and other elaborate large molecules must then be set aside as participants in the origin of life."
OOL research has been reduced to chasing monomers. The idea that monomers could store, transmit, and use information seems absurd on its face. However, researchers have arived at monomers, not because they are a good idea, but because the more attractive candidates have been eliminated.
Ever since Louis Pasteur defeated spontaneous generation, research has continued to put the possibility of abiogenesis further and further from reach. It never happened. You are chasing an irrational myth.
Comment by Jehu — May 25, 2007 @ 4:46 pm
May 25th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Hi Nick,
If I could prevail upon you to render your opinion on the Nanobe discovery talked about in this paper…
Novel nano-organisms from Australian sandstones
Is it just another paper with "canine qualities" If it isn't, why isn't it generating more interest? Or is it?
Thanks,
TP
P.S. A Nasa Link…
http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/news_s...
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 25, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
May 25th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Excellent points. In the 50+ years since Miller-Urey much has been learned about cells. Unfortunately for the OOL hopefuls it does not encourage the idea that a hypothetical bridge to a cell extending from a collection of biomolecules is more plausible than it seemed in the early 50s. ID critics love to talk about gaps. But in fact if there is such a thing it has been widening, not closing.
Comment by Bradford — May 25, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
May 26th, 2007 at 3:29 am
History has already judged, as has nature. Miller's work demonstrated that natural processes make complex chemicals of life previously thought to be irreducibly complex, or at least impossible to get in the absence of supernatural intervention.
Some people of faith regard Miller's work as showing how robust is the design of the universe, that life's chemicals can appear spontaneously from basic building blocks that are, after a fashion, widely available. Others are somehow threatened by the knowledge, and hope Miller's work to be futile.
Tough luck, Bradford.
Comment by edarrell — May 26, 2007 @ 3:29 am
May 26th, 2007 at 3:40 am
Wow. How blind and deaf can a philosophy be?
Nick's already listed a string of events that point out the possibilities. But Jehu, what has been shown impossible in the origin of life research? I can't think of anything that's been shown as impossible. The trend is really quite the opposite: The conditions under which life might arise have been shown to be much broader than even imagined in the 1950s. We know that organic chemicals necessary for carbon-based life on Earth, and probably other life forms elsewhere, arise naturally under a broad range of conditions; such chemicals are now found throughout the universe, almost anywhere we point a telescope. Where we once thought life could not survive in space, we've seen spores survive years on the surface of the Moon; where we once thought "temperate" zones were required, we've found life at extreme heat in springs in Yellowstone, and at even higher temperatures at volcanic vents under the ocean; plus we've found life deep under the ice in Antarctica, and deep, deep under the ground in drill cores.
Can you suggest for us, Jehu, just what has been shown "impossible?"
Comment by edarrell — May 26, 2007 @ 3:40 am
May 26th, 2007 at 5:19 am
Actually he hasn't shown any possibilities. Learn the difference between possible and wishful but impossible.
By impossible I mean so improbable as to be indistinguishable from impossible.
Sir, I am going to have to ask you to put down the kool-aid and slowly step away. Everything you have just said is completely wrong.
The basic building blocks of life, RNA, DNA, and protein do not arise by themselves under natural conditions. To quote Robert Shapiro,
Comment by Jehu — May 26, 2007 @ 5:19 am
May 26th, 2007 at 9:04 am
Christian de Duve posits that spontaneous abiogenesis is not only possible, but inevitable given the appropriate conditions. Specifically, he asserts non-random physical mechanisms for the origin of life (proposing a Thioester World preceding RNA World), followed by endosymbiosis (his specialty being eukaryotic organelles and their evolution origin), largely followed by adaptation via divergence and common descent (vertical evolution).
Comment by Zachriel — May 26, 2007 @ 9:04 am
May 26th, 2007 at 9:21 am
History will one day judge whether Dr. Miller was the first of many pioneers who worked toward the resolution of biology's most vexing historic dilemna or whether he was one of a long list of names associated with futility in attempting to uncover life's origins.
Correction edarrell. Amino acids are not complex chemicals and noone has claimed the presence of some amino acids in an organic sludge arising in spark discharge experiments to be an example of irreducible complexity. What is complex is the capacity to synthesize functional proteins composed of hundreds of precisely ordered amino acid polymers and store the information enabling the same in nucleic acids. Miller and his successors have not even come close to this in their dreams.
Those people of faith are philosophical naturalists, not to be confused with those of us whose analysis is based on empirical data. Miller's work has shown to be futile in demonstrating that abiogenesis is plausible. My hope is that we devote our limited resources to more productive endeavors.
Actually the tough luck lies with those who had pinned their hopes on Miller et. al. Playing with monomers while cellular biologists are busy showing how real life operates is wasteful.
Comment by Bradford — May 26, 2007 @ 9:21 am
May 26th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Zachriel,
Of course, all the abiogenesis faithful have believed that ever since Darwin's "little warm pond." Usually the argument goes, "Galileo proved the planets orbit the sun, therefore, someday we will prove abiogenesis." Neither logic nor evidence support this argument. More attention should be paid to Louis Pasteur, life only comes from life.
De Duve thinks thioesters evolved RNA. Good luck on that one. And tell me, how is endosymbiosis the next step after RNA world? At least de Duve is smart enough to know that you can't start with RNA, DNA or proteins and the specified complexity eliminates chance organisation of life. That said, there is no evidence that you can have any kind of self replicating organism without a level of specified complexity that is exponentially greater than just DNA, RNA, and proteins.
Comment by Jehu — May 26, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
May 26th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
He's proposed it as a possibility. However, de Duve is correct that current understanding of spontaneous abiogenesis is still largely speculative at this point.
But hey. He was your cite. I just wanted to make sure people understood the context of the statement you quoted. De Duve believes that abiogenesis was probably inevitable given the conditions, not happenstance or miraculous. I'm sure you wouldn't want people to get the wrong idea about his views.
Comment by Zachriel — May 26, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
May 26th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
This is totally bogus DI propaganda that is used as a smokescreen to pretend that common ancestry has been challenged in some meaningful way. The only issue is whether the common ancestor was a single cell (did anyone ever really believe that?) or a population of cells, like every other node in the evolutionary tree of life represents a population. Doolittle & Woese argue the latter and add some revolutionary rhetoric to get more attention. And if you had been paying attention I endorsed their view myself in my comment, where I spoke about a population bottleneck. But any way you slice it the extant Domains of life share numerous homologous genes that indicate common ancestry.
No one has yet explained why, if life was just poofed into existence, all of this evidence for an ancestor much simpler than any extant life form should exist. When you're invoking a miracle just to fill in the remaining gap between prebiotic syntheses and the pre-Last Common Ancestor RNA critters, you've already lost the argument and you just haven't realized it yet. A non-silly miraculous explanation would have some respectable miracles like creating a whole ecosystem of multicellular organisms all at once. Fudging a tough bit of chemistry is a pretty pitiful remnant.
Comment by Nick Matzke — May 26, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
May 26th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Zachriel,
Exactly right. To quote de Duve
Comment by Jehu — May 26, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
May 26th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Then,
Now,
De Duve says that RNA, DNA and proteins do arise by themselves under natural conditions (from other natural precursors), that life and evolution are the natural consequence of carbon and water and time.
Comment by Zachriel — May 26, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
May 26th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Nick,
I did not recieve any of my information from the Discovery Institute but from articles written by Woese and Doolittle. Anybody can figure out how the lack of evidence for a tree of life impacts the debate.
There is no evidence of any tree of life at the single cell level. I don't know what your population bottleneck has to do with that. A tree was predicted by Darwinism and Darwinists searched in vain for it, can't find it, and now are engaged in special pleading to explain why it is not there.
I have been told that numerous computer programs, designed by humans, share common code called "objects" which are analgous to genes in DNA. Programmers even use terms like "class", "inheritance", and "polymorphism." Yet these programs do not evolve, they are designed. So common code is not evidence of common descent. If the homologous genes were the result of common descent you would expect them to organize into tidy phylogenetic trees. They do not. Rather they form clusters of associated code based on similar design, exactly as do designed objects.
What evidence? I am not aware of any evidence that non-parasitic life with fewer than 1500 genes can exist. Not just 1500 genes but a whole host of membranes, organelles, enzymes, DNA, RNA, protein, etc. All of which are essential to life and make even the simplest life vastly complex.
Let's set aside the fact that there are no RNA critters. What you are trying to do is cover up the infinite gulf between life and non-life with cheap rhetoric. You have not shown one plausible pathway across that gulf. The more we learn about the simplest life the more we realize how complex it really is. The gulf continues to widen.
As for entire ecosystems all at once - I give you the Cambrian Explosion.
Comment by Jehu — May 26, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
May 26th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Zachriel,
Okay, you got me. To be more clear de Duve knows that RNA, DNA, and proteins cannot arise without something to cause them to evolve. They cannot appear de novo in some lucky dry lagoon at the edge of a thermal vent that gets struck by lightining during a meteor shower just as a pool of urea ruptures and flows into the lagoon - or whatever bizarre RNA world theories I have seen posted on this forum.
Comment by Jehu — May 26, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
May 26th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
But this is bogus evidence. Observing cellular functions like enzymatic RNA and theorizing that autocatalytic RNA would be the starting point for a cell, with nothing to indicate an evolutionary process in that direction, is wishful thinking, not good science. What you are doing is poofing a half baked theory into existence and labeling it science.
And you've already lost the argument when you invoke an implausible "natural" miracle by extrapolating data ad absurdum to account for that which real science is unable to do.
Comment by Bradford — May 26, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
May 29th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Nick wrote:
"Everything is pointing towards a natural origin of life."
LOL. Must be fun living in fantasy land.
Comment by Eric Anderson — May 29, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
May 29th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Nick wrote:
"Proving research futile: the ultimate goal of ID."
It might be helpful to once again walk through the psychology, just so everyone is clear. The meme (as so regularly and clearly demonstrated by Nick):
1. ID = religion
2. Religion and science are in conflict with each other.
3. Therefore, any attempt by any ID proponent to question the methods, findings, or conclusions of science is really a battle against all science and, furthermore, is just a backhanded way of promoting ID's nefarious religious agenda.
————-
Keep on the lookout and you'll be treated to many more examples of this meme from Mr. Matzke and friends. The amazing thing is that this thought process continues, even after it is pointed out time and time again. Thus is the power of the meme.
Comment by Eric Anderson — May 29, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
May 29th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Hi Eric,
Am I among the "friends" you are talking about?
I happen to think the ID Movement has been too focused on proving the existence of God and/or disproving existing evolutionary theories rather than "following the science". I also happen to be of the opinion that Dr. Wells and Dr. Dembski are not much better than glorified snake oil salesmen. They are focusing their considerable talents on pushing an agenda rather than help searching for answers, IMO.
We are having a wonderful discussion about Quantum Effects in Microtubules and their relationship to consciousness. That is science, arguing politics is not.
Let's do science!
Provoking Thought
P.S. I would be interested in hearing both yours and Nick's view on the topics in the ID and Consciousness thread.
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 29, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
May 29th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Eric: Nick wrote:
"Proving research futile: the ultimate goal of ID."
It might be helpful to once again walk through the psychology, just so everyone is clear. The meme (as so regularly and clearly demonstrated by Nick):
1. ID = religion
2. Religion and science are in conflict with each other.
3. Therefore, any attempt by any ID proponent to question the methods, findings, or conclusions of science is really a battle against all science and, furthermore, is just a backhanded way of promoting ID's nefarious religious agenda
Keep on the lookout and you'll be treated to many more examples of this meme from Mr. Matzke and friends.
TP, you stated a point worthy of consideration but poorly timed. Note that it was Nick who injected God into the thread.
Comment by Bradford — May 29, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
May 29th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Hi Bradford and Nick,
Bradford wrote…
Technically, I think Nick directly accused ID of discouraging scientific research.
We can show Nick that he is incorrect.
Nick, please tell us what you think of the ID and Consciousness thead.
Bradford, do you have an opinion on the thread?
Let's do science!
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 29, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
May 29th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Thanks, TP, for your thoughts.
Your opinion is interesting, as my perspective is somewhat different, having personally met and spent time with both Dr. Wells and Dr. Dembski. Do they have a different approach and a different personality than, say, Dr. Behe or Dr. Minnich? Yes. More inflamatory? To be sure. Snake oil salesmen (which connotes fraud and deliberate selling of something that is not what it seems in order to obtain personal profit)? Hardly.
For purposes of this thread, Bradford is talking about OOL, not the broader IDM (whatever that is). It is certainly reasonable to conclude from the current state of the evidence that the naturalistic approach to OOL research may be a dead end. One can blindly accept the promissory note of materialistic faith, as Nick does. However, one need not be an ID proponent or a religious nut to see that OOL is a massive and largely intractable problem for materialistic scenarios — seems like a certain Francis Crick even arrived at the same conclusion. There is nothing about this that smacks of IDM or religion. It is the current state of the evidence, viewed objectively, without the blinders of materialistic philosophy.
Is it possible that a purely naturalistic scenario will ultimately be found to explain the origin of life on the earth? In a theoretical sense, yes, it is possible, but my assessment is that the evidence is pretty much pointing the opposite direction at this point. What should we do in the face of the current evidence? Repeat over and over comforting words to ourselves that a naturalistic explanation is shortly forthcoming? Or might we be allowed to consider the possibility that the naturalistic path is the wrong one from the outset?
To take the latter approach is certainly not unreasonable, given the current state of affairs, and it is certainly not anti-science. Nick is just a slave to his meme, and simply took the opportunity to lob over a weak soundbite. Enough ink spilled on this point . . .
Comment by Eric Anderson — May 29, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
May 29th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Hi Eric Anderson,
I have begged and pleaded for Bradford to offer a counter-proposal for OOL.
I'm an engineer. I need working models. Tell me something that has the possibility of working.
Do you have such a model?
Until such a model is forthcoming I will stay with the default.
Meanwhile, there is a proposal discussing the origin of consciousness.
It could even be considered an ID proposal.
Let's do science!
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 29, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
May 30th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
I'm just doing a drive-by post and don't have time to comment in appropriate detail, but this statement jumped out at me:
What default? That function arises from dysfunction, that irreducible complexity arises from simplicity, that organization arises from chaos, that information arises from the void? Not sure what default you are referring to, but certainly the initial "default" should be what is intuitively acknowledged as being the prima facia observation (even by the likes of Dawkins): that life appears to be designed.
The burden of proof is thus on those who claim to have discovered how these marvelous things can arise through processes like random changes over time. Charles certainly isn't particularly convincing in his opus, and no-one since has come up with anything else that is much advanced beyond a naked assertion of their belief that life can arise through these undirected processes. You want to talk about evidence and default positions — great, show me some evidence, please. Thus far, I am singularly unimpressed with the "overwhelming" evidence for the traditional evolutionary story.
TP, I'm not sure exactly what your position is, so I won't assume, but if one takes undirected abiogenesis seriously or believes that RM+NS can lead to what we see around us today, they are clearly on the wrong side of the default line.
Comment by Eric Anderson — May 30, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
May 30th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Hi Eric Anderson,
Maybe we can communicate better when you have time to stick around.
"Charles" didn't offer a model for OOL. He actually appealed to a "divine" source.
If that is your model, then fine, say it.
Meanwhile, I am finding out some fascinating facts about quantum weirdness that make the OOL problem seem trivial.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 30, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
May 30th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Hi TP,
It might not have been a fully developed model. But Darwin did state the possibility that life could be conceived in a primordial pool with many organic and non-organic molecules randomly colliding and sometimes forming larger - more relevant (biologically) molecules.
Comment by Doug — May 30, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
May 30th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Hi Doug,
I'm surprised at you. This comes close to rationalization. Do you want to believe Charles Darwin proposed a model you think was incorrect and Bradford thinks is impossible?
I'm sure Bradford would explain that a "primordial pool with many organic and non-organic molecules" is something that would occur AFTER the OOL. Where did the "organic" molecules come from?
BTW, I rechecked, Darwin referenced the "Creator" (capital "C"). I misremembered.
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 30, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
May 30th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
TP, I would not call Darwin's statements or subsequent ones along those lines models. We have a model for orbiting bodies that would give us a good means of calculating the future paths of any new planets. There is precision and predictability to planetary orbital paths. There is nothing approaching this for life's origin. In my view you have statements of belief accompanied by references to evidence that suggest hypotheses. A model is pushing it.
Comment by Bradford — May 30, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
May 30th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Do I want to believe? I'm just saying what I read from him. Just pointing out to you that he did have thoughts regarding or a model (however developed or undeveloped) regarding how life arose from organic and non-organic molecules. This in response to your claim that Darwin didn't offer a model for OOL.
Where's the confusion?
I'm not a vitalist, TP. Where do you think organic molecules came from? I don't know many that define organic chemistry as the study of molecules that come from living organisms. The more accepted definition is the study of molecules containing a carbon atom; or, the chemistry of carbon compounds.
TP, you're confusing definitions here…. or…. don't have a strong background on organic chemistry.
I'm not claiming that he never mentioned a Creator. I'm claiming that he did express thoughts and/or had a proposed working model of how life could arise from non-life.
Comment by Doug — May 30, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
May 30th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Hi Doug,
And I am saying that if Charles Darwin did such a thing, he attributed the spark of life to have been via the breath of the Creator.
Trust me, Eric and Bradford would not let us start with "organic molecules" in our attempt to explain the OOL. After all RNA is just a molecule that contains carbon.
Comment by Thought Provoker — May 30, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
May 30th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Hi TP,
The way I interpreted it was just chance collisions of organic molecules. Now, if he's pushing the role of the Creator (at least in his comment on the origins of life from this pool) to some role in creating the universe as a whole and the laws it follows, okay…. but I don't think this deviates too far from anything that Kenneth Miller might assume, or Van Till.
You're an honest person, but I don't trust that you believe that Eric and Bradford would argue against an organic molecule like urea H2N-C=ONH2 being formed naturally through ammonium cyanate being exposed to high temperatures.
I also don't believe that it would be fair to equate the ability to synthesize urea to the ability to synthesize a polymer such as RNA.
Comment by Doug — May 30, 2007 @ 5:02 pm