It’s been a while since I wrote about Primordial Soup - and it’s Back in the News!
Science Daily reports on March 21st that
Stanley Miller gained fame with his 1953 experiment showing the synthesis of organic compounds thought to be important in setting the origin of life in motion. Five years later, he produced samples from a similar experiment, shelved them and, as far as friends and colleagues know, never returned to them in his lifetime.
More 50 years later, Jeffrey Bada, Miller’s former student and a current Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego professor of marine chemistry, discovered the samples in Miller’s laboratory material and made a discovery that represents a potential breakthrough in the search for the processes that created Earth’s first life forms.
Former Scripps undergraduate student Eric Parker, Bada and colleagues report on their reanalysis of the samples in the March 21 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Miller’s 1958 experiment in which the gas hydrogen sulfide was added to a mix of gases believed to be present in the atmosphere of early Earth resulted in the synthesis of sulfur amino acids as well as other amino acids. The analysis by Bada’s lab using techniques not available to Miller suggests that a diversity of organic compounds existed on early planet Earth to an extent scientists had not previously realized.
“Much to our surprise the yield of amino acids is a lot richer than any experiment (Miller) had ever conducted,” said Bada.
continued…
Discuss.
I just want to remind all ID/creationists that developing models of abiogenesis are another nail in coffin of their ideas.
It doesn’t work the other way around. If a deity manifests itself tomorrow and shows everyone how the first cellular replicator was magically created, the theory of evolution is still strong (and ID/creationism is still wrong).
Please clarify that. I’d think that while evolution was still supported, the diety would indeed have proven ID, unless there was something about ID that I failed to notice.
Harold let’s not rush to elevate a hypothesis to a theory.
Primordial soup – new chunky recipe! Healthy cuisine for an emerging bioplanet! No Intelligent Preparation required, just heat and serve!
Can anyone tell me how many of the 20 amino acids used to make protiens can be sythesized in a lab?
Just be saying that, you prove your ignorance about science. A hypothesis, in proper scientific terminology, cannot evolve into a theory. All hypotheses, theories, and observations that are supported by scientific methods become FACTS!
Go away!
Disregard my question about amino acids. I found the answer.
sigh… ALL OF THEM
Please ask a question that makes sense.
My previous question did make sense. It just had an easy answer. This next question is kind a vague. Hopefully you can answer it.
How stable are the 20 amino acids used to build protiens?
You might as well ask him to do jumping jacks for the next several hours nonstop.
Oh, so you ARE capable of learning something!
SOP.
All of them. Why do you ask?
Again, ALL OF THEM! If they were not, we wouldn’t even exist as organiams, since amino acids make up proteins and proteins make up US!
Oh, can you be any dumber, PLEASE?! We need more entertainment now that IBIG is gone.
That should have been.…
And yes, it is worth saying twice!
Of course we haven’t. If we had, most biologists would soon be out of business. Science works by constant expansion as we make new discoveries which lead to new questions, which lead to still more discoveries, and so on indefinitely.….…
Dale, why are you ridiculing me. Did I say something unkind to you. I suspect that I am just as educated as you.
But did you understand it? Why not post where you found it and let us help you.
I’ve got a whole series of peer-reviewed blogging posts about the origin of life at my blog.
Because you are asking questions and making statements that reflect an ignorance of the subject matter which in turn disqualifies you from being a credible critic of the recent research on abiogenesis.
I found it here. Why would you assume that I can’t understand that?
Because your posts demonstrate either or both an inability / a lack of desire to learn about Biology and biological concepts.
Like, for instance, your complete and total refusal to answer my question of “please define ‘information’” being that you are too lazy to do so.
And then there is the problem that you also want us to respect your opinions concerning Evolutionary Biology, too.
OrgeMkV,
I jumped over to your blog. Looks interesting. I’ll read through your origins of life entries when I get time. How does one get a blog entry pier reviewed? I have one that I would like feedback on.
Well, let’s see. You asked a stupid question that you could easily have found the answer for yourself. Then you followed it up with an even dumber question, the answer to which was already posted above. Maybe that is what earned you the ridicule.
The post clearly states that the experiment was preformed fifty years ago and that the samples were left sitting around ever since. The fact that the amino acids were still found intact would suggest that they are pretty stable, wouldn’t you agree?
See the thing is that ID advocates are constantly asking stupid questions in order to play silly gotcha games. You really don’t want to try that nonsense here do you? Perhaps your questions should be a little more intelligently designed.
You take a long walk off a short pier. You should try it some time.
And he wonders why he is ridiculed.
peer-reviewed blogging is writing a blog entry about a peer-reviewed research paper.
Usually it’s done to make a peer-reviewed paper accessible to those not in the field.
I think the question you meant to ask, was how many modern amino acids can be produced in abiotic conditions?
Dale I am wondering if you hate me. You’ve said a lot of unkind things to me and I am wondering why.
So intellectually delicious that even Julia Child approves .…
Yummy !!
Does he? He comes here for confrontations and with every expectation of being ridiculed.
Wöhler synthesized the first organic compound in 1828 if I remember the date correctly. Whether or not they can recall these details, I assume that almost every regular on Panda’s Thumb has known for a very long time that there is nothing magical about producing organic chemicals in the lab. Thing is, though, it’s news to plenty of people, including, perhaps, Intelligent Designer. A critical important fact doesn’t turn into an innate idea no matter how obvious it appears if you learned it long, long ago. One normally thinks of the difference between theologically oriented and scientifically oriented people as a function of their world views, but it’s my guess that at least a good chunk of the mutual incomprehension comes from simple ignorance. There really are people who don’t know what causes the tides, let alone the good news about amino acids.
I probably should have defined what I meant by stable because I found this statement in the wikipedia reference I gave you guys: “in current models of early Earth conditions, carbon dioxide and nitrogen (N2) create nitrites, which destroy amino acids as fast as they form.”
Geez, you guys. He runs a software shop – dang, I hate to think of what he’d be like to work for – and he may be too busy for the moment, eager for the opportunity to come back with his usual song-&-dance. I mean, he has to enjoy it, there no’s practical reason for him to rush in here to play games and pick fights.
And here you folks are challenging him to come back. Myself, I’d be missing nothing in my life if I never heard from him again.
I agree with you, mrg. I don’t want him back either. Let’s not incite him.
Raven, I am still waiting for your response.
And yet, you make no effort to support or even support your claim that Raven is lying, beyond the unspoken implication that he’s hurt your feelings.
Are you being lazy, or are you frustrated that we apparently don’t appreciate the humor in being lied to?
support or even explain your claim, that is.
You have been asked several times to clarify your accusation of Raven’s supposed lying.
You have been told that your hyperlink to your own blog doesn’t work, because you spell “HREF” as “HFER”, which reflects poorly on your “skill” as a programmer.
I’ve fixed it for you in this reply, the second time I’ve done so.
No one is waiting for Raven’s clarification except you. We are waiting for your explanation.
You could start by explaining how many years you have worked on your “Weasel” application.
There is no way that Raven could know how long it took me to write the Interactive Weasel Program. I am the only one here who knows that. Raven was obviously making up a lie and you all are supporting it. How can anyone believe anything you guys say. PandasThumb.org has no credibility.
Oh, you can’t believe anyone here, and you don’t have any reason to think PT has any credibility at all.
You have more important things to do with your time and you shouldn’t be wasting any more of it here.
I don’t know how Raven came up with years as an estimate. Perhaps from following your blogs and comments on PT and/or Pharyngula, or maybe just a shoot-from-the-hip guess?
Either way, you still haven’t said how many years you took to develop your interactive Weasel.
How many was it? I suspect that you’ll never tell, because, deep-down, Raven probably got it right.
Anyway, congrats on finally spelling “HREF” correctly!
P.S.
Like I mentioned on your blog, ‘Weasel’ is so yesterday.
Time to move the discussion beyond ‘Weasel’!
Much more here.
Which is why Randy Stimpson is free to lie to us and demand respect for his laughably inane opinions on Evolutionary Biology.
Like doing research for Intelligent Design or coming up with new programming innovations?
Bwahahaha
Dave Thomas, Stanton, and Malchus, why do you insist on supporting Raven in this lie. This thread in one of many examples on how some of you will support the lies and stupid assertions made by each other.
Raven, why don’t you come clean. Tell us why you said what you said.
Raven has no motive to lie, and you have a reputation for lying. In fact, it was because of your lying that got you banned from Pharyngula.
Furthermore, you refuse to state how Raven is lying, nor do you offer any proof that Raven is lying, beyond a misspelled link and your whiny assertion that Raven is a liar simply because he’s hurting your feelings.
How can Raven do that when he isn’t lying to begin with?
Isn’t the onus on you to demonstrate how Raven is lying?
I don’t know what else Stimpson has to do to occupy his time – but whatever it is, I would suggest to him that it would be more profitable to him than hanging around on PT.
After all, he makes no secret of his low opinion of PT and the Pandas. Very well, then why does he keep wasting his time here?
He has already clearly demonstrated that he has not achieved the cognitive level of development necessary to carry on adult conversations that involve articulating concepts. Hence the continual dodges and changes of subject.
He no doubt shows up any place he can in order to harass adults. It’s a rather common characteristic that emerges from the bottled up hatred that is directed at everyone who has achieved levels of understanding and intellectual development that go well beyond his own.
There is nothing there to work with; he needs to be ignored.
I don’t think I have any illusions about him. But I see some benefit in taking him at his word.
Update