Did you know that the building blocks of life - amino acids - form naturally in interstellar dust clouds?

Question

It's not unusual for religious folks to dismiss the possibility of life arising spontaneously as a result of natural chemical processes, but we do know that amino acids, the building blocks of proteins in living organisms, are formed as a by-product of chemical processes that take place naturally in interstellar clouds of gas and dust. It is in the nature of atoms and molecules to bind together into more complex molecules in the presence of a source of energy - In this case, UV radiation. If amino acids can form spontaneously, by common chemistry, then why not more complex organic molecules? Why not, by chance, a self-replicating molecule? Why not, ultimately, life? Even if the chance occurrence of a self-replicating molecule is a very low probability event, what does that matter in a universe of a billion trillion suns and billions of years for chemistry to have its effect? And one such event might be all that's needed to kick-start life.

We live in fascinating times :-)

RB: Interesting comment, can you give me a reference or a citation?

ernest77h:

1: There is no known mechanism to limit DNA change to preserve 'kinds' of organisms. That's a religious idea, not science.

2: If DNA couldn't exist without a designer then how could the design exist in the first place? The designer would need to be designed, and the designer of the designer, and so on ad infinitum. The only way out of this logical absurdity is to accept that DNA (and life in general) cannot *possibly* be designed.

3: Hoyle commits the logical error of specifying the result and then asking what would be needed to produce that result. This is like throwing a handful of toothpicks on the floor and saying "Now, the chances of me throwing a handful of toothpicks down and them falling in EXACTLY this pattern are so small that this pattern of toothpicks couldn't POSSIBLY have occurred just by throwing a handful on the floor - they must have been designed that way!"

No room to go into the rest if it, but believe me the rest is just as fallacious.

Paul McDonald: Apologies for not giving a reference - there are plenty of articles in the popular science media and papers in scientific journals to this effect. Here's just one:

http://www.esa.int/esaCP/ESA5SQG18ZC_FeatureWeek_0.html

Hope Dollar: As far as I'm aware molecules don't need to 'communicate' in order to self-replicate, they only need the raw materials to construct new copies.

Laws of physics aren't like laws of society, which prescribe (or proscribe) behaviour - they are observations of how matter actually *does* behave. There's a fundamental difference there. The properties of matter govern what can and cannot happen, and probabilities thereof. Ultimately, the properties show no particular pattern that would lead us to think that they were designed that way. Look at the mass and charge of sub-atomic particles, for example. They just seem to be set at random values. The universe is as it is because of the values of those properties of matter, but you cannot force the logic the other way and argue that those properties had to be as they are *in order* for the universe to exist as it does. That would be a fallacy. It simply exists, and it is as it is, and that's all we can say at the moment.

Granny Annie: So it doesn't happen in a test tube, but have we tried it on an entire planet and given it 4.5 billion years to see what happens? Well in a way, we have. The results are all around you.

Answer 1

1) I've never heard that before from anywhere and you give no reference.

2) What if it's true? those amino acids form in interstellar dust clouds, combine to form up life and then suddenly suffocate? What would they "eat" ?? How would they "breathe" ?? Okay, single-cells don't necessarily breathe, but eventually (according to evolution) "something" is gonna have to breathe...

3) How would they get from there to here?

4) It's a long, long step from "amino acid" to "life."

5) You state "It is in the nature of atoms and molecules to bind together into more complex molecules in the presence of a source of energy" but this is also incorrect. For example, if you fill a glass of water and drop in to electrodes from a power cell (one positive and one negative) the electrical forces will actually break down the H(2)O in H(2) and O(2) gases. Generally the adding of energy breaks down molecules (such as your UV example) and the releasing of energy makes more complex molecuels (such as burning of hydrogen to form H(2)O).


Interesting theory. Scientifically unsound, but interesting.

Answer 2

You could be right. But why should atoms form molecules? Why should molecules become large enough to be amino acids? Why should they replicate? Why should they live? Why? If it took billions of galaxies billions of years to form one replicating molecule, why did it take so long? If they are going to do it, then why not just do it all over the place, and create life all over the universe, all over the solar system? Why DNA? Why not SRNA? Why not CNRA?

I understand infinity. Infinity times infinity = infinity. Infinity + 2=infinity. And zero times zero = zero. From your question you would agree that an infinite number of chimpanzees typing on an infinite number of typewriters (PC word processors) would produce everything ever written by mankind in the last 3000 years.

But I disagree. The chance of a chimpanzee typing one complete page of the script from the X-Files is zero. So an infinite number of chimps times zero = zero.

Now if you could TRAIN a chimp to type correctly, that is a different story. And if there was some 'power' that could 'convince' the atoms to go through all the trouble of learning how to form replicating DNA strands, then that is another story as well.

;-D They do it cuz they wanna do it! hahahaha

Answer 3

An interesting point from your statement that I have often attempted to stress :

Had life not formed here ... had the incredibly small probabilities necessary for human development on this planet not taken place ... then we wouldn't be here to discuss how we hadn't existed. Only if all those things did occur would we be able to consider the possibilities.

While the probability of life generating and developing as sufficiently as it has on Earth may be incredibly remote ... the universe has been around for a while ... and it's quite large. Our existance is, in effect, proof that "life" can generate from non-living matter ... so why do we continue to labor against this notion?

Answer 4

Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of "primitive" life forms to "more complex" systems we observe today. Yet, "since only a small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a portion of the geologic column the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance.1" "[T]he lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."2 This supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils" (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. "[T]o the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation."
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.4 Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.

Answer 5

So? We can do it a lab too. Using INorganic chemicals and a little electricity, POOF! we get amino acids. But all they ever do is float around in their medium. They don't cluster and become amoeba. They don't evolve and turn into paramecia. They just float around. They don't even reproduce. You gotta add more chemicals and more electricity for more amino acids.

From nothing came the Big Bang. And all of the matter which proceeds therefrom is subject to the Laws of Physics. WHO SET UP THOSE LAWS?

Surely, in 15 BILLION years, were those laws simply a matter of coincidence they would have changed. They might even be void. But they're not. WHY NOT?

Answer 6

Okay agreed.
So why dont we put them together and create life?
You said:
"Even if the chance occurrence of a self-replicating molecule is a very low probability event, what does that matter in a universe of a billion trillion suns and billions of years for chemistry to have its effect."

why is it a low probablity event? Just because scientists have us believe so?
why dont we just help them replicate (like diamonds for e.g.)?

Answer 7

Did you know that God created the universe too? And I whole-heartedly agree, we live in very fascinating times - as mankind has since the moment God created them. And we will always lives in fascinating times, if not in this life, then the life hereafter, if you're a Christian, by God's design. Because hell, is everyone's destiny, heaven is the option - John 3 - the verses following 16 - and the kick start in life for all of us is the acceptance of those few verses by faith. So you have some truths in your comment, even if not in chronological and scientific order! Sold out for Jesus!

Answer 8

Hi!

Just edited my answer to you because too many people DISPROVED your theory awesomely better than my answer!

I hope you will consider searching the reality of God...He is waiting for you and He loves you....

For a cell to self-replicate, it needds the ability to communicate...where does that ability come from? No where?

Did the amino acids appear out of NOWHERE? Energy cannot be created, but can only be transformed from one form to another....so where on earth would they have received their first source of energy? The sun? Ok, if it's the sun, what energy created the sun? we can go on and on....

We would end up in one point....THERE IS AN ORIGINAL SOURCE OF ENERGY....God....Praise Jesus.

Answer 9

Not that I am giving any credence to that theory cause I don't believe ethat way........

But let's say it is so

Where did the amino acids come from?
Who put them there
Are there both male and female life producing amino acids?

Answer 10

Did you know that the genes that can form form the same way aren't oriented the correct way for life to exist? It took a creator to make them right.