Origin of life - a response

[lee_merrill]

Brian Miller responds to Jeremy England:

Source: Evolution News

The main points of my argument can be summarized as follows:

Natural processes tend to drive systems toward higher entropy, lower energy, or both. In direct conflict, the origin of life requires a collection of molecules to move toward dramatically lower entropy and higher energy.

The only way to overcome the thermodynamic barriers is for an engine to be present at the very instantiation of life that can convert some available source of energy into a form that can fuel the construction and operations of a cell.

Significant quantities of information must also be present both to steer a highly specific set of interconnected chemical reactions that comprise a minimally viable cell and to direct the generated energy toward powering the otherwise nonspontaneous reactions.
...
In his response, England directly affirms the first and second points...

Source

© Copyright Original Source

And Miller concludes:

Source: Miller

In life, the energy produced must be in the form of high-energy (energy-currency) molecules that could power the chemical reactions undergirding cellular operations. The challenge is that the energy requirement is enormous. As I explained in my article

© Copyright Original Source

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

Brian Miller responds to Jeremy England:

[cite=Evolution News]The main points of my argument can be summarized as follows:

Natural processes tend to drive systems toward higher entropy, lower energy, or both. In direct conflict, the origin of life requires a collection of molecules to move toward dramatically lower entropy and higher energy.

This fails miserably right off with a ancient Newtonian view of entropy. The origin of life, evolution and the existence of life itself relies on the sun and the internal heat of the earth for energy. There is an abundant source of energy actually billions of years worth for abiogenesis, evolution and life without any concern for your lousy understanding of entropy. Without this abundant source of energy life would not exist.

In fact it is the internal heat of the earth that is the source of energy for abiogenesis.

By the way entropy does not remotely apply as a limitation, even when entropy is properly understood.

The rest I may reply later, but I had to shot down this clay pigeon first.

[TheLurch]

Brian Miller responds to Jeremy England...

Who are either of these people and why should we care what they think?

[rogue06]

Who are either of these people and why should we care what they think?

Miller is a physicist who is the Research Coordinator for the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute.

England is also a physicist and has proposed what he calls the dissipation-driven adaptation hypothesis of abiogenesis

[shunyadragon]

Source: https://earthsky.org/space/mars-meteorite-alh-84001-1st-discovery-fixed-nitrogen

A famous Mars meteorite, now with nitrogenBottom line: Researchers have discovered 4-billion-year-old nitrogen-containing organic molecules in Martian meteorites.

Source: In-situ preservation of nitrogen-bearing organics in Noachian Martian carbonates.

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

Where does the energy come from for the chemical reactions that lead to the basic organic chemicals of life in abiogenesis?

Volcanism from the internal heat of the earth.

Source: https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-stumbled-upon-a-possible-missing-link-that-explains-the-origins-of-life

Scientists Think They Found Missing Evidence That Explains How Life Started on Earth

© Copyright Original Source

[TheLurch]

Miller is a physicist who is the Research Coordinator for the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute.

England is also a physicist and has proposed what he calls the dissipation-driven adaptation hypothesis of abiogenesis

The only thing worse than a physicist trying to talk about the biology is two physicists talking about biology. Perhaps the only thing worse than that is when one of them also has an engineering background.

You can see the problem just in these excerpts. While actual researchers in the field are thinking in terms of "what molecules would have been present on the early earth?", these guys head straight to spherical-cow-level abstractions and start talking about the entire process as if there were no intermediate steps.

[shunyadragon]

The only thing worse than a physicist trying to talk about the biology is two physicists talking about biology. Perhaps the only thing worse than that is when one of them also has an engineering background.

You can see the problem just in these excerpts. While actual researchers in the field are thinking in terms of "what molecules would have been present on the early earth?", these guys head straight to spherical-cow-level abstractions and start talking about the entire process as if there were no intermediate steps.

. . . and one has an over riding religious agenda that determines his view over science,

[lee_merrill]

In fact it is the internal heat of the earth that is the source of energy for abiogenesis.

I must repeat:


Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

I must repeat:

[cite=Miller]simulations of vents under ideal conditions only produce chemical energy at a rate that is at least eight orders of magnitude too small. And the actual product is formaldehyde in concentrations far too miniscule to contribute to any stage in the genesis of a cell. Such meager results simply highlight the fact that no natural mechanism could realistically generate the required energy to power even the earliest stages of any origin-of-life scenario.

Whose simulations? No scientific references. I reject this assertion based on the lack of references. I cite references, and will cite more, that clearly refute this. The energy available is over a 'billion race cars.'

Still waiting . . .

[lee_merrill]

Whose simulations? No scientific references. I reject this assertion based on the lack of references. I cite references, and will cite more, that clearly refute this. The energy available is over a 'billion race cars.'

But where is this calculation in your references?

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

But where is this calculation in your references?

Blessings,
Lee

Defend your claim with a scientific reference. It is your claim. The natural organic reactions in my reference did not require significant energy as the reference described. Did you read it?!?!?!?!

From the reference: These reactions were accomplished easily under laboratory conditions without significant energy. The energy of the racecar unnecessary.

"What this demonstrated was that aminonitriles are capable of achieving peptide bond formation in water all on their own, and with greater ease than amino acids.

In addition, it showed that this could take place amid conditions and chemicals that are outgassed during volcanic eruptions and which were likely present on Earth billions of years ago. Said Pierre Canavelli, the first author of the study:

"Controlled synthesis, in response to environmental or internal stimuli, is an essential element of metabolic regulation, so we think that peptide synthesis could have been part of a natural cycle that took place in the very early evolution of life."

"This is the first time that peptides have been convincingly shown to form without using amino acids in water, using relatively gentle conditions likely to be available on the primitive Earth," added co-author Dr Saidul Islam."

[TheLurch]

[HMS_Beagle]

Miller is a physicist who is the Research Coordinator for the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute.

England is also a physicist and has proposed what he calls the dissipation-driven adaptation hypothesis of abiogenesis

So a paid political shill for the DI and a crank. I bet evolutionary biologists and abiogenesis researchers everywhere are just trembling in their boots.

[rogue06]

So a paid political shill for the DI and a crank. I bet evolutionary biologists and abiogenesis researchers everywhere are just trembling in their boots.

I'm not sure that England can be accurately characterized as a "crank." His theories, AFAICT, have not been dismissed as woo and in fact the respected science historian Edward John Larson declared that if England can demonstrate his hypothesis to be true, "his name would be remembered, he could be the next Darwin." That's still a pretty big "if."

Here is an article in Scientific America on his idea: A New Physics Theory of Life