Abiogenesis and the Murchison meteorite.
The Gallation wrote:
Miller-Urey was merely a demonstration that abiogenesis was possible. However, the Murchison meteorite was a much more convincing example.
Not only does it have amino acids inside, there is an excess of L-forms, the sort used by living organisms on Earth.
While it remains true that abiogenesis is not required by evolutionary theory, we do see increasing evidence for abiogenesis as a theory of its own.
The Miller-Urey did not at all demonstration that abiogenesis was possible. It demonstrated that amino acids could be formed naturally. Unfortunately, most of the amino acids formed were not biologically active, produced a highly racemized mixture of mostly tar, and are totally incapable of the process of abiogenesis except in the Kipling-like "just-so" stories of the evolutionists. Also, considering the finds that there was probably oxygen on the early earth which would completely destroy the experiment, the proposed atmospheric conditions are probably an inaccurate and meaningless model of primordial earth.
As to the Murchison meteorite data spins, I discuss them beginning in the third paragraph down.
It may also be technically true, in a most narrow sense, that,"it remains true that abiogenesis is not required by evolutionary theory". But, if naturalistic biological evolutionary theory requires there be no creator, then no creator can be allowed to be introduced into the chemical evolution of molecules to cells. However, if it is impossible for life to arise spontaneously (or at least be so highly improbable as to practically be impossible) then the case for a supernatural creator remains as a reasonable cause which is both necessary and sufficient to create life from raw chemicals. Without the naturalistic certainty that the unaided chemical evolution of cellular life is possible and even probable, the case for naturalistic biological evolution also becomes much more cloudy. Once miracles of any form are given even a slight nod of acceptance, the "nose of the camel is inside the tent" so-to-speak and the rest of the beast is soon to follow. Once the miraculous is admitted, then the interaction of the intelligent creator with His creation can no longer be denied and the meaning of all the extrapolated DNA ancestral trees, the meaning of the fossil record, etc. all become questionable and "natural history" metamorphasizes into a semi-theological metaphysical field where the interpretation of the data must consider possible miraculous discontinuities as the supernatural would be admitted as an inherent part of reality. The possibility of a full blown creation with a necessary appearance of age would suddenly become a real possibility. Therefore naturalists who see the limits of reality as equivalent to the limitations of science, scientific methods and philosophy (with their interaction limited to the natural world) will continue to oppose any suggestion of a supernatural creator at any level. This is in spite of the mounting evidence that the naturalistic origin of life is impossible and therefore the implication of Intelligent Design is a reasonable alternative. Naturalists will not only continue to cling to any evidence that seems to skew the numbers in their direction but will continue to denounce any challenge to their faith with shrill cries of subterfuge and dishonesty. Yet the data against naturalism exists in their own reports and writtings if one would only look for it behind the spin.
Abiogenesis is the hypothetical process of naturalistic chemical evolution of living cells arising from raw chemicals without the aid of any supernatural creator. But, in spite of the hype, chemical evolutionists have not been able to solve why there is a preference for all the organisms on Earth to form their structural and enzymatic proteins from just one of the two possible types of amino acid building blocks. All amino acids, the subunits of proteins, exist in two mirror-image shapes except the simplest amino acid, the molecule glycine, which contains no asymmetric carbon atoms. Their chemical compositions are identical but they differ like your left hand differs from your right. The left-handed amino acids are also known as the lavorotary forms or the L-forms. The right-handed amino acids are also known as dextorotary forms or D-forms. The forces of chemical bonding of either the right or left-handed amino acid to another amino acid of either type is identical. Therefore, when amino acids are created in a laboratory, the batch is invariably racemized, that is it contains equal numbers of left- and right-handed molecules. There are also D- and L-forms of amino acids created which are not found in life (only 22 amino acids are used by living organisms with 20 of those generally common). When chains of amino acids do form, the chains are also racemized and are biologically inactive. So why and how did life favor the left-handed form if the naturalistic scenario is true? If life originated naturally from nonliving chemicals, there seems to be no convincing reason for one amino acid form to be selected and not the other. Nor are the naturalistic processes understood or even imagined which could maintained a purity of the selected amino acid form to form biologically active un racemized proteins and enzymes. And these are just part of the problems with naturalistic origin-of-life hypotheses, but this is what I will limit my discussion to here.
But hope springs eternal in the minds of naturalists. The Murchison meteorite is a "carbonaceous chondrite" remnant of what is generally believed to be a spent comet. It is so named because it fell to Earth near Murchison, Australia (about 80 miles north of Melbourne) in 1969. It is considered important because it is generally believed that the comet's origin was contemporaneous with our solar system and because of the presence of excess L-forms of amino acids present on the meteorite. These excessive L-forms help propel the hope and faith of naturalistic chemical evolutionists towards the rather unwarranted conclusion that conditions in space favor the asymmetrical production of amino acids significantly enough towards the L-forms exclusively required to seed the production of bio actively proteins and enzymes found in living organisms. Therefore the Murchison meteorite offers strong evidence that even if the proper building blocks of life could not form on earth they could have formed in space and "seeded" the formation of life on earth. So, the Murchison meteorite comes to the rescue of naturalists! Or does it?
In 1997, the Murchison meteorite was analyzed. It contained 80 amino acids, but only 8 of which are used by contemporary proteins. In other words, there were 72 biologically inactive amino acids found in the meteor as compared to only 8 biologically active ones. Contemporary proteins use about 20 amino acids, therefore less than half, only about 42%, of the necessary amino acids are even present. Of the 72 biologically inactive amino acids, 55 (almost 69% of the total amino acids accounted for) have NO terrestrial counterparts. Is this really supposed to impress someone? There was also the presence of about 500 organic compounds, including a few nucleic bases, but most of the compounds are not biologically significant (a point which can be found but is not emphasized in the writtings and announcements of the pro-naturalistic camp).
One of the pieces of data that is stressed in the reports is than an excess of about 9% of the L-form for isovaline and "-methyl-iso leucin e",non-protein amino acids, which cannot result from biological contamination and cannot racemize easily, were found in the Murchison meteorite. This supposedly is part of the strong evidence that the amino acids formed in space and there was a tendency of the space-formed amino acids to prefer the L-form. That there does seem to be evidence for amino acid formation in the interstellar medium of space is not questioned here. Nor is it questioned that something, whether the crystalline structure of the meteorite or the theorized selective and rotational influence cosmic radiation, has a preferential tendency on the amino acids so that the L-forms appear in excess over the D-forms. The question is whether or not the data indicates the preference to be significant enough to seed life and whether or not the anti-biological compound evidence is suppressed. The point of this particular data is to exclude the possibility of biological contamination skewing the results favoring the excess L-forms of amino acids. But, in doing so, that also means that these molecules (both the D- and the L- forms) are excluded from being significant to the necessary chemicals to create life. There is also a question of the significance of a 9% excess of an L-form regardless of whether or not the molecule was one which is used in life. In other words there is an excess of ONLY 9% of the L-form over the D-form. Looking at this statistic in its most favorable light, that still means that only a maximum of 59% of the molecules were L-form which is NOT significant enough to produce non-racemized polypeptide chains of amino acids that would hopefully, somehow, spontaneously form into a working protein. Proteins may be polypeptide chains but not all polypeptide chains are proteins... in fact the vast majority are not - another fact that is glossed over in the naturalistic literature.
Norvaline and -amino -n-butyric acid, their C-hydrogen analogs which can easily racemize, were found as racemic mixtures (equal mixture of L and D-forms). This supports that even if a possible asymmetric synthesis in space is allowed or preferred, in many cases it is followed by an progressive racemization. Also not impressive towards a naturalistic scenario.
On another board, I was quoted statistics that one of the amino acids had an 80% L-form purity (which I have not been able to verify, but I shall assume the statistic is correct). Of course that means that there was still 20% of this exemplarily case of the wrong-handed D-form to mess up any polypeptide formation. This combined with the fact that this was only ONE amino acid with this excess (but not sufficient) amount out of the 8 amino acids found on the meteorite used to make biologically active proteins which were but a part of 80 amino acid compounds found on the meteorite (55 of which are non-terrestrial) add up to only one logical conclusion: even if millions of micrometeorites with similar components to the Murchison meteorite were to bombard and "seed" the earth for chemical evolution towards life to begin, the result would STILL be a racemized, non-biologically active tar, similar to the glop at the bottom of the much heralded Miller-Urey experiment, not life.
Try again, naturalists. The Murchison meteorite is a bust also!
