Slashdot Mirror
Primordial Soup: Interview with Stanley Miller
An anonymous reader writes "Stanley Miller's classic 'primordial soup' experiments showed that 13 of the 21 amino acids necessary for life could be made in a glass flask. For its fifty-year commemoration, Miller is interviewed today and reflects on what Carl Sagan
called 'the single most significant step in convincing many scientists that life is likely to be abundant in the cosmos.'"
Education should provoke thought. Just training kids to pass tests is of no value. What you did, analysing your results and thinking about _why_ you got them shows far more 'talent' than someone who just repeated an experiment that is guaranteed to give good results.
Sigh! Rant over. It is just crushing to see very little evidence of people designing their science lessons to impart the ability to think, like the guy who wrote Clouds in a Glass of Beer did.
Help children born unable to swallow - www.tofs.org.uk
Actually, he was wrong. The experiment's controled variables from the onset changed the odds, but this was not reflected in his research. Furthermore, the odds of formation over disentegration are unfortunately impossible. This is NOT a supported theory today in the biological field. Miller was not an asshole; he was a bright guy, but the primordial soup is no longer the thoery most researchers support (there will always be a few, but there are still archeologists who swear by Atlantis).
The significant thing is that Miller was able to produce amino acids in the first place. leonbrooks is using the classic fundamentalist creationist tactic of taking a scientific success and portraying it as a failure because the experiment did not meet 100% of the artificial requirements that he has generated for it.
:-)
This is the same thought process that causes them to say "Evolution can't possibly be true because there is a missing link between species A and species C," and then when species B is discovered, they say "Aha! Now you have even bigger problems, because there is no link between A and B, and B and C!"
"Contact" [geocities.com] gave him a little recognition only because the movie was made believable (and bias I might add)
What? Are you suggesting that the movie Contact, which was a fun movie, but also new age UFO-cult pop drivel, led to Carl Sagan being more respected among SCIENTISTS?
Contact was BIASED? It's a work of fiction! What shortcomings of impartiality did you detect?
Most TRUELY academic scientists will tell you there seems to be "some" evidence of a creator
Well, Carl Sagan, it is true, is not as highly regarded for his own, unique, scientific contributions as one might believe watching PBS.
However, he had mountains of respect compared to anyone who pointed to anything specific and said it was evidence for the existence of a creator. It is perfectly well regarded in respected circles to quote Einstein "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists", particularly if you are being harassed by religious nuts about your own beliefs - volunteering such sentiments in a TRUELY ACADEMIC setting is the mark of a crackpot, however.
To say that any particular observed phenomenon is evidence, however indirect or minor, of some sort of supernatural providence which exceeds our capacity to understand is the mark of a TRUELY desperate religious nut - not a TRUELY academic scientist.
Lottery = your chances in getting picked out the pool may be one in a million, but your chances of picking the right number on the right day and being that one in a million are impossible odds.
I'm a bioinformatician - you may be attempting to communicate something valid, but what you say is nonsense. If your odds of getting picked in a lotterry are one in a million, and you enter the loterry once, you have a one in a million chance of winning the loterry. If you have to enter the single, right loterry, and there are a million of them, the odds are one in a trillion (a million squared.) In any case, not "incalculable."
If you enter the loterry every day for a billion years and have a chance of winning each time, even vanishingly small odds
Furthermore, while it is true that the odds of life arising around any given star may be extremely small, even over a billion year timespan - Sagan's point remains valid, there are about a SEXTILLION (that's ten ^ 21) stars in known universe.
The reason that we don't have enough information to calculate the odds of life arising on an earth-like planet is because we don't have enough information. The one earth-like planet we observe, the Earth, has life on it, but we're here, so our single observation is hopelessly biased.
On the other hand - unless they are "TRUELY academic" - most scientists feel that life arose as a purely chemical process, from chemical laws which were the same at that time as they are today.
Now, we don't yet know all of the steps that need to occur in order for life to arise. However, even given our broad ignorance, we can conclude that you need organic monomers of some kind (assuming organic life such as ours - an entirely seperate question) is Step 1.
Whatever the probability of success of steps 2...n, the more likely you are to succeed at Step 1, the more likely the entire process is to succeed.
Stanley Miller showed that there conditions, conditions not inconceivable on a young, earthlike planet, under which the formation of these molecular monomers is highly likely.
Therefore, the entire series of steps becomes more likely. Groundbreaking work.
Not a single scientists has been able to prove 100% that life exists elsewhere, only propoganda and conjecture.
Entirely true. We may very well be alone in the universe. However, our best estimate is that we are not. Conjecture, yes, propoganda - only in so far as all scientific endeavor is propoganda against superstitious beliefs.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
The production of amino acids on the early earth is neccessary for spontaneous generation, but amino acids are extremely simple compared to proteins and cellular structures. One would expect amino acids whether the spontaneous generation of life happened or not.
Saying that the existance of amino acids on an early earth proves spontaneous generation is almost like saying the existance of carbon and water on a planet proves the existance of life on that planet. Inconclusive!
David Pesta
B.S. Biochemistry
That article could have just as easily said,
"Believers in Atheism know that evolution has already been proven by science. Even those who search for an explanation other than evolution will, in fact, die and cease to exist and their attempts to find 'God' will be futile."
With reasoning like that, some evolutionists also find it easy to dismiss evidence.
Both sides of the issue have religious components. What we need are people who can be honest about what they think when they explore the issue. I believe there are intellectually honest people on both sides of the issue.
David Pesta
Okay then, please set out the creationist position in terms we simple atheists can understand. please try and avoid circular arguments.
I used to have a better sig than this, but I got tired of it
That article could have just as easily said,
But it didn't. Evolutionists don't argue like that. They don't need to, because they have evidence. That's the point.
In the last 50 years many, many scientific discoveries have been made that invalidate the Miller experiment. For instance, studies performed by NASA in the 1980's pertaining to the composition of ancient Earth's atmosphere debunk the Miller experiment's hypothesis that the atmosphere was composed largely of methane, ammonia, and hydrogen. They found that the atmospheric composition was dominated by nitrogen and carbon dioxide, with very little of Miller's hand-picked concoction present.
The Miller experiment will go down in history as another irrational jump to conclusions based on a less-than-adequate scientific understanding to promote certain political needs in the scientific community in an attempt to prove macroevolution. I suspect that the only reason it's still promoted is political. It certainly isn't because it's good science. Decry the "nit-picking" all you wish, but the truth of the matter is that Miller's experiment, albeit revolutionary for the 1950's, is far from what modern science would ascribe as (1) reflective of the conditions of primeval earth and (2) extremely unlikely to occur even in the best of circumstances in the wild.
> From what I recall (and a quick Google search), there is a big problem with Miller's experiment: the "environment" that Miller created was nothing like the environment of pre-biotic earth, becaus Miller's "atmosphere" was oxygen free, but geological evidence indicates that free oxygen has always been present on earth.
No, the existence of iron ore shows otherwise. It precipitated out of the seas when oxygen started building up in the atmosphere; in an oxydizing atmosphere there could never have been enough iron in the oceans to for the massive deposits we actually find.
BTW, I learned this a while back by spending a very little time with google. Make sure you're not getting all your "facts" from creationist Web sites.
> Also Miller had to create a "trap" to collect the amino acids being formed to protect them from breaking down again. What would the comparable "natural" trap be?
Out of my league, so I'll let someone else answer.
Though of course an obvious 'trap' is "life", e.g. if some of the AAs were incorporated into some kind of primitive self-replicator.
> Finally, the mix of both D and L aminos in Miller's soup presents a major problem. Living cells only use L amino acids. D aminos and proteins are toxic.
One hypothesis is that the earliest life formed by polymerization on a quasi-crystaline base such as clay, which could show a preference to one orientation over the other.
Another hypothesis is that both orientations were once used by life forms, but that the luck of the draw meant one crowded the other out. (You get that kind of thing in hereditary systems; a long time ago Scientific American had an interesting article about how surnames dissappear from populations over time due to differential breeding rates and essentially random factors.)
> So it seems to me that what Miller demonstrated is that creating amino acids requires an intelligent mind controlling the process.
Ignoring the problems with the claims you base that conclusion on, that is a major non sequitur. It is tantamount to saying "I rolled my car over yesterday, proving that cars can't be rolled over due to natural causes."
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> I personally take the position that it can be well shown that evolution is largely inconclusive. People can use it as a theoretical model to understand a lot of things, but I have kept my eyes on too many of the details to say it can be said true for sure.
Please list some of the details that you think cast doubt on it, along with some insightful comments that will let us know whether you're talking about something you understand instead of just quoting creationist Web sites.
> So, if evolution in its strictest sense does turn out to be false, the only alternative is creation.
non sequitur
> (Even God guided evolution can be thought of as a form of creation to a point.)
God-guided chemstry, god-guided weather, god-guided planetary orbits, and god-guided nuclear fission make a lot of sense too.
> Outlining all of this thought with exhaustive examples would be well beyond the scope of this post.
Providing supporting details is outside the scope of creationism altogether.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I remember it very clearly... It was 10th grade biology. My teacher mentioned the experiment and I remember very vividly that I was so taken aback by what he was saying. It seemed so immensely important and profound, and yet no one else in the class seemed terribly interested. I was simultaneously excited and sadened.
Excited because I'd learned of something so seemingly important, and sadened because no one else seemed to see the importance of it.
That was also the year I saw the first images of atoms, that one where they had written the letters IBM with Xenon atoms. That was another tremendously shocking experience.
Is it just me or does the vast majority of the general population no longer see the importance of pure science? Are we so accustomed to amazing developments and incredible pieces of technology surrounding us all the time that things like these just don't impress us any more?
Seeing atoms SHOULD amazes us. Learning of the building blocks of life being created from scratch in a jar SHOULD boggle our minds. Yet so many people shrug things like this off and don't see the fundamental nature of them.
Ok, now I'm just sadened!
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
> Would the experimentor claim intellectual property rights to the amino acids he found? "Sorry you can't use those drugs, I own the rights to all life on this planet."
That's how we'll finally get rock-solid proof as to whether or not God exists. When Dr. Frankenstein has his monster stitched together and reaches for the switch, either a lawyer will rush in with a cease-and-desist or else not, and we will be able to determine the existence of an omniscient Creator from that fact alone.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> > Why is it that Christian "logic" dictates that God is real even though you can't see Him, yet it does not follow that alien life must be real even though we can't see it?
> It doesn't say that. It says that the ways of seeing God are not always the same as the ways of seeing, say, a brick.
> Things really appear- to many people- to be designed.
And the sun appears - to almost everyone - to go around the earth.
[snip good stuff]
> The fact is though, Christians have a vested interest in learning as much about the universe as possible, because they believe it to be created by the same Creator that created them.
Some Christians do. Others conclude that they should despise knowledge of the universe.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
In the last 50 years many, many scientific discoveries have been made that invalidate the Miller experiment.
Which are talked about extensively in this article as well as a link from within this article here: http://www.astrobio.net/news/article5.html
They found that the atmospheric composition was dominated by nitrogen and carbon dioxide, with very little of Miller's hand-picked concoction present.
This is not a secret within the scientific community, but it does not negate the fact that his actual contribution to science was demonstrating that certain inorganic elements could be transformed into organic molecules through a simple process. Whether or not those were the exact conditions on early Earth is a bit irrelevant since the major breakthrough was the inorganic to organic transformation.
The Miller experiment will go down in history as another irrational jump to conclusions based on a less-than-adequate scientific understanding to promote certain political needs in the scientific community in an attempt to prove macroevolution.
Yep, they're going to discard his work just as quickly as they're going to discard Darwin's.
Decry the "nit-picking" all you wish, but the truth of the matter is that Miller's experiment, albeit revolutionary for the 1950's, is far from what modern science would ascribe as (1) reflective of the conditions of primeval earth and (2) extremely unlikely to occur even in the best of circumstances in the wild.
Check out the URL I provided above. Like I said, the major contribution of Miller's experiment was the transformation is possible through completely natural means. While the details as it pertains to early Earth may be wrong it still doesn't preclude a dozen or so other possibilities that are now open to speculation as a result of his work. You may disagree with macroevolution all you want, but Miller's contribution was in showing how certain organic building blocks could form through a natural process - sound science by any definition.
Nah, we're actually pretty good at brutally sterilizing scientific and medical tools. As long as your equipment is designed with easy cleaning in mind, introducing contaminants shouldn't be able to happen.
Also, we needn't worry about being tricked by a false positive--if anything recognizably modern grows, we'll know it is contamination.
The only trouble now is finding someone who wants to fund this experiment for a few million years--evolution is a very slow process.
~Idarubicin
This is true. and no one is saying that amino acids jumped up and formed life the second there were enough to matter. Life took time to form, a LOT of time.
I am still baffled by those who think that life just happens.
Life doesn't "just happen". It takes the right ingredients, energy and time. Possibly millions of years of time.
The Earth's atmosphere today is much more hospitable to life
No, it's not. Oxygen is a poison. Life has adapted to the presense of oxygen in the atmosphere. Oxygen activley destroys the basic building blocks of life when not protected.
but we still do not see amino acids coming together and organizing into complex proteins or anything resembling life.
And we never will on Earth. The atmosphere is all wrong for it. And we will have to wait a long time to see it. It's not like waiting for your cheese to get moldy.
This can't even be done in the laboratory.
For the reasons listed above. And creating life is a hell of a lot more complex than just creating amino acids. In the steps to creating life, this is on the same level as buying one adjustable wrench in the construction of the Empire State Building.
It is contrary to the 2nd law of thrmodynamics.
Really? How? Life is not a closed system. It requires energy from an outside source. The Sun provides the power that lets life go on.
I don't believe in spontaneous generation. The odds of it happening are beyond astronomical.
All you need is a positive non-zero probablity for something to eventually happen. We have no idea how amny times life almost formed and then died before it finally succeeded. Even with one chance in one-hundred million, if you have millions, and maybe billions of years for something to happen, it just might. And it only has to succede once.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
He's not defunct. His point was that the building blocks of life - complex organic molecules - can be formed from inorganic molecules. And he was right, and still is right.
The actual mechanism might not be what we thought it was then, but that is irrelevant.
Does the fact that gravity may function by means of gravatons invalidate the work of Isaac Newton?
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
But life is not as random as that. What we know about the formation of organic molecules seems to show that they will form almost every time they are given the chance. Given the right ingredients (some of which we know, some we don't), the right conditions (which we are learning to be varied beyond what we ever imagined), enough energy and time, and organic molecules will form. There is organic matter (not life, certainly, but still organic matter) iin the heads of comets. If organic matter can form there, it must be able to form almost anywhere that doesn't actively destroy it.
The 'monkeys on typewriters ending up with war and peace' flies in the face of reason
According to a recent article that idea doesn't work anyway. Monkies aren't random. They have goals and agendas and they would rather beat the computer to bits and urinate on the keyboard than type anything.
However, chemistry isn't random, either. It follows rules and these rules stack the dice in our favor.
For those who think I'm rationalizing equally with my limited 100 year lifespan perspective, consider this: they have never discovered fossilized remains of an inter-species mutation; e.g., a creature evolutionarily between A and B.
Really? We've never found an animal that looks like a mix of a lizard and a bird? Never found anything that looks like a mix of a man and an ape? Never found a fish with fins capapble of acting like legs?
We've found a tremendous number of creatures that look like a mix of different forms. What we haven't found is an animal that looks like an ape with a human head, or a human with an ape's head. But evolution doesn't work like that, anyway.
And furthermore we have to consider the completeness of the fossile record. How many T-Rex skeletions have we found? 30? T-Rexes lived on this earth for three to five million years and we've only found thirty or so skeletons. How many T-Rexes lived and died and didn't become fossils? Then consider the lowly trilobite. We've found tens of thousands of their fossils. But trilobites lived for over 250,000,000 years and lived in shallow seas, the perfect place for fossils to form. How many indevidual animals must live before there is a chance that one of them will die in a place that will allow their bones to be fossilized? How many of these fossils survive the churning of the earth's crust? How many of those are actually found?
The fossil record is the best catalog we have of what once wandered the earth, but it is by no means complete.
Recent work shows the earth as 5 billion years old, not counting for the time it required to cool. Fossil evidence shows life emerging 400 million years ago.
While the earth is 4.5 - 5 billion years old, life is far older than 400 million years. Estimates place life at at 3.5 billion years old. Life has had a LONG time to go from primitive forms to more complex forms.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.