Murchison Meteorites:  New Evidence for Abiogenesis

Creationists and those who argue for Intelligent Design like to claim that complex molecules such as RNA and DNA could not arise spontaneously in nature, but most scientists who study such matters disagree.  Even the erstwhile longtime atheist philosopher Antony Flew has been taken in by this argument from incredulity, and Christians have generally been delighted with his recent conversion to deism. Now we know that fragments of meteors that fell near Murchison, Australia, in 1969 contained carbon-based compound precursors to the "raw materials of life".  Scientific American reported on this discovery in a June 16, 2008 article.  Although this does not prove that life was created from similar sources, it is the strongest evidence yet that RNA and DNA could have evolved naturally.

http://naastika.blogspot.com/2008/06/murchison-meteorites-new-evidence-for.html

Wow. That "carbon" exsists somewhere other than earth. From a chemstry outlook that's about as useless as discovering water on Mars, as all it shows is that hydrogen and oxygen can bond together somewhere else. So congradulations. If we start digging around another planet all evolutionists have shown (thank you for confirming the attitude that if a person doesn't buy into evolution than they aren't a scientist) is that we have more chances of finding diamonds than life.

The line that life on Earth came from space is an old one given studies that suggest early earth may have had oxygen in it's atmosphere that proves harmful. It simply shows how evolution has become unfalsifiable.

That they find a basic component found in DNA (a far cry from evidence that these can arrange themselves in a complex and specific manner threw natural undirected means) that fuse with sugar which has proven unstable in most chemical reactions is nothing significant. It has long been pointed out that simply finding the basic elements isn't enough. There is a matter of the process in which they can come together, and simply forming a DNA or RNA molecule isn't enough as the sequence must be precise in order to form a meaningful genteic info.

As with most pro-evolutionist matters running the victory lap is premature.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aI10wpl35qqY&refer=worldwide

I suppose that's evidence for abiogenesis, too.

The line that life on Earth came from space is an old one given studies that suggest early earth may have had oxygen in it's atmosphere that proves harmful. It simply shows how evolution has become unfalsifiable.

There is a difference between a hypothesis that is unfalsifiable (e.g. that undetectable beings exist) and one that lacks the evidence to falsify it.  Evolution is of the latter sort.  It sets up expectations that keep getting confirmed by subsequent discoveries.  For example, we are certain beyond a reasonable doubt that we will find human fossils intermixed with dinosaur fossils.  That would certainly throw a primate wrench in the picture of evolution that scientists have carefully constructed over many past decades.

That they find a basic component found in DNA (a far cry from evidence that these can arrange themselves in a complex and specific manner threw natural undirected means) that fuse with sugar which has proven unstable in most chemical reactions is nothing significant. It has long been pointed out that simply finding the basic elements isn't enough. There is a matter of the process in which they can come together, and simply forming a DNA or RNA molecule isn't enough as the sequence must be precise in order to form a meaningful genteic info.

You don't seem to understand the difference between science and religion.  The former has theories that are always considered incomplete and subject to skepticism.  They ultimately get refined or replaced by better theories.  The latter has doctrines that are considered complete and irrevocable systems of knowledge.  Evolution has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt from a scientific perspective.  We have a fairly satisfactory understanding of how species evolve and how speciation takes place.  We can be fairly confident of abiogenesis, but we do not yet have enough information to know how it evolved.  The Murchison discovery confirms an expectation--a prediction of the model--that had not been confirmed previously.  That is its significance.  To the extent that theories make correct predictions, our confidence in them increases.

As with most pro-evolutionist matters running the victory lap is premature.

This is hard for you to get, but science is never finished.  It is always a work in progress.

Quote

Creationists and those who argue for Intelligent Design like to claim that complex molecules such as RNA and DNA could not arise spontaneously in nature, but most scientists who study such matters disagree.

It is conceivably that the argument from incredulity actually is being employed by the 'most scientists.'  It takes a high degree of credulity to infer from such scanty pieces of 'evidence' to the development of life on this planet.  It does not surprise me one bit to hear that the truth is that the naturalists are the naive, gullible, credulous ones while the non-naturalistic ones are actually the skeptical ones.

I concur that it does not surprise you, because it is the constant mantra that you chant over and over again to credulous creationists, and it can hardly be a surprise that they chant the same mantra along with you.  What would surprise you is the real truth--that scientific beliefs are built on confirmable expectations, and this particular discovery confirms the expectation that we will find prerquisites to RNA and DNA molecules in nature, especially outside the biosphere of the earth.

Moreover, I don't think you've represented the Creationist and ID positions fairly.  For example, the IDers have explicitly characterized their approach as 'arguments to the best inference.'  I can't speak for other Creationists but I will speak for myself in saying that I couldn't give a rip if it 'could have' what I want to know is DID IT. 

First of all, everyone with a position on anything presents their approach as 'arguments to the best inference', and a denial of the creationist approach as actually being the best inference is not a misrepresentation of their position.  A misrepresentation of it would be to claim that creationists don't think they have the best inference.  I don't make that claim.  And proponents of abiogenesis are actually making a claim as to what DID happen.  What scientists claim is that we can only know what DID happen beyond a reasonable doubt, not a shadow of a doubt.  But clearly, you apply a double standard to your own religious claim, because you do not require the same rigor of proof for it.  In the case of creationism, I have only ever seen you propose claims about what 'could have' happened.

It is possible that JFK was not assassinated.  It could be that he was actually abducted by time traveling space aliens.  And before you mock that remember that you at one time chastised Cimics for not reading enough science fiction (a ludicrous thing to say about Cimics, by the way) and suggesting the same sort of thing.  So, let us agree it is logically possible that he was abducted by time traveling space aliens.  But is that what actually happened?  Different question.  It requires a different approach to the evidence.

I would agree with much of what you say, although I would add that you read too much fantasy and not enough science fiction.    It is logically possible that Kennedy was abducted by aliens, and it would make for a reasonable plot in a science fiction novel.  As for finding out what actually DID happen, the approach required is that taken by science--empirical investigation.

It would be nice to have some skeptics display some kahoonas and just admit that they know as little about what actually happened as they did when Francis Crick postulated Directed Panspermia.

Actually, you meant 'cojones', and, unlike you, I am not interested in displays of cojones.     We happen to know a lot more about what happened than when Crick first postulated panspermia, because we have done a great deal more space exploration.  Also, he didn't know about what we have recently discovered with the Murchison meteorites. 

No. I'm sure another explanation would simply come up. Likely one simply saying the date of extinction would simply be pushed back, or that the human fossil was a 'precusor' or whatever.

What hypocrisy.  It is a fact that we have no evidence of rock strata where human and dinosaur remains are intermixed.  That is a pretty devastating lack of confirmation for creationists, who believe that dinosaurs and humans inhabited the earth at the same time.  So what is the "best inference", to use sntjohnny's phrase?  You offer no alternative to the evolutionary explanation.  None at all.  Were you to do that, you would be guilty of the very behavior that you speculate evolutionists would have if their theory failed spectacularly.  Now YOUR theory does fail spectacularly to account for real observation, but instead of trying to explain the real failure, you criticize the imagined behavior of scientists for an imaginary one.

And I find it insulting given the attitude that has surrounded evolution for the past century that you would proclaim it a 'hypothesis'. No expectation has ever been met, as the only expectation is that you'd find evidence where genetic info increases rather than decreases or being maintained. What you have are interpretations brought about by an a priori belief...

Your comment here is a nonsensical straw man that you got from a creationist source.  Evolution theory makes no predictions about an increase or decrease in genetic information.  That is not a consequence of the theory.

Your comment on Mars is a perfect example of such. You think descovering bacteria would prove Mars had life, however it has been pointed out that if you think life on Earth can have life seeded on it, then the opposite can be true in that life from Earth can be flung into space and find it's way on a barren Mars.

The Murchison meteorite did not contain "life", but material that is required to form complex proteins such as RNA and DNA.  Not surprisingly, you have completely misunderstood the scientific claim.

The former has theories that are always considered incomplete and subject to skepticism.  They ultimately get refined or replaced by better theories.  The latter has doctrines that are considered complete and irrevocable systems of knowledge.  Evolution has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt from a scientific perspective.

No it hasn't. There's no scientific experimentation for 'billions of years of evolution'. What there is is an interpretation from falible human beings. An interpretation that can become heavily influenced by one's a prior beliefs.

Once again, you demonstrate your ignorance of how science works.  The fossil record is confirmation of billions of years of evolution, as it continually corroborates the discoveries of past evolutionists.  Creationism not only lacks an explanation of the fossil record, but it is contradicted by it.

The Murchison discovery confirms an expectation--a prediction of the model--that had not been confirmed previously.  That is its significance.  To the extent that theories make correct predictions, our confidence in them increases.

As you showed simply finding hydrogen an oxygen bonded together "confrims an expectation". It's becoming apparent that anything under the sun "confirms an expectation" with you Cop. It shows an inherently rediculous attitude of being excited when you confirm that the basic elements of life exsists outside earth ie. hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, your 'prerequisites. I'm willing to grant that you'll find the basic elements necesary to build a computer outside of earth Cop. It's not evidence for the expectation that you'll find an alien computer. It's common sense.

It is hard to believe that you still seem to have such a basic misunderstanding of what the meteorites proved--that a necessary prerequisite for RNA and DNA was found in an extraterrestrial object.  You keep confusing it with the discovery of basic elements.  A reasonable analogy would not be with discovering the silicon that a computer chip is made out of, but discovering a silicon chip itself.

This is hard for you to get, but science is never finished.  It is always a work in progress.


I have no problem with science. When we are on a topic that actually relates to science let me know.

What would be the point of that?  You don't understand the difference between dogma and science.

I've been known to offer a very rather reasonable explanation for that: It shows humans and dinosaurs weren't living in the same area together.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I see such an ignorant claim.  It is contradicted by Sntjohnny, who believes that ubiquitous legends of dragons supports the idea that humans and dinosaurs did inhabit the same regions, although such legends could easily have been caused by the discovery of dinosaur fossils.  Radiometric dating flatly contradicts your claim.  Dinosaurs existed for over 200 million years--a staggering amount of time--and died out roughly 66 million years ago.  The modern human species has only existed in the last 200,000 years, which is corroborated by both the fossil record and DNA analysis.  By examining the fossil record, we can tell that completely different climate conditions, flora, and fauna, existed when dinosaurs lived.  But no amount of evidence will deter a mind that is buried under heavy layers of fossilized religious dogma. 

Indeed there is much hypocrisy here. Mostly coming from where before this 'discovery' was found there was a lack of confirmation of nucleobases anywhere other than Earth, yet you have been on record for defending abiogenesis. Now you are criticizing the same behavior you have been known to employ simply because you think your belief has found something substantial.

Your prose is becoming incoherent again.  You need to slow down and reread what you write.  It is true that I am on record for defending abiogenesis, just as you are on record for defending creationism.  I am criticizing your dogmatic rejection of scientific evidence in order to maintain that flawed religious doctrine.  And I do believe that this was a substantial discovery in favor of the scientific hypothesis that RNA and DNA arose naturally from the combination of less complex molecular structures.  The Murchison meteorites fulfill an expectation that we will find the precursors to those complex molecules in nature.

Your comment here is a nonsensical straw man that you got from a creationist source.  Evolution theory makes no predictions about an increase or decrease in genetic information.  That is not a consequence of the theory.

Bwahahahahahahahaha! Please Cop. That's the only way macroevolution and de-evolution work. You show a transparent contradiction when you say that science fullfills expectation and then say there are no predictions from which one must draw an expectation from.

I never said that there were no predictions made by evolution theory, only that your specific prediction about increases and decreases in genetic information was not a prediction of the theory.  Information can change in either direction.

Seems the problem is I understand the difference only too well, that you need to make "proof by assertion" fallacies in order to argue.

Proof by assertion is a fallacy in which the assertions are not backed up.  I have explained in great detail why evolution theory is a scientific theory.  You have simply ignored those explanations.