The Frankenstein Hypothesis Needs Revision

Mary Shelley wrote a novel when she was 19 years of age which was first published in 1818. The story is very well known, how a scientist was able to create life from non-life in a lab using electricity. The story is highly similar in some ways to evolution concerning the origin of life.

In an experiment conducted in the 1950’s known as the Miller/Urey Experiment, molecules were collected in which scientists believed represented the major components of the early Earth’s atmosphere and zap them with electrical current trying to simulate a thunderstorm. In a week, they were able to produce a small amount of amino acids.

The yield of glycine was just a mere 1.05% and alanine only 0.75%. Miller stated the results were small compared to the energy used. Twenty amino acids are required for life and they only could produce less than half, while the rest require conditions under a much more complex synthesis. Without twenty amino acids in a set, proteins cannot be produced with specified complexity concerning left and right handed amino acids. Proteins need left handed amino acids while carbohydrates and polymers need right-handed amino acids. If they get mixed up, not only are they useless but deadly as well.

Armen Mulkidjanian (University of Osnabrueck) and Michael Galperin (U.S. National Institutes of Health) said the Miller experiment is doomed! Normally this is said by evolutionary scientists when they have an alternative hypothesis of their own. In AstroBiology magazine it states…

“The scientists suggest that life on Earth originated at photosynthetically-active porous structures, similar to deep-sea hydrothermal vents, made of zinc sulfide (more commonly known as phosphor). They argue that under the high pressure of a carbon-dioxide-dominated atmosphere, zinc sulfide structures could form on the surface of the first continents, where they had access to sunlight. Unlike many existing theories that suggest UV radiation was a hindrance to the development of life, Mulkidjanian and Galperin think it actually helped.”

“The problem of the origin of life is such that you have to answer a set of different questions to explain how life has originated,” says lead author Mulkidjanian. “We just provide answers to the problem of energetics of the origin of life.”

This hypothesis known as the “zinc theory” didn’t produce any prebiotic molecules under plausible primordial conditions. NASA astrobiologist Max Bernstein stated; “Whether it will be adopted or not eventually I cannot say, but I expect that many will want to see experimental evidence of the viability of reactions consistent with the hypothesized scheme under prebiotic conditions.”

‘Prebiotic’ chemistry became not just another Frankenstein novel, but other things as well like Carl Sagan who believed the Miller experiment was so important that it convinced scientists that life could exist on other planets. Now reality sets in and this experiment was falsified which is why others like Astrobiologists like to throw stuff out there without having to deal with the burden of proof set upon them otherwise this story in which they are telling would have never made it into a major publication. The Frankenstein hypothesis doesn’t need revision, it needs to be thrown out!

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “The Frankenstein Hypothesis Needs Revision

  1. @Michael: “Mary Shelley wrote a novel when she was 19 years of age which was first published in 1818. The story is very well known, how a scientist was able to create life from non-life in a lab using electricity.”[1]

    The very first sentence, and you have missed the point already. Read the story—I would say “read it again” but I’m sure you have never actually read “Frankenstein; or, the Modern Prometheus” If you had, you would not have written what you did.

    @Michael: “The story is highly similar in some ways to evolution concerning the origin of life.”

    This is really funny, Michael. If you had actually read the story, you would have noticed the egg on your face.[2] If you even knew the whole title of the story—Frankenstein; or, the Modern Prometheus—you would at least begin to get the idea. Oh, wait. You’re probably clueless as to the meaning of the Prometheus legend too.[3] Well, take my word for it. If you understood anything about the Frankenstein story, or about its social milieu, you could have used it much more effectively to advance your cause.

    ==Soc Puppette[4]

    ===================
    [1] This is more than a little ironic. You may remember the first theory of evolution, from the Chevalier de Lamarck.. The “life force” which he posited for the acquisition of characteristics was electricity. It accumulated in the structures that were most used, thus enhancing them. Whether or not Mary Shelley was aware of this is unknown, but electricity was then the scientific discovery du jour.

    [2] When I say “you,” understand that I am actually referring to the professional creationist who actually wrote the essay that you are passing off as your own.

    [3] First clue: It wasn’t mentioned in the Bible. Although, like the Bible, it has a Meaning that you will miss entirely when you take the story literally.

    [4] If you haven’t already guessed, we divide up the work so that Soc gets the obiter dicta stuff, while that other guy carries the water for the science. Sort of like Sir Percy Blakeney and The Scarlet Pimpernel working together against the evil Chauvelin.

  2. Michael: “Without twenty amino acids in a set, proteins cannot be produced with specified complexity concerning left and right handed amino acids. Proteins need left handed amino acids while carbohydrates and polymers need right-handed amino acids. If they get mixed up, not only are they useless but deadly as well.”

    I take it all back, Michael. I guess you do write some of your own stuff. No knowledgeable creationist could have minced up this material so thoroughly.

    > There are 22 “standard” amino acids that produce proteins, not 20. Two more can be encoded by DNA; they do appear in proteins, but rarely. There are many other amino acids that do not occur in DNA. For example, GABA is a neuro-transmitter, but it is not used in DNA nor in protein synthesis. .

    > Specified complexity has nothing—repeat, absolutely nothing—to do with the chirality of proteins, etc.

    > Polymers?? What kind of polymers did you have in mind? Polymers can be left- or right-handed, or neither.

    > Wrong-handedness in amino acids, etc. is certainly not “deadly”. Who told you that? Racemic mixtures don’t work together as well as do those of the same chirality, because the reactions require somewhat more energy. And the common amino acid glycine doesn’t have a left-handed form. (I know, I know.)

    If this is a sample of writing your own stuff, you should go back to copying your sources. This effort isn’t even good word salad.

  3. Michael: Twenty amino acids are required for life and Miller-Urey only could produce less than half, while the rest require conditions under a much more complex synthesis.”

    That’s funny. An analysis of some of the vials from the original experiments showed a total of 22 different amino acids, rather than the 5 originally claimed.[1] Unlike the Bible, science changes when the old stuff is wrong.

    Astrobiology: “… photosynthetically-active porous structures, similar to deep-sea hydrothermal vents, made of zinc sulfide (more commonly known as phosphor).”

    One of the problems with ignorant, brute-force copying of secondary sources is that they sometimes get things wrong, even before creationists get hold of them to do it intentionally. “Phosphor” is not another name for zinc sulfide. Phosphors are a class of compounds, and zinc sulfide itself is not a phosphor.[2]

    Michael: “Now reality sets in and this experiment was falsified “

    Experiments can’t be falsified. This is a category error.

    How many factual errors are enough to reduce your credibility to a nadir? And I haven’t even started on the mistakes of interpretation due to ignorance of the scientific process. Are you beginning to understand why people with any knowledge of the subject laugh at creationists? Don’t forget that relentless aversion to fact can become a way of life—or perhaps it already has.

    =====================
    [1] Johnson et al., “The Miller volcanic spark discharge experiment”. Science 322:404..

    [2] Phosphors—photophosphors—are compounds that emit light of a certain frequency when struck by incident radiation. That’s how fluorescent lamps work.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s