>
>I find it interesting that scientific research into a naturalistic
>origin of life has been unsuccessful for 83 years and not 43 years as
>I originally thought! This must be worthy for an entry in the Guiness
>Book of Records, for the longest unsuccessful pursuit of a scientific
>idea? Much has been written about how admirable it is for naturalists
>to not give up easily. But when does dogged persistence become
>obsessive folly? 43 years? 83 years? 103 years? :-)
>
Hmm... Inquiries into the supernaturalistic origins of life,
how long have they been going on and with what success? :-).
>BH>I would also be interested in opinions from geologists,
>>geochemists,
>>paleontologists (I'm fishing for the appropriate "expert" category)
>>regarding lack of evidence for the soup in the 3.8 billion year
>>old Isua rocks. I did a little research on this awhile back and
>>found some references where "experts" were expecting to find geological
>>evidence for the soup.
>
>You are no doubt aware that Thaxton, Bradley & Olsen have a chapter
>entitled "The Myth of the Prebiotic Soup" in their book: "The Mystery
>of Life's Origin", 1992, p66, which has extensive references? Here is
>what they say:
>
Yes, I got quite a few of my references from TB&O, some also from
Yockey's book. I think Casti <Paradigms Lost> also discusses the
geological evidence.
SJ quoting TB&O:
>"Based on the foregoing geochemical assessment, we conclude that
>both in the atmosphere and in the various water basins of the
>primitive earth, many destructive interactions would have so vastly
>diminished, if not altogether consumed, essential precursor chemicals,
>that chemical evolution rates would have been negligible. The soup
>would have been too dilute for direct polymerization to occur. Even
>local ponds for concentrating soup ingredients would have met with
>the same problem. Furthermore, no geological evidence indicates an
>organic soup, even a small organic pond, ever existed on this planet.
>It is becoming clear that however life began on earth, the usually
>conceived notion that life emerged from an oceanic soup of organic
>chemicals is a most implausible hypothesis. We may therefore with
>fairness call this scenario `the myth of the prebiotic soup.' "
>(Thaxton C.B., Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The Mystery of Life's
>Origin: Reassessing Current Theories, Lewis & Stanley: Dallas TX,
>1992, p66).
>
Just a minor point. The geological evidence is rather limited. IMHO,
it is enough to cast doubts on a soup in the early oceans, but
perhaps not a pond or lagoon.
For all practical purposes this point is probably insignificant.
The way these ponds work in the orthodox scenario seems to go
like this: one particular prebiotic synthesis occurs in some
drying pond or lagoon. When this is over, the product combines
with the product of another synthesis which occurred somewhere
else [i.e. different syntheses often require dramatically different
conditions]. Where would this re-mixing occur if not in the oceans?
[...]
SJ:====
>Much is made of Gish allegedly mistranslating a German word (actually
>he personally didn't - but why spoil a good story? <g>), yet here we
>have a clear case of mistranslation that has had far greater
>implications. It is difficult to believe that no German OOL scholar
>(there are many) had not read Loeb's work and realised that Miller had
>got it wrong. It is more than interesting that it took a
>non-Darwinist scholar like Yockey to:
Why do you say Yockey is a non-Darwinist?
"BTW Creationists should take no pleasure in this post.
Evolution began after the origin of life. It is a
demonstrated fact. Many key enzymes occur every where
in biology in a chain of evolution. Information Theory
shows that is essentially a communication system and
could not have happened by chance. There is no scientific
need for special creation, especially 6000 years ago.
Long live the memory and work of Charles Darwin.
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darueber man muss schweigen.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
If you don't know what you are talking about; shut up! Yogi Berra.
Best regards to all, Hubert P. Yockey"
-- From a post to talk.origins, Aug 1 1995.
>a) notice the mistranslation
>and b) publish it. If this is ignored, and Loeb not given his
>rightful priority, then it would seem to indicate that here we have a
>case of paradigm blindness at best and fraudulent cover up at worst?
>
This is a bit of an over-reaction. As for "paradigm blindness", why
would it matter (to the paradigm) who did the first prebiotic
experiment? Also, what would be the motivation for a cover-up?
Protecting Miller? Actually, Yockey gave Miller an out, indicating
he may have read an early translation of Loeb's work where the word
was mis-translated. Also, I think its a common "sin" of practically
all disciplines (including mine) to not bother looking up original
sources. If something is mis-translated once or twice by an authority
it may well go unnoticed for years.
[...]
>So, if there was no prebiotic soup, how *did* enough amino acids exist
>together at one time in order for a chance joining up of enough of the
>first polymers which would then lead on to the first self-replicating
>biosystem. Darwinism needs this chemical evolution scenario badly.
>If it occurred by Panspermia, self-organisation or (shock, horror!)
>Intelligent Design, then Darwinism could not then claim that its
>"blind watchmaker" is the only way that adaptive complexity
>arose.
>
Not all origin of life scenarios require a soup, although those
that don't are perhaps not as popular as the ones that do. Unfortunately,
I don't seem to have my copy of Yockey's book handy, so I'll have to
rely on my memory. I recall Yockey having something positive to say
about only one origin of life scenario, Wachtershauser's, saying
it was a "step in the right direction" since it doesn't require a
soup.
The deep sea hydrothermal vent scenario also doesn't require a soup.
If I remember correctly, Yockey dismisses this rather quickly based
upon the experimental work of Stanley Miller and Jeffrey Bada.
Basically, Miller and Bada tried to experimentally simulate
hydrothermal vent conditions in the lab and concluded that the
hydrothermal vents would be a sink rather than a source for amino
acids. If correct, this would be another nail in the coffin of
soup theory, since the circulation of the early oceans through
these vents is thought to have been fairly rapid [if I remember
correctly, the entire volume of the ocean would circulate through
the vents once every million years or so]. Combine this with a
drop in production rate in neutral (as opposed to strongly reducing)
atmospheres of at least three orders of magnitude and there is
obviously trouble in soup land ;-).
After having said this, I think its also worthwhile to point out
that it is Miller himself who has driven both these nails into
soup theory. Not only did he perform the experiments showing
that the vents would be continuously destroying and prebiotic
precursors that might be forming in the oceans, he also did most
of the work showing that neutral atmospheres produce low yields
of amino acids. For this reason, I have come to have a tremendous
respect for Miller and I tend to get fidgity if someone questions
his integrity. Here he is doing research that undermines his own
pet theory for the origin of life and then publishing the results
for all the world to see. Not exactly a cover up.
But the hydrothermal vent scenario is not dead yet. Since Yockey's
book was published, an interesting "dialogue" has developed in the
literature between Miller and various proponents of vent theory. I
don't remember the details here or even the players, I just recall that
Miller's experimental results have been challenged. It will be
interesting to see how it turns out.
========================
Brian Harper |
Associate Professor | "It is not certain that all is uncertain,
Applied Mechanics | to the glory of skepticism" -- Pascal
Ohio State University |
========================