Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
In this thread, I would first like to outline the difference between abiogenesis and evolution, and then explain exactly what abiogenesis is, how it works, and what sort of experiments have been conducted to confirm these hypotheses.
We've all debated evolution until our faces have turned red, and the one issue that keeps popping up, time and time again, is that evolution cannot account for the origin of life, and is therefore untrue. WRONG! The purpose of the theory of evolution is to deal with current species. Evolution delves a little into history, but only so much that we can gain a solid foundation of knowledge in order to better make predictions about the future and test them accordingly.
It seems humorous to me that aside from the "origin of life" misconception, many people who attempt to argue against it, actually do believe in evolution. Because, as we have just learned, evolution is NOT responsible for the origin of life, I would like to take a moment and congratulate the few who are now realizing themselves to be evolutionists after all!
That said, I will now attempt to explain the theory of abiogenesis, which, in contrast, IS responsible for explaining the origin of life.
First of all, let's break down the word. "Bio" means "life", and "genesis" means "beginning". The "a" in the front of the word delineates a negative, such as "atheist" refers to a non-thesist. Thus, abiogenesis could also be written as non-biogenesis. Quite simply, this word directly refers to the Earth's beginning (genesis) from non-living (abio) materials! How exciting!
In order to configure what our early Earth's atmosphere consisted of as accurately as possible, scientists can work backward from our current atmosphere, and notice what changes would have occurred during different times in our earth's existence, etc. For instance, until oxygen-producing photosynthesis arrived as a result of plants in the Paleozoic era, oxygen was not a particularly plentiful substance in our Earth's atmosphere. This lack of oxygen was actually very beneficial for our "primordial soup", so to speak. Oxygen molecules are extremely electronegative, which basically means that they have a very strong pull on other molecules around them. This pull can destroy complex molecules, or even keep them from forming in the first place. Without oxygen, however, complex molecules could form easily, but we're getting ahead of ourselves!
Abiotic Synthesis of Organic Monomers
The first problem that needed to be addressed, was the issue of how organic compounds could form from inorganic molecules. This question was answered by scientists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey in 1953. They recreated the early-Earth atmosphere which had been postulated in the 1920's by scientists Oparin and Haldane. In the Miller-Urey experiment, they created a closed environment which was meant to simulate conditions on early Earth. A warm flask of water represented the sea, and an ancient atmosphere was created which consisted of H(2)O (water), H(2) (hydrogen gas), CH(4) (methane), and NH(3) (ammonia). Sparks were then charged through the simulatory atmosphere to mimic lightning. The water vapors travelled up to a condenser which cooled them, and changed them back to liquid form which then rained down their apparatus, and back into the makeshift "sea".
A flask was positioned below one of the tubes to catch some of the rain water before it reached the sea again. As the materials kept circulating, the liquid in the flask changed from clear to a murky brown. At the end of one week, Miller and Urey tested the contents of the flask to find that the non-living molecules from thier experiment had produced a variety of organic compounds including amino acids, which make up proteins.
This experiement has been repeated many times. Often, the initial "recipe" of molecules used to simulate the early Earth's atmosphere have been altered, but each time, organic molecules are still produced.
**I have to run off now, but when I come back, I will discuss how organic monomers can form polymers!**
We've all debated evolution until our faces have turned red, and the one issue that keeps popping up, time and time again, is that evolution cannot account for the origin of life, and is therefore untrue. WRONG! The purpose of the theory of evolution is to deal with current species. Evolution delves a little into history, but only so much that we can gain a solid foundation of knowledge in order to better make predictions about the future and test them accordingly.
It seems humorous to me that aside from the "origin of life" misconception, many people who attempt to argue against it, actually do believe in evolution. Because, as we have just learned, evolution is NOT responsible for the origin of life, I would like to take a moment and congratulate the few who are now realizing themselves to be evolutionists after all!
That said, I will now attempt to explain the theory of abiogenesis, which, in contrast, IS responsible for explaining the origin of life.
First of all, let's break down the word. "Bio" means "life", and "genesis" means "beginning". The "a" in the front of the word delineates a negative, such as "atheist" refers to a non-thesist. Thus, abiogenesis could also be written as non-biogenesis. Quite simply, this word directly refers to the Earth's beginning (genesis) from non-living (abio) materials! How exciting!
In order to configure what our early Earth's atmosphere consisted of as accurately as possible, scientists can work backward from our current atmosphere, and notice what changes would have occurred during different times in our earth's existence, etc. For instance, until oxygen-producing photosynthesis arrived as a result of plants in the Paleozoic era, oxygen was not a particularly plentiful substance in our Earth's atmosphere. This lack of oxygen was actually very beneficial for our "primordial soup", so to speak. Oxygen molecules are extremely electronegative, which basically means that they have a very strong pull on other molecules around them. This pull can destroy complex molecules, or even keep them from forming in the first place. Without oxygen, however, complex molecules could form easily, but we're getting ahead of ourselves!
Abiotic Synthesis of Organic Monomers
The first problem that needed to be addressed, was the issue of how organic compounds could form from inorganic molecules. This question was answered by scientists Stanley Miller and Harold Urey in 1953. They recreated the early-Earth atmosphere which had been postulated in the 1920's by scientists Oparin and Haldane. In the Miller-Urey experiment, they created a closed environment which was meant to simulate conditions on early Earth. A warm flask of water represented the sea, and an ancient atmosphere was created which consisted of H(2)O (water), H(2) (hydrogen gas), CH(4) (methane), and NH(3) (ammonia). Sparks were then charged through the simulatory atmosphere to mimic lightning. The water vapors travelled up to a condenser which cooled them, and changed them back to liquid form which then rained down their apparatus, and back into the makeshift "sea".
A flask was positioned below one of the tubes to catch some of the rain water before it reached the sea again. As the materials kept circulating, the liquid in the flask changed from clear to a murky brown. At the end of one week, Miller and Urey tested the contents of the flask to find that the non-living molecules from thier experiment had produced a variety of organic compounds including amino acids, which make up proteins.
This experiement has been repeated many times. Often, the initial "recipe" of molecules used to simulate the early Earth's atmosphere have been altered, but each time, organic molecules are still produced.
**I have to run off now, but when I come back, I will discuss how organic monomers can form polymers!**
