Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Chemical Evolution
Apostle
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 74 (127774)
07-26-2004 12:11 PM


(I seek critical review of this piece)
CHEMICAL EVOLUTION
We speak of chemical evolution when we speak of chemicals producing organic compounds which in turn eventually develop into organized chemical-biological systems. The basic ideas of chemical evolution were foormulated independantly by Alexander Oparin or the Soviet Union and J.B.S Haldane of Great Britian. It was not until the 1950's that scientists would begin to conduct experiments that would pave the way for broad acceptance of Chemical Evolution.
In 1953, Stanley Miller, then a graduate student at the University of Chicago, under the direction of Professor Harold Urey, decided to design an experiment that attempted to simulate the condition of the early earth. An airtight apparatus in which water vapor containing a mixture of hydrogen, methane and ammonia, was circulated past electric charges. The gases were circulated for a week and then the contents of the experimental system were removed. The researchers found a small amount of two amino acids. This was exciting, as amino acids are used in buiding proteins and rightly called the building blocks for life. Based on this experiment, optimists favoring evolution concluded that the needed chemical to construct life could easily have been present in abundace on the early earth. This experiment was also seen to validate that which Oparin and Haldane had proposed, that the early atmosphere was composed of methane, hydrogen and ammonia.
It seems though that these scientists beliefs about the primitive earth were mistaken, and that invalidates the Miller-Urey experiment. It does not disprove Chemical Evolution, but it does delete all similar experiments based on false information.
An intelligent man, Harold Urey must have known that the building blocks of life would be destroyed if they were exposed to an enviroment with oxygen. Therefore because he believed in chemical evolution, he assumed that the early atmosphere lacked oxygen.
The gases which Oparin, Haldane and Urey thought covered the early earth are very different from the ones that cover it today.
Geochemists now report that the atmosphere of the early earth was not consistent with the Miller-Urey experiment. From 1980 on, NASA has shown that the primitive earth NEVER had any methane, hydrogen or ammonia that would amount to anything. If this were not enough, NASA has consistently shown that the primitive earth was composed of water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen.
Similar experiments have been preformed with different gases and they have yielded the same results.
It may be said that even uder the ideal and unrealistic conditions present in the Miller-Urey experiment, it still failed to produce some of the necessary components of life. Similar experiments suffer the same fate.
In Phillip E Johnson's Darwin on Trial, he states, "A generation ago the field of prebiological evolution seemed on the brink of spectacular sucsess; today, it is just about where Darwin left it."
In fact, as there is no evidence for the existence of the 'chemical brew' it is more likely than not that it never existed, and without it there seems to be no reason to believe that the production of small amounts of amino acids by some electrical charges can really have anything to do with the origin of life.
It is important that one not consider this the end of the debate. As I stated earlier, this merely invalidates certain experiments, it does not question Chemical Evolution.
We have no reason to believe that they were, but suppose all of the required chemicals were present on that primitive earth. We have hit a dead end for we have no reason to believe that life may emerge by having the necessary chemicals sloshing around in a brew that some still believe is not imaginary. Let us be clear: Scientists do all that they can, but the have not been able to manufacture a living organism even with amino acids and sugars etc...
Two time Nobel Prize winner, Ilya Prigogine stated that life could never have been formed by chance. "The statistical probability that organix structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero."
The simplest living cell is as complex as a space ship according to one writer. The cell is as complicated as any modern city, with its defences, transportation system, communication, energy, waste disposal, all the stored information; its incredible. Sir Frederick Hoyle stated that this living organism is as likely to have emerged from that chemical brew we spoke of as a Boeing 747 is to be assembled from a tornade crashing through a junkyard.
Ironically it is the evolutionist who tunes out the creationist, dismissing his theory as faith. Well, perhaps it is, but after reviewing chemical evolution, I am at least thankful it is not a blind faith.
Respectfully,
Apostle
This message has been edited by Apostle, 07-26-2004 12:35 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 07-26-2004 12:43 PM Apostle has replied
 Message 5 by Coragyps, posted 07-26-2004 3:18 PM Apostle has not replied
 Message 6 by MrHambre, posted 07-26-2004 5:28 PM Apostle has not replied
 Message 7 by hitchy, posted 08-05-2004 1:44 PM Apostle has not replied
 Message 8 by Loudmouth, posted 08-05-2004 1:55 PM Apostle has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 74 (127785)
07-26-2004 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Apostle
07-26-2004 12:11 PM


Nice opening post. If you can fix a few format glitches I'll release this. You don't double space between some paragraphs, that's all that needs to be fixed.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Apostle, posted 07-26-2004 12:11 PM Apostle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Apostle, posted 07-26-2004 1:36 PM Admin has not replied

Apostle
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 74 (127804)
07-26-2004 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
07-26-2004 12:43 PM


Edit
I think its done now Percy.
Apostle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 07-26-2004 12:43 PM Admin has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 4 of 74 (127837)
07-26-2004 2:48 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 5 of 74 (127848)
07-26-2004 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Apostle
07-26-2004 12:11 PM


In fact, as there is no evidence for the existence of the 'chemical brew' it is more likely than not that it never existed, and without it there seems to be no reason to believe that the production of small amounts of amino acids by some electrical charges can really have anything to do with the origin of life.
The ol' brew may not have ever had to exist on earth, though I'm quite certain some version of it did: a big variety of amino acids and other "biomolecules", including things like the vitamin niacin, have been found in pristine meteorites. Plentiful raw materials that are made in stars and interstellar clouds combine under the influence of ultraviolet light to make precursors for these chemicals - you just add water and there they are. And as the early Earth's atmosphere was essentially oxygen-free, those that survived passage through the atmosphere could accumulate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Apostle, posted 07-26-2004 12:11 PM Apostle has not replied

MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 6 of 74 (127885)
07-26-2004 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Apostle
07-26-2004 12:11 PM


At Home In the Universe
Apostle claims,
quote:
Two time Nobel Prize winner, Ilya Prigogine stated that life could never have been formed by chance. "The statistical probability that organix (sic) structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero."
Once again 'chance' and 'accident' are set up as the creaky straw men who have to stand in unsteadily for anything actually resembling evolutionary theory. I should have known you took inspiration from that expert on misrepresenting science and history, Phillip Johnson.
Chance alone counts for absolutely nothing in Nature. No one on this board has ever claimed that the ur-cell, or proto-replicators, or any other plausible precursor to biological life, popped up by accident. In the creationist's rush to hide the holes in his own, ahem, theory, he needs to rewrite the claims of evolutionary theory. This deception speaks for itself.
Your essay seems to assert that experiments conducted fifty years ago constitute the cutting edge of scientific endeavor. It might help to become acquainted with the subject of autocatalysis. Revolutionary work in biochemistry is being done not by the obscurantists at the Discovery Institute, but by researchers who are exploring the way networks of molecules catalyze their own reactions. In short, proto-life could have metabolized itself. This has nothing to do with ‘accidents,’ it deals with statistical models of biochemistry. Is it possible, complexity researcher Stuart Kauffman asks, that life is not a wild improbability, as creationists like to claim? Could it be that the probability of some molecule catalyzing some reaction is so great that autocatalysis (and hence the emergence of order and life) is practically guaranteed?
Your essay has to be updated to take into consideration the advances that have been made since the 1950’s. You’ve knocked down the straw man of Chance, now deal with the reality of evolutionary theory as it currently stands.
regards,
Esteban Hambre
This message has been edited by MrHambre, 07-26-2004 04:54 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Apostle, posted 07-26-2004 12:11 PM Apostle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by PurpleTeddyBear, posted 11-13-2006 1:54 AM MrHambre has not replied
 Message 22 by Rob, posted 11-15-2006 7:46 PM MrHambre has not replied

hitchy
Member (Idle past 5118 days)
Posts: 215
From: Southern Maryland via Pittsburgh
Joined: 01-05-2004


Message 7 of 74 (130708)
08-05-2004 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Apostle
07-26-2004 12:11 PM


Life from the bottom up!
Life may have started around hydrothermal vents on the seafloor.
Also, scientists have created a virus. Granted, viruses are not exactly living, but its a start.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Apostle, posted 07-26-2004 12:11 PM Apostle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-17-2007 12:35 AM hitchy has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 74 (130714)
08-05-2004 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Apostle
07-26-2004 12:11 PM


quote:
Two time Nobel Prize winner, Ilya Prigogine stated that life could never have been formed by chance. "The statistical probability that organix structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero."
I'll take a hack at this one as well. MrJack hit on this as well, but Prigogine seems to be saying that there must have been an underlying mechanism that only allowed certain reactions to take place instead of any reaction at any time. In other words, the production of these chemicals must have been guided through catalyst reactions that prevented random reactions over extended periods. Just to use an example, if you mix hydrogen and oxygen molecules together in a chamber containg organic molecules you will most likely see the oxygen slowly reacting with both the hydrogen and these organic molecules. However, if you add a palladium catalyst, most of the hydrogen and oxygen will react with each other and produce water. It is statistically improbable that the hydrogen and oxygen would react only with each other in the absence of a catalyst, or by chance. This is what Progigone is relating, that these biomolecules are not the product of random reactions but by pathways that reduce randomness and chance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Apostle, posted 07-26-2004 12:11 PM Apostle has not replied

tizzwazz
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 74 (357479)
10-19-2006 2:21 PM


Origin of Life
What Apostle and others fail to recognise about both chemical and biological theories of the origin of life is exactly where did the materials/chemicals come from? Ther has to be a beginning, where is it? If you are saying that there was no beginning then you entering the field of the supernatual, n'est pas!

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Chiroptera, posted 10-19-2006 2:35 PM tizzwazz has not replied
 Message 11 by ringo, posted 10-19-2006 2:38 PM tizzwazz has not replied
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 10-21-2006 1:17 PM tizzwazz has replied
 Message 14 by sidelined, posted 10-22-2006 10:35 AM tizzwazz has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 74 (357484)
10-19-2006 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by tizzwazz
10-19-2006 2:21 PM


Re: Origin of Life
quote:
n'est pas
Non!
If you asking about the beginning of the universe and everything, then the question is problematic.
The beginning of the universe is, presumably, the beginning of when the laws of physics began to operate. Since we can only answer questions based on our understanding of the natural laws, then we have no tools to even begin to ask about this beginning. In fact, since descriptions of "causes" usually invoke phenomena that precede the phenomenon that is being explained, we don't really have any good conception of what can "cause" the universe" -- you would have to ponder what existed "before" time, an oxymoron since, clearly, there is no such thing as a "before" time.
Of course, it is possible that the universe has no cause. It simply exists for no reason (sorry, Robin).
It is also a possibility that there was no beginning -- the universe may have a history that extends infinitely far into the past.
-
quote:
... then you entering the field of the supernatual
Not necessarily.
Edited by Chiroptera, : typo

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by tizzwazz, posted 10-19-2006 2:21 PM tizzwazz has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 11 of 74 (357486)
10-19-2006 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by tizzwazz
10-19-2006 2:21 PM


Re: Origin of Life
tizzwazz writes:
Ther has to be a beginning, where is it? If you are saying that there was no beginning then you entering the field of the supernatual, n'est pas!
Non. Pas du tout.
There's a difference between "supernatural" and "unknown".
But this topic is about chemical evolution, not the origin of chemicals. That is, it's about how the house was built, not where the lumber came from.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by tizzwazz, posted 10-19-2006 2:21 PM tizzwazz has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 12 of 74 (357953)
10-21-2006 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by tizzwazz
10-19-2006 2:21 PM


Re: Origin of Life
Welcome to the fray tisswazz.
What Apostle and others fail to recognise ...
That's a pretty big unsubstantiated assertion of a bare assumption. You don't have any way to know what all these people think about the begining of the universe - just because they have not been discussing that.
What you obviously fail to recognize is that they have all been talking about how life started once there was an existing earth, and not about the origin of the universe some 9 to 10 billion years earlier.
The topic is about the evolution of chemicals into life systems, and is specifically taking the existence of chemicals as a given.
Your post doesn't address this issue at all.
Do you have anything to add that is on-topic?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by tizzwazz, posted 10-19-2006 2:21 PM tizzwazz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by tizzwazz, posted 10-22-2006 10:01 AM RAZD has replied

tizzwazz
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 74 (358094)
10-22-2006 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
10-21-2006 1:17 PM


Re: Origin of Life
Aha, the usual evolutionists cop out. Pardon me but the above statement is an assumption extraordinaire and thus anything that follows must also be an assumption.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 10-21-2006 1:17 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 10-22-2006 11:02 AM tizzwazz has replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 14 of 74 (358102)
10-22-2006 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by tizzwazz
10-19-2006 2:21 PM


Re: Origin of Life
tizzwazz
What Apostle and others fail to recognise about both chemical and biological theories of the origin of life is exactly where did the materials/chemicals come from?
Where they came from is of no consequence to the subsequent unfolding of life from chemistry. In the same way you do not need to understand what electricity is and where it came from in order to be able to use it, so too, with life it is not necessary to understand how the rules governing their {chemistry}formation came about. Once the rules are in place the formation of life through chemistry is not disputed in general but only in detail.
Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by tizzwazz, posted 10-19-2006 2:21 PM tizzwazz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by tizzwazz, posted 10-25-2006 5:46 AM sidelined has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 15 of 74 (358109)
10-22-2006 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by tizzwazz
10-22-2006 10:01 AM


Re: Origin of Life
Aha, the usual evolutionists cop out. Pardon me but the above statement is an assumption extraordinaire and thus anything that follows must also be an assumption.
So the existence of this planet is an assumption?
The existence of life on this planet is an assumption?
Are you saying that you cannot do chemical experiments because chemicals are just an assumption?
Do you have a point left?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by tizzwazz, posted 10-22-2006 10:01 AM tizzwazz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by tizzwazz, posted 10-25-2006 5:43 AM RAZD has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024