Re: A Question of Abiogenesis

From: Tedd Hadley (hadley@reliant.yxi.com)
Date: Fri Aug 18 2000 - 12:58:38 EDT

  • Next message: Cliff Lundberg: "Re: A Baylor Scientist on Dembski"

    "Stephen E. Jones" writes
      in message <200008162318.HAA08180@filk.iinet.net.au>:
    > Reflectories
    >
     [bacteria that digest protein]
    > 1) do we know that these "putrefactive bacteria" have always been around
    > from the beginning cleaning up any "amino and nucleic acids" produced?

       We know bacteria are among the oldest life forms known, so its
       a pretty good assumption.

    > 2) are they anerobic, since there was presumably little or no
    > oxygen around for the first billion years? and

       Very likely, most (all?) putrefactive bacteria are anerobic.

    > 3) since there were no "intestines" around for the first billion
    > years or so, do these "putrefactive bacteria break down amino
    > and nucleic acids" out in the *outside world* in a completely
    > abiotic setting?

       First, the putrefactive bacteria are pretty much everywhere,
       not just in the human intestinal tract, since decaying plant or
       animal matter is found pretty much everywhere. However, four
       billion years ago, who knows? Maybe the first life form
       thrived on a soup of life precursors.

    > TH>Nature seems pretty much out of the question as a fruitful laboratory
    > >for abiogenetic expirements.
    >
    > Even here I am not convinced. A complete mirror image D-amino acid life
    > form could emerge and existing bacteria might not be able to eat it?

       That I don't know. It's been postulated that intrinsic properties
       of L make it required for life.

    > TH>However, an artificial setting is a different story, yes. And,
    > >strangely enough, that's where abiogenesis research is taking
    > >place today :)
    >
    > Tedd makes it sound like it is new. In fact a "abiogenesis research" has
    > been "taking place" in laboratories since at least *1953*, i.e. 47 years
    > (!) and no life has yet emerged spontaneously.
       
       Well, gosh, medical research has been going on since the *1800*s,
       i.e. 200 years (!) and we still can't cure the common cold.
       I guess we ought to give up know and just conclude God created
       Viral Rhinitis to make life difficult for us? :)

    > For a fraction of the cost of sending a mission to Mars to see if life
    > spontaneously generated there when conditions were once right, every
    > conceivable set of such condition could be repeated on Earth in a laboratory
    > and hey presto! life should emerge.
       
       No, I hardly think so. There's too many possible conditions to
       duplicate. Take all supposed or surmised elements of prebiotic
       earth, combine with all known or surmised conditions and you're
       going to need a laboratory the *size of Earth*. You seriously
       overestimate the amount of knowledge we have in this area.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 18 2000 - 13:00:58 EDT