Matt Essert wrote an article titled Cambridge Study Reveals How Life Could Have Started From Nothing, MIC, April 26, 2014 AD.
At this stage in the research the key points to note are reported thusly (and these are the sorts of terms to note whenever you are reading science papers or reports):
…believe…findings indicate…could occur…it is possible…could have…If…seems increasingly likely…could literally…could be…could also potentially…indicate…might…
The related report, Metabolism may have started in our early oceans before the origin of life which pulled copy from an original press release by The Wellcome Trust contains these:
…may have…could in theory…It was previously assumed…thought to have…could have…findings suggest…could have…would have…It’s therefore possible…could have…might be expected…results indicate…
The actual science paper by Markus A Keller, Alexandra V Turchyn and Markus Ralser includes these terms:
…could have…could have been…could…could have…could have been…potential precursors…presumed to be…potential scenario…can assume…In principle…This hypothesis would dictate…would then be…would have occurred…If…could still…firm experimental evidence for either scenario is missing…a plausible chemical composition…could have…
And these are just from the abstract and intro.
The research in view denotes, “One of the most challenging questions in basic biology and the history of evolution and life stems from the unknown origin of the first cells billions of years ago” which Essert rightly categorizes as an “origin story.”
Markus Ralser is the lead researcher for the project of the University of Cambridge. It is reported that “Through routine quality control testing” of something that is left unspecified, the researchers “stumbled upon signs of the metabolic process where, for all intents and purposes, there shouldn’t have been.”
They “found the end products of the metabolic process without any presence of RNA” when it has previously been “generally agreed that Ribonucleic acid, or RNA, was the first building block of life.” The speculation is that life, “occur spontaneously given the right, but surprisingly simple, conditions.” But, pray tell, who gives the right conditions? Has it been evidenced that the Earth could or simply that intelligently designed experiments could?
The related report notes that the team “reconstructed the chemical make-up of the Earth’s earliest ocean in the laboratory” but reconstructed upon what basis? They quote Rasler to the effect that, “In our reconstructed version,” mind you, “of the ancient Archean ocean, these metabolic reactions were particularly sensitive to the presence of ferrous iron which was abundant in the early oceans, and accelerated many of the chemical reactions that we observe…We are quite certain that the earliest oceans contained no oxygen” because apparently, way back then, water did not consist of H2O with the “O” being oxygen.
The science paper elucidates, “We reconstructed potential scenarios for oceans of the prebiotic Archean.” It references the “Miller–Urey experiment that demonstrated the non‐biological and simultaneous synthesis of amino acids upon replicating a hypothesized early–earth atmosphere” and yet, the Miller–Urey only showed that clever scientists could create convenient environments from which they can expect certain predetermined results.
Also, it references “minerals and on mineral surfaces, metals and other chemical components, which could have been present on the early world” and, apparently, since they “could have been present” then, by golly, they must have been.
Rasler began working with Cambridge’s Earth sciences department to determine if these processes could have occurred in the Archean Ocean, the oxygen-free world, predating photosynthesis, which covered the planet almost 4 billion years ago.
You see, they know those things which would make spontaneous abiogenesis impossible and so they must make attempts at creating a history which pinpoints a time, a long, long time ago (a conveniently inaccessible long time ago) when they could claim that Earth was just right, was an oxygen-free world, etc.
Matt Essert notes that the research seems to indicate that “If these metabolic pathways were occurring” note the conditions, “in the absence of RNA in conditions rich with iron and other metals and phosphate” then, or so we are told, “it seems increasingly likely that life could have literally started from nothing and spontaneously formed in ways until now believed impossible.” Well, he misstates “from nothing” since it would be from something; he should have written by nothing.
When it has to be within various just right conditions then it is not a case, as we are told, that “Rasler’s team has been the first to show that life could literally come from nothing.”
Of course, Matt Essert could apparently not leave off without noting that “these findings could also potentially play into the creationism versus evolution debate” as creationists claim that “the complex and hard-to-explain idea of life started from nothing at all” is a claim to which they reply has been “somewhat lacking.”
Of course, with a premise of “…believe…findings indicate…could occur…it is possible…could have…If…seems increasingly likely…could literally…could be…could also potentially…indicate…might…may have…could in theory…It was previously assumed…thought to have…could have…findings suggest…could have…would have…It’s therefore possible…could have…might be expected…results indicate…could have…could have been…could…could have…could have been…potential precursors…presumed to be…potential scenario…can assume…In principle…This hypothesis would dictate…would then be…would have occurred…If…could still…firm experimental evidence for either scenario is missing…a plausible chemical composition…could have…” there seems to be nothing to really discuss as of yet. Such is the nature of new claims.
For more on abiogenesis related issues see:
Atheism and Science : John Horgan, “In the Beginning…” – Scientific American
Richard Dawkins Rules Out Abiogenesis, part 1 of 2
Richard Dawkins Rules Out Abiogenesis, part 21 of 2
Life’s origins, abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution
Atheist and Darwinian Science and Story Telling
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter
page, on my Facebook page, on my Google+ page and/or the “Share/Save” button below the tags.