…and this is a 
Old scientists never clean out their refrigerators
Category: Evolution • Science
Posted on: October 16, 2008 10:52 PM, by PZ Myers
We all know the story of the Miller-Urey experiment. In 1953, a young graduate student named Stanley Miller ran an off-the-wall experiment: he ran water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen in a sealed flask with a pair of electrodes to produce a spark, and from those simple building blocks discovered that more complex compounds, such as amino acids, were spontaneously produced. Stanley Miller died in 2007, and in going through his effects, the original apparatus was discovered, and in addition, several small sealed vials containing the sludge produced in the original experiment were also found.
This isn't too surprising. I've gone through a few old scientists' labs, and you'd be surprised at all the antiquities they preserved, all with notes documenting exactly what they are. It's habit to keep this stuff.
Now the cool part, though: the scientists who unearthed the old samples ran them through modern analysis techniques, which are a bit more sensitive than the tools they had in the 1950s. In 1953, Miller reported the recovery of five amino acids from his experiment. The reanalysis found twenty two amino acids and five amines in the vials. He was more successful than he knew!
Moles (relative to glycine = 1) of the various amino acids detected in the volcanic apparatus vials. Amino acids underlined have not been previously reported in spark discharge experiments. Values for amines are minimum values because of loss due to their volatility during workup.
Yes, I know that Miller's reducing atmosphere is no longer considered to be an accurate representation of the ancient earth's atmosphere. However, the experiment still supported a key idea: that the synthesis of these organic compounds did not require any kind of guiding hand, but would naturally emerge from unassisted chemical reactions. Furthermore, the authors of this paper argue that while it was not a good model of the global atmosphere, it might still model local conditions in isolated areas.
Geoscientists today doubt that the primitive atmosphere had the highly reducing composition Miller used. However, the volcanic apparatus experiment suggests that, even if the overall atmosphere was not reducing, localized prebiotic synthesis could have been effective. Reduced gases and lightning associated with volcanic eruptions in hot spots or island arc-type systems could have been prevalent on the early Earth before extensive continents formed. In these volcanic plumes, HCN, aldehydes, and ketones may have been produced, which, after washing out of the atmosphere, could have become involved in the synthesis of organic molecules. Amino acids formed in volcanic island systems could have accumulated in tidal areas, where they could be polymerized by carbonyl sulfide, a simple volcanic gas that has been shown to form peptides under mild conditions.
So good work, Dr Miller!
Johnson AP, Cleaves HJ, Dworkin JP, Glavin DP, Lazcano A, Bada JL (2008) The Miller Volcanic Spark Discharge Experiment. Science 322(5900):404.
Physical Science
Comments
Posted by: Kel | October 16, 2008 10:59 PM
I saw this on New Scientist this morning, it's great news. One step closer unlocking a potential mechanism for naturalistic origins.
Posted by: I am so wise | October 16, 2008 11:01 PM
Wow, this is going to present an archivist some amusing problems with conservation. Any idea which museum will receive this collection and whether it will be displayed for public consumption?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 16, 2008 11:02 PM
You are right about most academic scientists keeping everything. Modern analytical techniques can get down to nanomole and picomole amounts, so it isn't surprising that a lot more amino acids were seen. Good find.
Posted by: Chironex | October 16, 2008 11:04 PM
This is fascinating. Even though I'm not much a biology kind of guy, I really think this is cool :D
Posted by: Bacopa | October 16, 2008 11:14 PM
I'm still a supporter of Cairns-Smith's "clay gene" hypothesis. "Seven Clues to the Origin of Life" is a damn good read even though thy made fun of it in Expelled when Ruse quoted it.
Of course, I'm not a scientist who specializes in this stuff and I understand that all-organic models have made strides since "Seven Clues" came out. Still, I'd recommend it as a great example of good accessable scientific argument about a difficult subject.
Speaking of clay. I work in the aquarium trade and always say that zebrafish are the toughest fish out there. That's not quite right. Gambusia are much tougher. I once saw a large milky puddle that was milky white with kaolin. I hate to think what the pH must have been. There were some Gambusia doing just fine in there, though I think they would have starved in a few days. Fortunately rain came that night which must have washed them back to the main creek.
Posted by: funda62 | October 16, 2008 11:22 PM
Reminds me of when I used to keep my lunch labeled "sensitive experiment do not open" in the science lab fridge.
Posted by: Paper Hand | October 16, 2008 11:24 PM
That is truly astonishing! 22 amino acids? Isn't that nearly all of them?
Posted by: Doo Shabag | October 16, 2008 11:25 PM
This story just makes me laugh from happiness :)
Posted by: Brownian, OM | October 16, 2008 11:25 PM
Yeah, but what does this prove? The original atmosphere of the Earth probably wasn't like the one Miller & Urey used anyway, so there's nothing saying this happened on Earth. No evolution; therefore an Intelligent Designer. QED.
Then again, since the Earth is clearly fine-tuned for life, the early atmosphere would have to have been even more conducive to self-organising chemical reactions than the environment Miller & Urey used, so, therefore, um....
YOU ATHEISTS HAVE NO MORALS!!
Posted by: Azdak | October 16, 2008 11:29 PM
Well, okay, sure. There are more amino acids than originally believed. But they're still of the amino acid type -- it's not like any of those molecules spontaneously evolved from a chicken!
Posted by: Brownian, OM | October 16, 2008 11:30 PM
[No need to respond to my post above. I was just pre-empting trolls.
To the trolls: Relax guys! I got this one covered. Go back to the 7th Heaven DVDs you ordered off the internet so as not to have to encounter minorities at Best Buy.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 16, 2008 11:31 PM
Paper Hand, many of the listed compound are isomers of the normal amino acids not usually found in nature. I counted about 9-10 AA's normally found in proteins (my amino acid nomenclature is a bit rusty).
Posted by: Azdak | October 16, 2008 11:37 PM
I'm watching Touched By an Angel, thank you very much!
Posted by: Colm | October 16, 2008 11:38 PM
I...I have no words. That's beautiful.
Posted by: ggab | October 16, 2008 11:39 PM
Brownian
I popped on here hoping for a giggle before going to bed.
You gave me two giggles a gufaw and one minor snort.
Thank you.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | October 16, 2008 11:43 PM
Why thanks, ggab! Glad I could be of service!
Posted by: Joshu | October 16, 2008 11:50 PM
Well, what are the odds? My girlfriend (bio major) was just telling me about this experiment being on her midterm exam today, and then I find it here. PZ, clearly you also have powers of clairvoyance.
This is awesome, by the way. As if that weren't obvious. :P
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | October 16, 2008 11:51 PM
Azdak: I thought Touched By an Uncle was more your speed... (It's on right after CSI: Boise, remember?)
Posted by: Geral | October 16, 2008 11:51 PM
Interesting. PZ can you break it down further? Which amino acids are found in organisms, and are any not? How many amino acids haven't they reproduced?
Posted by: Jeremy | October 16, 2008 11:52 PM
I read about this recently, it's great that the Miller-Urey experiment is even more fascinating than was previously thought. It makes me want to set this up in my garage for fun.
Posted by: 386sx | October 17, 2008 12:02 AM
Then again, since the Earth is clearly fine-tuned for life, the early atmosphere would have to have been even more conducive to self-organising chemical reactions than the environment Miller & Urey used, so, therefore, um....
That's a good point. Why would creationists even have a problem with abiogenesis? Jesus could easily "poof" some abiogenesis.
All creationist arguments that try to "prove" the impossibility of scientific arguments are all hypocritical creationist arguments because, according to their own beliefs, there is nothing that is impossible. Jesus can "poof" whatever he wants.
Any creationists who have a problem with a scientific theory are just blowing out hot air to make some noise and whine and complain about stuff because they don't like it. Because, according to their own beliefs, all scientific theories are possible.
Creationist = big bag of hot wind gas. Pppffhhhlllrrttt...
Posted by: Kobra | October 17, 2008 12:04 AM
Now now, we need to redo this experiment for the sake of scientific rigor!
Posted by: Richard from RedDeer | October 17, 2008 12:06 AM
I find it particularly fascinating since large volcanic eruptions also produce lightning along with changes in localized atmosphere. Perhaps the only necessity was for these amino acids to form in whatever atmosphere was available and the whole process found its niche among the different environments possible on a young planet
Posted by: wazza | October 17, 2008 12:09 AM
or update it with a picture of what would actually be going on... we might get all the amino acids this time!
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | October 17, 2008 12:11 AM
Even more advanced scanning techniques will reveal that the AAs developed a system of writing, the most widespread specimens starting:
Posted by: Jorge Velez-Juarbe | October 17, 2008 12:16 AM
This is so cool!! I remember having to learn about this experiment as an undergrad for the history of life course and that it was (and probably still is) one of the questions in the first exam!! So good to know that the results were actually better than originally thought!!
Posted by: Azdak | October 17, 2008 12:24 AM
Hah, I'd not heard that one. I had to YouTube it.What's fun is that Comfort-esque arguments really don't lose anything when you apply them in novel situations -- they retain all of their delightful wackiness.
Posted by: BobC | October 17, 2008 12:27 AM
The god-of-the-gaps is running out of hiding places. Any theists visiting here want to explain why you still believe in a magic fairy? Is it because you're stupid, insane, gullible, childish, cowardly, or what?
Posted by: KenG | October 17, 2008 12:34 AM
For those asking, the amino acids among those produced that are common in eukaryote proteins include: Gly(cine), Ala(nine), Ser(ine), Asp(artic acid), Val(ine), Glu(tamic acid) and Phe(nylalanine).
Interesting, some prokaryotes also utilise orn(ithine) and several other of the molecules.
Posted by: Stefan | October 17, 2008 12:48 AM
Maybe a silly question, but is it possible that some of the amino acids in the sludge had formed after the experiment? Or doesn't the chemistry allow this?
Posted by: Sleeping at the Console | October 17, 2008 12:58 AM
Very interesting, even for someone like me who knows very little about biology or chemistry.
Posted by: Jared | October 17, 2008 1:11 AM
Do you hear that? It's one more nail being driven into the coffin of creationism...
Posted by: Brownian, OM | October 17, 2008 1:17 AM
We wish. Three days in the tombs they call churches and they'll raise the old life-can't-come-from-non-life chestnut from the dead.
Posted by: Uncephalized | October 17, 2008 1:28 AM
#30
I believe the whole idea is that amino acids don't generally form under what we consider "normal" conditions. So it's very unlikely to see any forming after his experiment, since he stopped producing the necessary conditions long ago.
Posted by: Dahan | October 17, 2008 1:36 AM
Big old grin here. This ranks right up there with Clyde Tombaugh's finding Pluto. great stories and great science.
Posted by: Kobra | October 17, 2008 1:39 AM
I still say we reproduce the experiment again... just to prevent the creotards from having any wiggling room.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | October 17, 2008 1:39 AM
See! Scientists can't even agree on how many amino acids were created! They keep changing their story! Darwinism is a Theory in CRISIS!
(Sorry, Brownian, didn't mean to steal your shtick.)
Posted by: Brad D | October 17, 2008 1:58 AM
When I learned about this in college it really pulled a lot of thoughts together for me and led me to dump religion. Oddly enough, a lot of help was also provided by two fundamentalist Christians that I took general chemistry with (young earthers at that). It was a sort of compare and contrast scenario, and there was just no comparison.
Posted by: The Chemist | October 17, 2008 2:05 AM
What I've Been Learning About Science:
If the results look good and make sense the first time, it's interesting.
If they still look good and make sense years later, it's a breakthrough.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | October 17, 2008 2:08 AM
This is way cool. But it's not too surprising. After all, the original experiment and this recent analysis are examples of basic scientific inquiry. And basic scientific inquiry is, as we observe, the discipline that keeps on giving.
Posted by: AlanWCan | October 17, 2008 2:13 AM
So, you're the other one that read those books? ("Genetic Takeover and the Mineral Origins of Life" is a more detailed read...if you enjoyed the 7 clues). I did an undergrad dissertation on that whole clay thing as an off-the-wall project, but when I started researching it I realised that Graham Cairns-Smith was actually a chemistry professor across the street in the chemistry department of my university. Of course I made it over there post haste with reams of paper and notes and he was thoroughly accommodating. A wonderful thoughtful polymath of a guy...although from my meetings with him over that year I got the feeling that he didn't really believe it himself (I could be wrong) and it was more of an intellectual exercise in could this, or something like it, be true? he got more into the whole consciousness debate over the years too, and seemed to me he lost interest in the clay thing. Thanks for reminding me of that, it's been decades since I thought about it.Posted by: Geral | October 17, 2008 2:13 AM
@KenG
Thanks for expanding a little more!
Posted by: mikeg | October 17, 2008 2:19 AM
i love this shit... i'll re-read in the morning... too many sierra nevada pale ale... i can't type anymore tonifgh
Posted by: Stefan | October 17, 2008 2:42 AM
#34
Thanks!
Posted by: Nerdette | October 17, 2008 2:48 AM
Oh, you can find all sorts of fun things in old professors offices and labs. My Invert. Zoology prof was telling us when he was cleaning out the storage office of the last professor that taught the course 25 years ago, he found a large jar full of apple vinegar stashed under the sink. Sure enough, it was filled with quite happy Turbatrix (vinegar worms).
Posted by: maxamillion | October 17, 2008 3:30 AM
Posted by: Joshu | October 16, 2008 11:50 PM
Well, what are the odds? My girlfriend (bio major) was just telling me about this experiment being on her midterm exam today
Pity the exam is not on Monday, the extra info would knock the socks off the examiner.
Posted by: BaldySlaphead | October 17, 2008 3:32 AM
That's amazing! I look forward to beating a few creotards over the head with that in future ;)
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 17, 2008 3:33 AM
However, all contact with the team that uncovered the vials with lost. The last transmissions were confused and filled with frightened shouts of "get it off me!" and "too many dimensions!"
Another team was sent in to investigate, but they found only an empty lab, an unsettling residue on the floor and the word "CROTOAN" carved into one wall.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | October 17, 2008 3:49 AM
I remember first hearing about that experiment sometime in my high school years. I never realized it happened back in the 1950s.
I was never a believer, but learning that amino acids could be created from simpler compounds just by jolting them with enough electric discharges certainly weakened the religious arguments my classmates tried to make.
-jcr
Posted by: shane | October 17, 2008 4:19 AM
Is this that miracle thing where you shake the vial and the contents turn liquid?
Posted by: Muzz | October 17, 2008 4:47 AM
Embarassingly, for a supposed student of science history, I hadn't heard of this experiment until I saw a rebuke of Expelled on some site around the place. The 'film' dismissed it by saying "nothing happened"; the blogger in question said 'that's not quite true' and linked to a description of this spontaneous generation of amino acids and I just about spat my drink over the keyboard. "Nothing happened" indeed.
Posted by: AJS | October 17, 2008 5:15 AM
Who cares whether the "extra" amino acids have formed since the original experiment or just were not detected at the time? Even if the former is true, it does nothing to detract from the validity of the experiment ..... the worst it says is, they underestimated the timescale a bit.
If you were trying to measure the date when life began on Earth, I think you'd be excused an error of about 55 years.
Posted by: conelrad | October 17, 2008 5:19 AM
E. Roston mentions some of the follow-up experiments
in 'The Carbon Age'. When the experiment was rerun with
only nitrogen & CO2, very little happened. But with the
addition of some iron & carbonates (very reasonable) most
of the amino acids returned.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | October 17, 2008 5:26 AM
Who cares whether the "extra" amino acids have formed since the original experiment or just were not detected at the time?
It's relevant to the claim that Miller didn't detect them because he lacked sufficiently sensitive analysis tools.
Even if the former is true, it does nothing to detract from the validity of the experiment
No one said it did.
Posted by: druidbros | October 17, 2008 5:30 AM
Posted by: Louis | October 17, 2008 5:39 AM
Whilst I'm exceedingly chuffed about this new analysis of the old experiment, I'd hate people to go away with the impression that this is the be all and end all of abiogenesis research. It's a bit technical perhaps, but check out "The Emergence of Life" by Pier Luigi Luisi. It's a cracking good review of the current state of play and it really blows creationist drivel out of the water.
Louis
Posted by: Chris Davis | October 17, 2008 5:46 AM
To those calling for Miller's experiment to be repeated - er, it has been.
By Jeffrey Bada. Sci Am article here with a basic description:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=primordial-soup-urey-miller-evolution-experiment-repeated
And the results are better than ever! Seems like physics just 'poofs' life all by itself.
CD
Posted by: Heraclides | October 17, 2008 6:15 AM
@30 & 42:
My thoughts are that ideally you'd want to run a spec' on a "before" sample as well to provide a baseline in case there was minor contamination, for example from washing the glassware in phenol, etc. This won't "excuse away" the amino acids seen in the results, though.
(Naïvely speaking, I have to admit I'm a bit surprised at seeing phenylalanine in the results. I haven't read the paper, so I'm lacking the full details.)
Posted by: Luger Otter Robinson | October 17, 2008 6:41 AM
Don McElroy (the mad creationist Texan dentist/chairman of the science curriculum committee in Texas) is also highly impressed by this experiment, because he reckons Miller and Urey got the Nobel prize for it in 1953 (have a listen to the talk he gave to a class):
http://www.gracebible.org/downloads/sermons/Intelligent_Design/DM05404_Intelligent_Design_Theory_Primer.mp3
Creotard is the perfect term for him.
Posted by: Tilia | October 17, 2008 6:57 AM
Just a thought: It's maybe good that they didn't find all usual amino acids. Otherwise one could be tempted to think of contamination. If Miller couldn't measure nanomolar concentrations of amino acids, he might not have bothered to avoid contamination in this range.
Posted by: llewelly | October 17, 2008 7:08 AM
Look. I am a big fan of leftovers. But some of the old things you find in the fridge are NOT MEANT TO BE EATEN.Posted by: Sydney | October 17, 2008 7:17 AM
Wow! I remember leaning about this last year when I took biology. This is absolutely amazing. Despite it not being the accurate atmosphere, it still is such an important discovery. Twenty-two amino acids. This is exciting.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | October 17, 2008 7:36 AM
And I think it's safe to say that 50 year old brown sludge falls into that category.
Posted by: Martin | October 17, 2008 7:39 AM
It's because we lack the charm, courtesy, respect, and cool disinterested objectivity of atheists.
Oh, and because the god-of-the-gaps is not the only theology. And a magic fairy model is as good a model of rational theism as a four elements model is of chemistry.
Posted by: Cafeeine | October 17, 2008 8:10 AM
Martin, is your version of theism rational and sophisticated? Do tell.
Posted by: Adrian W. | October 17, 2008 8:19 AM
Science is so cool.
@ Martin #64:
And the emperor's robes are best made from Chinese silk, not Egyptian cotton.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | October 17, 2008 8:24 AM
Oxymoron.
Posted by: choosejesusnotobama | October 17, 2008 8:41 AM
I am closing my eyes, covering my ears and singing, "...Our God is an awesome God he reigns in heaven above..."
Posted by: Snoof | October 17, 2008 8:48 AM
I think what's really important about experiments like these is that they show that complicated molecules are _not_ hard to create - they crop up all over the place, from fairly simple constituents. It's a good argument against "life is complex so it couldn't have arisen by chance".
Posted by: Dave Strumfels | October 17, 2008 8:55 AM
Any possibility that at least some of the newly discovered amino acids were not present in the original sample but formed during the 50+ years this sample was kept in storage? That in itself leads to intriguing possibilities ... also, any evidence of chirality among the newly found compounds? That could go a long way in explaining how chirality came into existence during abiogenisis, whatever the details.
Posted by: Cardinal Shrew | October 17, 2008 8:56 AM
Anyone ever think of redoing some form of this experiment but simulating the environment around one of those deep water volcanic vents? The pressures and temps might produce some interesting results. I am guessing anyway, my chemistry and biology is limited to 101 classes.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 17, 2008 9:20 AM
All the amino acids made by the experiment should be racemic. If there are any predominantly L-amino acids present it would be a sign of contamination. IIRC, the columns that separate the optical isomers are not a sensitive as columns that separate the amino acids, so that testing probably wasn't carried out.
The why as to the D-sugars and L-amino acids is a very moot point. I recall a paper Asimov described in one of his science collections where certain isotopes when put in a magnetic field would decay preferentially from their "south pole". He indicated that one of the chiral molecules (I think it was a sugar) was destroyed preferentially. Very interesting theory.
Posted by: Haha | October 17, 2008 9:23 AM
Excellent stuff. Can we now please permanently abandon religion and embrace science as a united world???
Posted by: AJ Milne | October 17, 2008 9:32 AM
Another one, here, actually. But I'm as much a Russellite alkaline seepage man, myself.
Posted by: AJS | October 17, 2008 9:34 AM
Don't reaction mechanisms and collision theory explain chirality?
If all reagents and catalysts involved in a reaction are chiral, then due to bits getting in the way of one another, only molecules of the correct chirality can reach the reaction site.
Or, if the reaction site is away from the source of chirality, then the product will have the same chirality as the original reagent, since no bonds have been broken at the chiral end of the molecule.
Obviously, when synthesising chiral molecules from achiral ingredients, you get an even mix of left- and right-handed forms. But it isn't difficult to suppose that a slight imbalance could occur; and when you have reactions taking place that are dependent on chirality, one or the other could easily become dominant.
Posted by: AJS | October 17, 2008 9:37 AM
Nerd @ 72:
Racemic. That's the word I was looking for.
Posted by: Defaithed | October 17, 2008 9:39 AM
Here's what I love about this: Had "big science" been a "conspiracy" or "dogmatic religion" as some nuts love to charge, it could have taken those 1953 results and proclaimed proof (more or less) of abiogenesis. Case closed. Kick back and take it easy. (Fundamentalists could not have put forth any serious challenge to the claim; they can't even *understand* the results.)
But science didn't do that. It kept on checking and confronting and trying to find flaws in its results, on its own, with no help from religion. And on its own, science found and announced that the original experiment's reducing atmosphere likely isn't a valid representation of early Earth, letting some (but not all!) of the steam out of the experiment's findings.
Can you even imagine religious dogma trying to poke holes in itself, and honestly owning up to the flaws, like science did after Miller's find?
Well, this new bit of info, about the discovery of additional amino acids, shows that science's scrupulously honest self-policing sometimes turns up unexpected rewards. Well done, and well-deserved! Religion, if you tried some honesty yourself, you too might unearth some welcome surprises.
BTW, @mikeg: "... too many sierra nevada pale ale... "
Sir, I have to claim atheism on that point. I do not believe in this "too many" you speak of.
Posted by: garyb50 | October 17, 2008 10:02 AM
I'm disappointed. I fully expected, when I started reading the post that little fishes would be found.
Posted by: Aquaria | October 17, 2008 10:13 AM
I'm surprised no one's referenced this Miller concoction yet:
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb/did-life-evolve-in-ice
I love to show that one to fundies who say science can't show chemicals becoming Liiiiiiiffffe!
Posted by: Defaithed | October 17, 2008 10:19 AM
"Show me the transitional goop!"
Posted by: tsg | October 17, 2008 10:28 AM
@#46
I know what all those words mean, but together they make no sense!
@#64
IRONY ALERT! IRONY ALERT! TAKE COVER IN YOUR NEAREST SHELTER. THIS IS NOT A DRILL.
And now it's time for Theological Whack-A-Mole.
It comes down to this: either your god is observable or it isn't. If it is, then science can determine its nature. If it isn't, then nobody can know anything about it, including those who claim they do. But more importantly, if it isn't observable, its existence is indistinguishable from its non-existence.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | October 17, 2008 11:06 AM
OK, but if he'd simply believed that God made everything, Miller wouldn't have had to do anything at all.
Why can't you just see the great benefits of "God did it"? Namely, you don't have to get up off of the couch.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: raven | October 17, 2008 11:35 AM
I've been watching the horror classic, Night of the Undead Christofascist Lunatics for a year now.
We are in Act 111. The earth is a desolate wasteland with twisted bodies, blown up 401K plans, and wrecked banks littering the landscape. The sun is coming up and the battered remnants of the forces of darkness are retreating to their trailer parks and church basements. The victors, also battered but surviving, including a youngish dark skinned man emerge into a new day. They begin to clean up the mess and prepare for the next outbreak of Zombie Fundie Nihiilists.
Posted by: TiredOfThisSillyFight | October 17, 2008 11:45 AM
These results are very interesting indeed. I am rather excited about them, and what if any further investigations take place in the search for early formations of life. However, this science alone does not necessarily debunk any and all forms of theism.
We can all certainly agree that all of the elements used in this experiment are naturally found on the earth and furthermore the overall universe, and that the conditions that these elements were put through also exist on the planet. So these results are a positive steps towards a potential understanding of how life started.
However, this is just a steping stone to the beginings of "life as we understand it", and in no way has any speculative theories with regards to how existsance started.
I personally have a certain level of faith, although it is not to any of the prescribed organized views. I also have a very strong sense of scientific rigor and support the experimental process. It is here the science and faith diverge. One is not the other and cannot be compared as such. The debate between darwinism and creationism is an argument between science and philosophy (at best).
I find it utterly insulting that a scientific minded indivudual is not open to ideas that they know not the answer to. I find it unscientific that the so called scientists are unwilling to diverge from a single theory and look at other theories (as it stands Darwinism is a good theory but hasn't been proven... and cannot be).
The dangers that I've seen in modern scientists is almost the same as the danger I've seen in modern "beleivers", and that is that they cannot and will not acknowledge anything from the other camp, even when both camps are truely in the dark.
My real question is: Without knowing how the Universe started (if you subscribe to the Big Bang theory -- that was the start), what made it all start. Was it non-existant chemicals reacting with non-existant energies in a non-existant space? In sciencetific terms, the universe has it's own inertia, it is ever growing. What gave the initial universe the energy to start? This is where neither science nor faith can provide an answer. Faith however does provide an theory... I haven't heard any from the scientific camps (not saying that there aren't)...
Science is a great thing for the masses, but faith is a great thing for the individual... I believe with my scientific mind in darwinism, and in a "some-kinda-form-creator-of-the-overall-universe" as I do with my faith based heart. Logic dictates that something exists above us, possibly in one of the other UNOBSERVABLE 23 dimensions that science has concluded as a result of some of the more recent universal theories (String theory comes to mind).
I don't follow the literatures as written by common day creationists, they are too simple and give up when things get tough... but pure atheism seems too random...
Once again, this was a very cool discovery...
Posted by: Kemist | October 17, 2008 11:45 AM
Without a catalyst, amino acids don't form from these components in mild (meaning no heating, UV light, electrical sparks) conditions. So probably not. Amino acids themselves are quite stable. If the vials had not been sealed and had contact with oxygen, maybe you could have had some oxidization to form derivatives (ex.: Tyrosine from phenylalanine).
Posted by: haha | October 17, 2008 12:03 PM
I don't have a lot of strong opinions about evolution or creation, it's just not my issue. Your post made me lol though thinking about my high school physics teacher who also taught anatomy and physiology. The anatomy class dissected a large number of cats in his classroom, which us physics students had to smell and see as the dissection progressed. Then one day, the cats were gone, and so was the formaldyhide stench.
A few weeks later, the SAME cats were back on the lab tables in our classroom, and the anatomy students were back to work on the next dissection phase. I asked my teacher where the cats went in the interim, and he said, "Oh, I just brought them home and put them in the freezer".
I didn't get the impression that he thought this was unusual, but I was thoroughly disgusted. I kept staring at my nerdy science teacher thinking about all the years of dead cats/frogs and god knows what else he might have in his deep freeze. I decided against a scientific profession...
Posted by: Kemist | October 17, 2008 12:04 PM
There are chromato columns to separate optical isomers, they're called chiral columns. Like any analysis method though, the sensitivity depends heavily on method optimization. It could in theory be verified for one abundant AA to check for contamination.
The origins of deracemisation are not totally explained, but there are several theories, including the one you mentionned. Another interesting one is an asymetry in what, if I recall correctly, is the "weak atomic force", which would give a very very slight preference for one isomer rather than another. Another theory proposes a local desequilibrium, which turned to the L-series by random chance (Getting an answer to this is one reason I'm very curious about any form of extra-terrestrial life).
The fascinating thing about this is the very little enantiomeric excess that would be needed : crystals are very good at separating and sequestering one isomer more than the other. Macromolecules (Proteins or RNA enzymes) are even better.
So the thing to keep in mind about deracemisation (and abiogenesis in general) is that, like evolution of life itself, it was a lenghty multistep process.
Posted by: tsg | October 17, 2008 12:08 PM
No one said it did. What it does do, however, is severely reduce the need for a supernatural entity to explain it.
Infitine regression argument.
No, it isn't. Creationism makes claims that directly conflict with scientific findings. That isn't philosophy.
Strawman. Scientific minded individuals are open to all ideas for which there is supporting evidence.
Equivocation.
What caused god?
Please, do you really think we haven't heard all this before? It's not new, and it's been debunked soundly.