By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
GameOver22 on 29 September 2010
Edit Thread
Scoobes said:
GameOver22 said:
Scoobes said:
bluxx said:

you need to check the mathematical statistics discussed by Dr Hugh Ross and others who state clearly the earth is simply not old enough for life to have evolved in the time spans we talk about.


The problem with Hugh Ross is that he is a Mathematician and Physicist, not a Biologist. His understanding of evolution is not going to be on the level of an evolutionary biologist (or any good biologist for that matter) and his predictive model hasn't stood up to peer review.

I don't think his model would stand up to review if he knew how quickly scientists have observed the formation of simple biomolecules essential for life for instance (it's both tested and observed in early Earth-like conditions and incredibly rapidly). Or that simple RNA molecules are capable of catalysing a vast array of biological reactions.

What experiments are you talking about? I know there has recently been a change in the general consensus concerning where life originated. It is generally accepted that life originated beneath the Earth's surface, so experiments that do not take this into account are likely to be inaccurate. Needless to say, there is also a difference between producing the building blocks of life in a laboratory and these building blocks developing in nature. The big difference is that experiments obviously have an intelligent component to them.

As with anything in science, these studies have been improved upon over time. They've been conducted for a very long time so there is a wealth of knowledge out there. I've tried to find some free articles for you. The first one has a decent intro covering most relevant studies as well as the group's own findings on RNA formation:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1664692/pdf/rstb20061903.pdf

A paper looking at the bioenergetics of early life:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2828274/pdf/cshperspect-ORI-a004929.pdf

Paper on RNA catalysis and the role in an early RNA world:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709566/pdf/gkp271.pdf

Study on highly conserved RNA sequences as molecular "fossils":

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2812825/pdf/ijms-10-03420.pdf

A lightly older review paper on the topic (2006):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1664691/pdf/rstb20061909.pdf

Another review from last year from a systems biology perspective:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2725996/pdf/embor2009117.pdf

 

If you have access to Nature than this paper is also quite interesting:

http://www.nature.com/nchem/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nchem.827.html

Like I said, Ross is a mathematician with not enough knowledge (from what I've read) on all the variables. His historical thinking is also flawed if his wiki page is anything to go by:

"Ross holds that Noah's Flood was local yet believes it killed all humans except for those on the ark"

Considerring the origins of the Noah's ark story is derived from the Mesopotamian myths 'The Epic of Gilgamesh' and the story of 'Atrrahsis', at a time when there were thousands if not millions living in Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas, I'm not sure how he thinks this flood killed everyone except those on the ark.

I'm less inclined to believe him with his model which has yet to be peer reviewed, than over 100 yrs of peer reviewed study.


Thanks for the articles. I glanced at them and will eventually get to reading them. From the articles, I learned I was referring to the Stanley Miller experiments and the bottom-up approach. From what I read, my point was that the chemical composition of early Earth was not as scientists originally assumed, and this chemical compostition was not as conducive with the production of the building blocks of life. This has caused scientists to look for alternatives such as life originating below the Earth's surface. I had forgotten about the whole comet theory. I was simply saying experiments will need to show that the building blocks of life can form in these settings rather than in the Stanley Miller setting. My understanding of biology comes more from mass publsihed books than scholarly articles, and it seems these books are always referencing the Miller experiment. That is why I was referring to that experiment.

I also do not support Ross's theory. I thorougly believe in evolution and think it will eventually supply the answers for how life originated on Earth, but I do not think it has gotten there yet.