The scientific answer is a big, fat "don't know". Nothing has been proved.
There are some hypotheses which attempt to build a plausible scenario which does not depend on supernatural intervention - but there's no evidence left of how life started. The first complex molecules would have left no trace at all.
Misconception +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 11-15-05, 10:39 PM coldfuse A nice start and some good links, newnickname. But is there more?
The first link suggests not: "The particulars of the jump from nonliving to living that occurred sometime in our planet's early history is a profound enigma and will likely remain that way for some time to come...."
The second gives a glimmer of hope and the expectancy of some sort of proof: "I am impressed by the fossil record that shows how single-celled life began by 3.6 - 3.8 billion years ago...."
That, and the third, go into the Miller experiment. My limited understanding is that this produced amino acids, though of a form not consistent with life.
The last link is a good one, I think, for us all to remember. Should creationists try to explain explain evolution? And likewise should evolutionists try to explain creation? Just a thought...
I would enjoy hearing from others on this subject when they have time.
11-15-05, 11:15 PM Professor I agree with n3 that nobody knows and nothing has been proved. His links are terrific. Note that the "Misconception" article re-iterates the fact that the origin of life is not addressed by the Theory of Evolution. The Pew Forum poll that found that 42% agreed that "Living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time" leaves 58% who accept evolution in some form, but who are not at all "enlightened" about abiogenesis.
Disclaimer: What I know on this subject is from reading a few books (written by scholarly authors from mainstream secular publishers) and the occasional magazine article in Scientific American, Science News, or New Scientist. I don't have any of this stuff at my fingertips, however.
The Miller-Urey experiment from the early 1950's showed that a mixture of simple gases (a "reducing atmosphere" that plausibly existed on prebiotic earth) together with electrical discharge could create an organic goo full of interesting stuff. But many critics have questioned its relevance to the actual origin of life.
Many small organic molecules (e.g., methane, formaldehyde) have been found in interstellar space by spectroscopy. This has been known for decades. What role, if any, these played in establishing life on earth is unknown.
Then there's the chicken-and-egg dilemma of proteins and nucleic acids: Nucleic acids are required to code for proteins, but proteins are the enzymes necessary to catalyze the machinery of nucleic acids. Irreducible complexity? Let's not jump to conclusions -- we simply don't know a simpler mechanism yet.
There seems to be a recent preponderance of opinion that RNA probably preceded DNA and proteins. I recall that RNA itself has been shown to have some enzymatic activity.
Inorganic clay minerals with nano-scale structure have been suggested as a possible "scaffolding" for the initial assembly of complex organic molecules.
Systems of macromolecules that mutually catalyze each other's formation are under laboratory investigation.
Also, some relatively simple chemical systems show a tendency to self-assemble into tiny membrane-bound vesicles, which would (a) protect fragile intermediate chemical species from the environment and (b) provide enormous surface area for activation of other reactions.
Bits and pieces -- that's all I can offer. I'll post more when I know more.
11-15-05, 11:24 PM jusork
quote: Originally posted by coldfuse: A nice start and some good links, newnickname. But is there more?
The first link suggests not: "The particulars of the jump from nonliving to living that occurred sometime in our planet's early history is a profound enigma and will likely remain that way for some time to come...."
I think that jump is a pretty big problem. You've got non-living matter, and at some point, somehow it evolved toward becoming something actually living. In what ways would non-living matter eventually lead to life coming about? The first life may have been the simplie single-celled organism, but it was still the first living matter when before there wasn't anything living. What would cause these events to come about? It's really like a major little blank that we can't fill in right now. Does that help?
Apparently there are a lot of theories about chemicals being involved, but I heard a theory once where clay was involved.
11-15-05, 11:39 PM Professor jusork, your remarks and questions are good. I'd like to see the discussion stay within the realm of science (how about it, Coldfuse? -- this is your show!).
So I'd like to point out that your first link ("Here's a bunch of questions...) is from a religious website "upholding the authority of the Bible." I wouldn't expect useful information from authors who are pushing a religious agenda that seeks to suppress scientific explanations.
11-16-05, 12:23 AM newnickname There's another misconception in that "bunch of questions" link, where it bangs on about Louis Pasteur disproving spontaneous generation. Pasteur certainly did prove that germs do not spontaneously form on rotting meat and the like. Pulling this scientific success story into the origin of life debate is another misconception (or misdirection), however.
"What Louis Pasteur and the others who denied spontaneous generation demonstrated is that life does not currently spontaneously arise in complex form from nonlife in nature; he did not demonstrate the impossibility of life arising in simple form from nonlife by way of a long and propitious series of chemical steps/selections. In particular, they did not show that life cannot arise once, and then evolve. Neither Pasteur, nor any other post-Darwin researcher in this field, denied the age of the earth or the fact of evolution...
...It is not true that "spontaneous generation" has been ruled out in all cases by science; the claims disproven were more restricted than that."www.talkorigins.org
(There's an antidote to that 'Answers In Genesis' site.)
11-16-05, 03:29 PM jusork
quote: Originally posted by Professor: So I'd like to point out that your first link ("Here's a bunch of questions...) is from a religious website "upholding the authority of the Bible." I wouldn't expect useful information from authors who are pushing a religious agenda that seeks to suppress scientific explanations.
Woops. Somehow, I actually imagined it saying "discrediting the authority of the Bible from the very first verse" Eek
11-17-05, 01:30 PM coldfuse Jusork's first link - "Chemical Soup Is Not Your Ancestor" - is an interview with Aw Swee-Eng, a biochemist and head of nuclear medicine at Singapore General Hospital.
Dr. Aw suggests that for secular evolutionists, chemical evolution is like a religion:
"For many of them it is the anchor with which they keep to the reality of the world they imagine they are in. And to let go—that is awfully painful."
I won't copy more of the link to preserve space here. It is there for you to read if you wish.
What of this? Is chemical evolution like a religion?
Do you believe that God directly created the first living cell? If not, what do you believe?
While I personally am not a "Pastafarian", I think it's important to represent all faiths here.
I believe that two plus two equals four, and I believe that Oslo is the capital of Norway. That's my religion and I'm sticking to it.
Everybody has to believe something. I believe I'll have another beer. --anonymous
11-17-05, 04:01 PM coldfuse Pastafarian
OK, I'll re-phrase my last question. Does Science provide an answer to the creation of the first living cell that makes any more sense than the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory?
11-17-05, 05:31 PM Scotty
quote: The scientific answer is a big, fat "don't know". Nothing has been proved.
Exactly!
11-17-05, 07:40 PM Professor
quote: Exactly!
Scotty, you realize that we're "only" talking about the origins of biochemistry leading to the first living cell.
Darwinian evolution to explain the diversity of life is accepted as fact by the scientific community, as already discussed at length recently on AP here and here.
11-17-05, 08:31 PM Professor
quote: Originally posted by Coldfuse: Does Science provide an answer to the creation of the first living cell that makes any more sense than the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory?
The FSM theory is a variant of Intelligent Design, where a supernatural agent is necessary to make things happen, requiring a "leap of faith," and is thus outside of science.
People seek scientific explanations (of which there is still only wild and incomplete speculation, as described above) for the spontaneous origin of life from non-living matter that are consistent with the known principles of physics and chemistry.
Look how far we've come in the past 100 years in understanding cosmology: We know the approximate age of the universe, it's overall large-scale structure, and many details of its early history. Not only were these things not known in the 19th C, they would have been deemed unknowable. So I'm optimistic. I have faith (using the word in the non-religous sense of "confidence") that science will provide us with answers to your question in the coming decades.
11-18-05, 10:36 PM methos Regarding the 58% number... I assume it is drawn fromt the statement in another thread that 42% endorsing a concept compatible with literal biblical creationism ("Living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time"). The actual number adhering to evolution is only 48% by that poll, though. the other 10% didn't know. That's a pretty consistant finding across polls - 40-50% endorsing biblical creationism and 40-50% endorsing evolution in some form. What evolution means to these people varies by poll, depending on how the question is asked.
11-19-05, 02:44 AM FredPuli It appears that the pollsters find that only about half the people think that evolution is generally accepted by the scientific community or that it is well supported by evidence. The neo-creationists have sold the public the idea that the science isn't accepted by scientists. That's a result that any attorney (and Karl Rove) would be proud of Roll Eyes
11-19-05, 11:41 AM coldfuse
quote: Originally posted by FredPuli: The neo-creationists have sold the public the idea that the science isn't accepted by scientists.
Is this true ... or does the science actually exist? Not the pursuit thereof, but the facts. You may recall from the "42%" thread that scientific minds the likes of Einstein and Jastrow perceived a greater hand at work.
Would you reject an idea completely simply because it is not scientific? How about because it is theological?
This might be stretching things a bit through extrapolation of factors beyond our current understanding, but to quote my favorite fictional forensic scientist, Sherlock Holmes:
Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth
Thus far, what other scientific factors have been eliminated? Are there any foreseen on the horizon?
11-19-05, 12:03 PM newnickname The neo-creationists may have sold the idea that the science of evolution is questioned - actually that's a half-truth because all science is in question. It could all be overturned tomorrow by new information or better explanations. It's impossible to rule out other possibilities for sure. All science, including the theory of evolution, is just the best idea we have, so far, of the evidence we have, so far. It's all kinda shaky. The creationists' trick is to point this fact out only about evolution, remaining silent on the rest.
The creationists may not have been so successful in selling the idea that science and religion are exclusive. One interesting part of Coldfuse's link is where it describes how 'The Pew formulation provides a significantly more positive and inclusive description of the scientific position by characterizing natural selection as "a natural process" rather than something "God had no part in." This implicitly allows people who believe that God or a supreme being set the evolutionary process in motion, or even shaped it in some way, to still opt for "natural selection" as the main engine of evolution...'
I'm sure most religious scientists and scientific religionists accept this idea, of divinely guided, or divinely set up, processes. There's no conflict there - unless you hold to that ridiculous 'literalist' intepretation of the poetry of the Bible.
11-19-05, 12:45 PM GarColga Vatican Official Refutes Intelligent Design
A spokesman for the largest Christian organization on Planet Earth has said that "intelligent design" isn't science and doesn't belong in science classrooms.
The Catholic church seems to say that science should be taught in science class and intelligent design/creationism in religious studies. In that case it should be taught alongside the study of the various religious philosophies or confined to private or parochial schools. Belief in God shouldn't conflict with belief in natural selection so long as one accepts that the two are not mutually exclusive. IMHO.
Hmm,something suspicious here The Reverend Coyne is a Jesuit: he's one of the intellectual elite of the Church. He wants the Church to have the glory, not lay scientists, that's all . If ID is put under religion then the Church can expose it as dangerous nonsense for the gullible and not something for the faithful to accept. It can be 'exposed' by penetrating, philosophical and religious argument (i.e by Jesuit argument). If ID is under science then it will be the scientists who get the glory of showing it to be nonsense, and that by scientific argument!
It's just a power struggle really: lay versus cleric
Pastafarian
The Reverend Coyne is a Jesuit: he's one of the intellectual elite of the Church. He wants the Church to have the glory, not lay scientists, that's all . If ID is put under religion then the Church can expose it as dangerous nonsense for the gullible and not something for the faithful to accept. It can be 'exposed' by penetrating, philosophical and religious argument (i.e by Jesuit argument). If ID is under science then it will be the scientists who get the glory of showing it to be nonsense, and that by scientific argument! 
