DieToDeath

I have an answer. It's called the "heterotroph hypothesis", developed mainly by the Russian scientist A. I. Oparin. Basically, it's like this: You have nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, carbon dioxide, water, ammonia, and methane. N2, O2, CO2, H2, H2O, NH3, and CH4. That's all the atoms needed for life except for Phosphorus (which is part of DNA) ALREADY IN THE AIR. Temperatures are high. The ocean is almost at boiling temperature. And, with all this heat, the atoms easily could have broken apart and rejoined, creating early organic compounds. THe first nucleotides (building blocks for DNA), amino acids, and sugars likely were formed during this time.

In 1953, a man named Stanley Miller designed an experiment to test this theory. He put water vapor, hydrogen, ammonia, and methane in his little apparatus. He used boilign water to force these gases to circulate past sparking electrodes. He ran the experiment for a week. In the end, he found urea, some amino acids, hydrogen cyanide, lactic acid, and acetic acid. Most importantly here we find AMINO ACIDS! Amino acids=proteins. Proteins=LIFE!

Also, a biochemist named Sidney Fox took a bunch of amino acids and heated them to 100 degrees Celsius. He analyzed the results... and there were proteins formed.

So we've found the builidng blocks of life, just by taking some gases and exposing them to some heat.

So, you gonna argue that God invented the amino acid?

Liquidrage

nm, bugs tricked me again.

[ June 07, 2002: Message edited by: Liquidrage ]</p>

Mageth

IIRC, they've identified somewhere around 70 amino acids (e.g. glycine and beta-alanine), carboxylic acids, sugars and other related organic compounds in meteorites. So there may be an extraterrestrial source for the building blocks of life.

beausoleil

Yes, and they even exhibit optical activity, though it's not clear why there should be an enantiomeric excess.

There seem to be lots of vaguely plausible models about how the organics we know were present might have led to the first recognisable life, evidence favouring one or another is lacking. The truth is, we don't know how life started (but there is no need for supernatural intervention, as yet.)

DieToDeath

But then there is the question of how the extraterrestrials came into being. So let's not go into that. ^_^

Lizard

The only responsible answer to the question, "How did life on Earth begin?" is, "We don't know."

Many hypotheses are being investigated, including life from chemicals, bacteria arriving from outer space on comets, and life arising from chemicals spewing from undersea thermal vents.

Creationists have invented a term, "origins scence," which intentionally conflates the questions of "How did life begin?" and "How did the diversity of life come about?" Conflation is the stock-in-trade of creationists (including ID promoters). Distinctions must be the hallmark of defenders of science.

Evolution is a fact *and* a theory. It's been observed directly in the lab and strongly inferred in the phenomenon of "ring species." The "29 Evidences of Macroevolution" on t.o. is a good reference to cite, though it doesn't seem to sway true believers in anti-evolutionism.

Purple Monkey Dishwasher

I hope someone finds out how life started in my lifetime. That's one of the most interesting questions to me.

Silent Dave

Fascinating.

My old high school principal once told me that the collective scientific knowledge of the human race doubles every year and a half. That means that the god of the gaps has a half-life of eighteen months. How long do you suppose before it's safe to take off these annoying environment suits?


Dave

Coragyps

Don't need 'em. Just take hydrogen cyanide, already widely available in interstellar space, incubate it under ultraviolet light on a dust grain on the edge of a dark nebula -- all that amine stuff, including, for example, niacin, forms by straightforward chemical reactions. Formaldehyde does the same for the sugars. ET isn't needed.

beausoleil

Why would this produce an excess of lefthanded stereoisomers?