Abiogenesis
(Undo revision 965223 by HeidelbergKid (talk) One nav template! One! Why is this so hard for you?) |
(→External links) |
||
| Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
| − | * [http://exploringorigins.org/ One possible explanation of abiogenesis] | + | *[http://jcarlinsv.blogspot.com/2011/09/abiogenesis-for-dummies.html Abiogenesis for Dummies] |
| + | *[http://exploringorigins.org/ One possible explanation of abiogenesis] | ||
| + | |||
==Footnotes== | ==Footnotes== | ||
{{reflist|2|90%}} | {{reflist|2|90%}} | ||
Revision as of 03:52, 11 February 2012
| One of our pieces on |
| The science of life |
| Biology articles |
Abiogenesis is the process by which a living organism arises naturally from non-living matter, as opposed to biogenesis, which is the creation of living organisms by other living organisms. Scientists speculate that life may have arisen as a result of random chemical processes happening to produce self-replicating molecules. One of the popular current hypotheses involves chemical reactivity around hydrothermal vents.[1][2] This hypothesis has yet to be empirically proven although the current evidence is generally supportive of it. Give those crazy scientists a half billion or so years to play,[3] though, and they might do just as well as nature once did!
Contents |
Evolution and abiogenesis
Often brought up in the origins debate is how evolution does not explain the origin of life. Let's get something abundantly clear: abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life. It merely describes the processes which take place once life has started up. There may also be multiple pathways to producing naturally occurring "life". Depending, of course, on the definition of life. This is something that Ben Stein is apparently willfully ignorant of.
An objection to the distinction is that it is goalpost moving but this would only be true if evolution at some point did try to explain the origin of life and then people moved away from it. This is not the case at all. Evolutionary theory started with the observation of the mutability of species - a property that only exists once life has begun, indeed later definitions of "life" have often used the ability to evolve as a key component. This, of course, has been known for some time as animals and crops have been selectively bred for thousands of years. Later, the idea was refined by Charles Darwin in the form of natural selection, where nature provides the selection criteria to drive evolution. At no point was evolution, nor natural selection, about explaining the origin of life.
One objection is that explaining the origin of life is a natural extension to what evolution has to explain. In fairness this is true, and theories surrounding abiogenesis often use natural selection as a jumping point for how organised molecules could themselves develop further (thus making such molecule groups "alive" by the definition discussed above). But whether evolution and natural selection can explain this stage in the development of life is absolutely irrelevant to it's validity to living creatures post abiogenesis. A common analogy to the fallacy of rejecting evolution due to it not explaining the origin of life is that gravity doesn't explain the origin of life.
Artificial abiogenesis
In the 1950s, several experiments by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey verified that the natural formation of amino acids, components of DNA, and other organic compounds out of inorganic materials was possible under the atmospheric conditions of Primordial Earth. [4]
In 2001 Louis Allamandola demonstrated that organic material can be synthesized in deep space. Using a "Chill vacuum chamber" a lot of biomolecules including Nitriles, Ethers, alcohols, ring-like hydrocarbons, among others[5] [6]
- this is not directed transpermia
- extra evidence comes from
- meteorite samples
- radio astronomy
In a complementary experiment Jennifer Blank at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory discovered "Through subsequent chemical analysis, the team discovered that the initial amino acids in the mixture had linked together to form peptides,from which proteins can be formed." [7]
In 2010 Craig Venter & co inserted a wholly artificial chromosome into a bacterial cell and thus created the first artificial life form (a.k.a "dial-a-genome"). While not complete and natural abiogenesis it certainly moves in that direction.[8]
In 2011, Lee Cronin at the University of Glasgow is trying to start an evolutionary process in polyoxometalate-based "cells".[9]
Creationists and abiogenesis
Certain creationists correctly point out that abiogenesis must have taken place at some point to begin the process of evolution. They then attempt to use this premise to "disprove" evolution, claiming that Francesco Redi disproved abiogenesis in 1668.
In fact, Redi did no such thing. He worked to disprove the idea life forms such as maggots form spontaneously on raw meat.
The fact that the original organisms posited by abiogenesis are of the kingdom Archaea (and are therefore significantly less complicated than maggots), and that they had millions (or billions) of years on a planetary surface full of organic molecules that was being constantly bombarded by cosmic rays and racked by volcanic eruptions during which to arise, does apparently not occur to most creationists. This leads to stupid ideas like the Peanut Butter Argument[10].
Another creationist statement often made is that evolution is abiogenesis, this is simply ignorance of scientific terminology. Evolution is the gradual change of organisms over time, whereas abiogenesis is the start of life itself.
Yet more creationist illogic is, "Scientists can't explain the origin of life, therefore it must have been God and God must be the God of the Bible." (Protestant version, Roman Catholic version according to choice)
Oil
Oil is now understood to be biogenic in origin, not abiogenic. A hypothesis that oil was abiogenic in origin was popular in the Soviet Union until the 1980s. The abiogenic origin hypothesis proposed that oil formation results from chemical reactions taking place within the earth, and that oil is thus continually replenished and not a fossil fuel. A few ( notably astronomer Thomas Gold until his 2004 death, and Jack Kenney) have continued to promote the abiogenic origin hypothesis.
Understanding of origin sciences by the wider community
Many people don’t understand origin sciences. This is caused a couple of factors.
- Religious views can get in the way of wanting to understand abiogenesis preferring explanations involving a miraculous event.
- Comprehending that unlikely does not equal impossible and, furthermore, that, given sufficient time and opportunity the unlikely becomes likely is difficult for many non-specialists to understand[11], the wilfully ignorant, and the scientifically handicapped. Furthermore there is but a small field of scientists who are sufficiently trained in chemistry and geology to be able to properly review abiogenesis. There is, however, a dedicated society to studying the origin of life.[12]
Journals
Specifically for origins of life research
- Origins of life and evolution of the biosphere [13]
Other journals
Further reading
Articles on the Origin of Life. Talk Origins on the origin of life Books available at Amazon on Abiogenesis:
- Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life's Origins
- The emergence of life on earth: a historical and scientific overview
- The living universe: NASA and the development of astrobiology
- Biogenesis
- Abiogenesis Simple introduction to Abiogenesis
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427306.200-was-our-oldest-ancestor-a-protonpowered-rock.html
- ↑ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
- ↑ Because that's roughly how long it took to form those initial molecules after things cooled down a bit.
- ↑ http://www.issol.org/miller/miller1953.pdf
- ↑ http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=TRD&recid=N0233842AH&q=Organic+Synthesis+in+Simulated+Interstellar+Ice+Analogs&uid=790860697&setcookie=yes
- ↑ http://www.mendeley.com/research/organic-synthesis-simulated-interstellar-ice-analogs/
- ↑ https://www.llnl.gov/str/September02/pdfs/09_02.1.pdf
- ↑ Researchers Say They Created a ‘Synthetic Cell’, The New York Times
- ↑ http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20906-lifelike-cells-are-made-of-metal.html
- ↑ http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=ab476a318839606743bd
- ↑ at least those who don't follow science topics
- ↑ http://issol.org/
- ↑ http://www.springer.com/life+sciences/journal/11084
- ↑ http://www.springer.com/life+sciences/cell+biology/journal/239
- ↑ http://journals.elsevier.com/00222836/journal-of-molecular-biology/