Miller-Urey and the origin of life

[dizerner]

Jon, I have a quick question about something we had previously discussed in private. If the origin of life actually was supernatural, would we expect the interactions we observe in molecular chemistry to look any different? You seem to think that these experiments have something useful to say about the existence of an intelligent source. Otherwise, you wouldn't be posting about prebiotic chemistry on a Christian message board. Am I wrong?

Well he does know Christians have an interest in origins due to their belief system, and he is trying to promote what he does for a living. I kind of think you ask the wrong question when you say "Would we expect the *interactions* of chemistry to look different?" What should be asked is "Would we expect the fossil record and the logical chain of progression in complex biological ability to look differently, from simpler to more complex over time?" God could easily make something about biology absolutely and completely invalidate evolutionary logic (for example not using DNA or sexual reproduction)? Could God stick a rabbit in the Precambrian fossil strata just to show we are all fooled?

Jon I have a question slightly off topic. From an evolutionary perspective do you know how many reputable scientists have speculated that original bacterial life might have traveled to earth frozen in a comet? Because, even though we can argue that mathematics and statistics can't be completely accurate, I've heard some intelligent people think that the initial evolution of life might (due to some rough probability estimates) take more time than the age of the earth allows.

[jonperry]

Jason

If the origin of life actually was supernatural, would we expect the interactions we observe in molecular chemistry to look any different?

I don't know how supernatural things work so I could not tell you what we would expect to see if the origin of life were supernatural. What I can tell you though, is that these experiments suggest that the origin of life can happen through natural processes. Further experimentation is needed.

You seem to think that these experiments have something useful to say about the existence of an intelligent source

If we find that life emerged naturally on Earth, this will not tell us anything about the existence of an intelligent creator. What it will tell us though, is that the laws of nature are sufficient to explain the origin of life. It will tell us how life may have emerged, and it will help us calculate the probability of finding other life in the universe.

There are many reasons I post my animations here. If I post a draft of an animation, it's usually because I can't tell if I'm explaining something well and I want outside input. This group is usually fast to give detailed feedback. Another reason I like to post here is that most of you look at biology and chemistry from a completely different foundation than I and my colleagues do. I like a fresh perspective. It's also just fun to chat with you all. I wish I had more time for it.

dizerner

do you know how many reputable scientists have speculated that original bacterial life might have traveled to earth frozen in a comet?

I don't know how many but Fred Hoyle was one of the big ones. The idea is called panspermia. Nobody at the Center for Chemical Evolution takes it seriously right now because it doesn't explain the origin life (simply moves it off Earth) and there is no positive evidence to support it right now. That said, if we were to find life on Mars, more scientists would probably consider it a possibility, at least between neighboring planets.

Backwoodsman

I'm still waiting for you to address several loose ends from past conversations

Give me an example of a loose end or piece of evidence I've ignored and I'll address it. If you want to send more articles from creationist sites, please fact check their claims before posting.

[Homer]

Jon Wrote:

these experiments suggest that the origin of life can happen through natural processes

Even if you ever get to the place where it can be shown that it could have happened that does not show that it did happen.

and it will help us calculate the probability of finding other life in the universe.

A lot of money spent on the search for other life in the universe, and for what practical end? Seems to me to be a total waste when there are many other needs like feeding hungry children. Seems like a lot invested in what appears to be the hobby of some folks.

[mattrose]

I've always been more interested in why there is anything (the broader question) than how life emerged within the system. Without recognizing the inability of science to really answer that philosophical question, you end up with a bunch of intelligent people designing life in a lab using pre-existing materials. That sort of science can be interpreted with supernatural or naturalist presuppositions.

[PR]

Jon, it's clear to me that even if you allow for billions of years; blind, random, undirected evolution can't possibly account for the literally millions of diverse life forms that live in the air, on land, and under the sea.

I've always been more interested in why there is anything (the broader question) than how life emerged within the system. Without recognizing the inability of science to really answer that philosophical question, you end up with a bunch of intelligent people designing life in a lab using pre-existing materials. That sort of science can be interpreted with supernatural or naturalist presuppositions.

I think Matt's question as to "why there is anything" is much more engaging. Do you have an opinion on that?

Thanks

Phil

[jonperry]

Even if you ever get to the place where it can be shown that it could have happened that does not show that it did happen.

That is correct. In fact I say that almost word for word in the end of the animation I posted to start this conversation. Simulation experiments can never show us exactly how something happened.

A lot of money spent on the search for other life in the universe, and for what practical end? Seems to me to be a total waste when there are many other needs like feeding hungry children. Seems like a lot invested in what appears to be the hobby of some folks.

I understand your concern but I think it's more of a gray area, not as black and white as you are making it out to be. Exploration of any kind is always a gamble. It's expensive and risky but it also has potential to open entirely new doors for us as a species. We can't predict ahead of time what the benefit might be.

Our trip to the moon kickstarted huge advances in technology and is largely recognized as helping to end the cold war. I think many world citizens would agree that preventing a war between US and Russia was a good investment. We only see it now though with hind sight. It was a gamble when the decision to go to the moon was first made.

Likewise, our exploration into chemical evolution has produced a lot of new technology, especially in chemical analysis, which is now being put to a large variety of practical uses. It's helped us better understand how natural gas forms, and oddly enough, it is currently helping us understand Alzheimer's and Mad-Cow disease.

How much time and money should be spent on exploration? I don't know. That said, I find exploration to be fascinating. I spend a lot of my personal time exploring (parks, mountains, the discussion boards of theos.org) with very little concern for a return on investment. Humans are driven to explore... at least I am.

[jonperry]

I've always been more interested in why there is anything (the broader question) than how life emerged within the system.

I agree that the question "Why is there something instead of nothing" is certainly the ultimate question. I've never had a prophet, a philosopher, or a scientist ever come close to giving me a satisfactory answer.

That said though, I'm personally more interested in biology than I am in the origin of everything. Lately I've been particularly curious about orb-weaver spiders, pennaceous feather growth, and Atlantic tritons to be specific. I even bought a triton shell online this week!

[jonperry]

Jon, it's clear to me that even if you allow for billions of years; blind, random, undirected evolution can't possibly account for the literally millions of diverse life forms that live in the air, on land, and under the sea.

Evolution is not random. Let me know if you'd like me to elaborate but it's covered pretty well in my animation on natural selection: https://youtu.be/0SCjhI86grU

[PR]

Hi Jon, here's a quote from Jerry Bergman that comes to mind in regard to your hypothesis of natural selection:

"Natural selection would not evolve upward, for example, bacteria into humans, but at best would evolve simple bacteria into better adapted bacteria, or flies into better adapted flies. The fossil record shows no evidence of anything beyond this. No clear example has ever been found of a lower clearly less adapted animal in the fossil record which can be shown to be evolutionarily related to similar, more advanced type of an animal living today. There exist hypothetical cases and examples of differences for which reasons for assumed changes are speculated, but no example exists of an animal that lacks wings, and evolves such step by step because these wings are clearly an advantage for it in escaping predators. Not one wingless fly has ever been uncovered, although millions of modern type flies preserved in amber have been uncovered. The many examples we have, such as flies trapped in amber or animals preserved in other ways, finds that, aside from the introduction of a few mutations producing deevolution, there is virtually no difference between the fossils and modern examples."

Wouldn't you agree with his statement?

Again, natural selection and mutation, no matter how much time allotted, does not explain what everyone is plainly able to observe in our universe. There's a complexity and sophistication to it all, from the molecular to the galactic, that posits a designer! To not see that suggests a bias against supernaturalism. I assume you own an automobile. How many billions of years would we have to wait for it to "evolve" into existence from natural selection?

Here's another:

The easy-to-grasp and compelling natural selection argument is used to help explain all biological data, but it may actually explain very little. Human life consists of many activities which are mentally pleasurable. Walking in forests, listening to music, creating poems, doing scientific research, aesthetic enjoyment of nature, and myriads of other activities are often not related in the least to survival or adaptation in the Darwinian sense. Some writers have struggled in vain to "explain" by natural selection the existence of creations like music and art, all of which involve extremely complex body structures to accomplish. Music in its many variations is loved the world over, and yet certain music preferences have not been shown to increase reproduction rates or to facilitate survival. Many, if not almost all of our most rewarding activities and "peak experience producers" are not only unexplainable by this theory, but contradict it.

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/ar ... atsel.html

Thanks

Phil

[jonperry]

Natural selection would not evolve upward, for example, bacteria into humans, but at best would evolve simple bacteria into better adapted bacteria, or flies into better adapted flies. The fossil record shows no evidence of anything beyond this

I do not agree with Jerry Bergman.

Lets look at the fossil pattern in chronological order going from microbes to Golden Eagles (humans are boring in my opinion). This is a rough overview, you can get much finer than this if you dig into the data. Gaps in the fossil record (some of which are large in some spots) continue to shrink each year with new finds:

• We start with individual bacteria-like creatures
  then we find bacterial colonies
  then complex single-celled creatures (eukaryotes) through symbiosis
  then simple multi-cellular life
  then to bilateral life forms
  then to secondary evidence of worms (simple bilateral life forms with head and tail)
  then swimming worm-like chordates
  then to simple fish
  then to more complex fish
  then to lobe finned fish where the pelvic and pectoral fins have developed into robust arm and leg-like structures
  then to amphibian-like fish
  then to primitive amphibian-like creatures
  then to primitive reptile-like creatures
  then to archosaurs
  then to dinosaurs
  then to theropod dinosaurs
  then to feathered theropod dinosaurs that don't fly (feathers seem to be used for heat regulation and attracting mates):
  then to gliding theropod dinosaurs (using arms and legs as wings, probably not strong flapping flyers)
  then to flying theropod dinosaurs-like birds (using arms as flapping wings, just like birds do today)
  then to birds with more modern features but still with claws on hands:
  then to birds that look almost modern:
  then to modern birds such as the golden eagle

Here's a lab experiment you can do at home to pressure yeast into evolving multi-cellular colonies. Pretty interesting: http://www.snowflakeyeastlab.com/experi ... lution.htm

Music in its many variations is loved the world over, and yet certain music preferences have not been shown to increase reproduction rates

To respoond for me here, I give you the 80s rock band: Dire Straits (Warning: Music videos from the 80s might not be appropriate for theos.org)