Podcast appearances and mentions of stanley miller

Gondor calls for aid...and the Settlers shall answer. We're making our long-awaited return to Middle Earth to once and for all vanquish the One Ring. Carried to the summit of Mount Doom by Tolkien enthusiast Dr. Stanley Miller, we dissect what made Howard Shore's epic conclusion to the LotR trilogy a true masterpiece.Ev's score: 10 / Al's score: 9.9 / Ky's score: 9.9 / Stan's score: 9.9Musical term: DissonanceInstrumental Instrument: ShakuhachiIf you like what you hear, follow us on Spotify and opt-in to get notified when we drop future episodes. Better yet, get in touch and keep up with our score-settling antics on TikTok or Instagram.00:00 Introduction to the Journey00:58 Welcoming Dr. Stanley Miller01:04 Partying in Hobbiton and Baltimore02:23 A Trip to Hobbiton04:10 Stan's Passion for Tolkien04:26 The Power of Storytelling06:49 Howard Shore's Musical Genius11:05 The Shire Theme Evolution13:04 Emotional Impact of the Music26:01 Lighting of the Beacons30:57 Final Reflections and Scores36:05 Conclusion and Fun Facts

Prof. Stanley Miller, Consultant Respiratory Physician in the Mater Hospital and Chair of COPD Support Ireland

Es ist keine ganz einfache Frage, wohl aber eine der größten in den Naturwissenschaften: Woher stammt das Leben auf der Erde? Um uns einer Antwort zu nähern, müssen wir in flachen Tümpeln dümpeln und in die Tiefsee tauchen. Viele große Forscherïnnen haben dazu etwas beigetragen, darunter Charles Darwin, Stanley Miller oder Deborah Kelly. Franzi und Karl nehmen in dieser Folge die Chemikerin Martina Preiner an Bord: Sie war Wissenschaftsjournalistin und Podcast-Host und wurde quasi während eines Interviews mit einem Forscher, das sie führte, zurück in die Wissenschaft geholt. Sie forschte dann in Düsseldorf sowie Utrecht und machte eine Forschungsreise zu vulkanischen Tiefseequellen. Seit 2023 entwickelt sie eigene Experimente, die den möglichen Stoffwechsel der ersten Arten nachstellen, gemeinsam mit ihren Kollegïnnen am Max-Planck-Institut für terrestrische Mikrobiologie in Marburg. Martina taucht mit uns tief ein in die Forschungsgeschichte zu jener großen Frage, woher das Leben stammt: Von der Spontanzeugung im 19. Jahrhundert und die Idee der flachen Tümpel über das berühmte Miller-Urey-Experiment im 20. Jahrhundert geht es bis zu Martinas eigenem Forschungsgebiet: Wie die ersten wichtigen Stoffwechsel-Prozesse des Lebens vielleicht ohne komplexe Biomoleküle stattfanden.

A “one stop shop” for patients with asthma and COPD has opened its doors to the public It comes in the form of 'Care Hubs' which are helping thousands of patients to be treated closer to home by specialist respiratory teams. Stanley Miller, HSE National Clinical Lead for Respiratory.

Episode 265 – The Truth in Genesis Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. Script: (Bible quotes from the New Living Translation) Then the LORD said to Job, “Do you still want to argue with the Almighty? You are God’s critic, but do you have the answers?” … Then the LORD answered Job from the whirlwind: “Brace yourself like a man, because I have some questions for you, and you must answer them! Job, Chapter 40, verses 1 and 2 and verses 6 and 7, New Living Translation I am the Alpha and the Omega—the beginning and the end,”says the Lord God. “I am the one who is, who always was, and who is still to come—the Almighty One”… Don’t be afraid! I am the First and the Last. I am the living one. I died, but look—I am alive forever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and the grave.” Revelation, Chapter 1, verse 8 and verses 17 and 18, New Living Translation ******** VK: Hi! I’m Victoria K. Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. I’m here today with RD Fierro, author, founder of Crystal Sea Books, and part-time mechanical engineer. He changes the air filter in the air conditioner. And speaking of changing things, today we are closing out the series that we’ve been presenting for several episodes that we’ve been calling The Truth in Genesis? So today we’re going to be doing a bit of a recap of all the subjects that we’ve covered and hit the highlights of some of the major things that we’ve learned. RD, would you like to say a brief word of introduction about today’s show? RD: I would. Our “The Truth in Genesis” series was designed to allow listeners to hear a sample of the scientific evidence that is relevant to two of the most important topics that affect Biblical inspiration and infallibility: the age of the earth and universe and the origin and diversity of life. One of the biggest challenges facing most Christians is right at the beginning of the Bible in Chapter 1 where the Bible tells us that God created the heavens, the earth, and everything that exists on the earth including all living creatures and most especially, us. Supposedly, that claim is at odds with what contemporary science tells us about the universe and life. So, for a Christian to maintain their faith in the Bible today culture they must immediately confront the cultural challenge to the Bible’s proclamation about creation. In effect, our culture demands that we either surrender our faith in the Bible or our acceptance of science as a source of truth. I believe that we’ve shown through the episodes in this series that conscientious Christians don’t need to make that kind of a false choice. VK: Your contention is that we have illustrated through the episodes in The Truth in Genesis series there is substantial scientific evidence that absolutely supports, the belief that the plain language of Genesis may be accepted as literal, historical fact. And today we want to review and summarize just a few snippets of what we’ve learned. But before we get too far into our discussion about the serious stuff, we’d like to start by just listening to a poetic summary of the state of this debate. To do that we want to play a portion of Crystal Seas’ upcoming poetic series called the Genesis Saga. For today, let’s listen to Part 5 of the Genesis Saga which – aptly enough - we call The Truth in Genesis. ---- TRUTH IN GENESIS VK: That is a pretty amazing summary - and it rhymes. So let’s go back and cover briefly some of the main points of evidence that we’ve learned about from Truth in Genesis that support the fact that the universe and earth aren’t nearly as old as is commonly believed. Let’s also talk about how it would be impossible for the random, chaotic action of inanimate atoms and molecules to spontaneously give rise to life. RD: Well, to start let’s be clear about the competing truth claims that we are examining. The Bible clearly claims that God created the heavens and earth and all the life that exists on the earth, whether plant or animal. And, according to most traditional interpretations, God performed His creative activity on the order of several thousands of years ago. Also, when it comes to animal life the Bible created all the “kinds” of animals that exist today. Contrary to the strawman version of Biblical creation that critics like to shoot at, “kinds” does not refer to the species that are extant today. Nor does the Biblical term “kind” refer to any particular taxonomic level such as an order or genus. It primarily refers to the ability of any two animals to reproduce regardless of how those animals might be classified according to current taxonomy. By contrast the dominant view among most scientists today is that the universe is 14 billion, or so, years old and that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Also, most conventional biologists believe that life on earth evolved from primitive forms to more complex forms, likely starting with some sort of a self-replicating molecule that over time spontaneously aggregated into a single cell, and that from that cell all the amazing biodiversity we see around the globe today emerged – without direction or instruction from any intelligent source. As our guest for most of our shows, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, puts it – a “goo to you” form of evolution. VK: Those are two very clearly contrasting views. But isn’t there sort of a middle ground that some have termed “theistic evolution?” This is the view that God created everything but then used evolution as a sort of intermediate mechanism to allow life to progress from simple forms to more complex ones and that over time many different forms of plants and animals emerged from the process that God originated. RD: You are absolutely correct that there have been various attempts to bridge the gaps between Biblical creationism and a materialist, secularist form of evolution. The problem is that most of these “middle ground” approaches suffer from the same faults as the ones that afflict a purely materialistic evolution plus they create additional theological or Christological problems for Christians who hold them. For instance, any approach that presumes that God used evolution to produce man from some lower form of pre-human hominid requires that death preceded Adam and Eve’s fall – and that’s if they accept the fall as being a historical event. Yet various scriptures, such as Romans 5:17, tie death directly to Adam’s sin. Further, if Adam’s fall wasn’t a literal event that introduced death into a creation that God had deemed “very good,” then why was it necessary for Christ to die on the cross to undo the effects of sin. VK: So, you’re saying the middle ground approaches really don’t bridge the gap and allow both sides to be right. But are you also saying that the middle grounds are subject to the same criticisms scientifically as a purely secularistic evolutionism. RD: Yes. For instance, one of the problems we learned about insofar as evolution is concerned is the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, a fact that even Charles Darwin noted and lamented. When you study the fossil record species appear suddenly and fully formed with very few specimens that can even be offered up as being transitional. Despite the fact over 90% of the fossils that have been discovered were discovered after Darwin wrote the Origin of Species there aren’t any more convincing transitional examples known to today than when Darwin lamented their absence. This absence of transitional fossils would be a problem for any form of evolutionary hypothesis whether theistic or not. VK: What are a couple of other examples of problems that cast doubt on evolution regardless of which form is being discussed? RD: Well, there’s what’s been called by one writer “the failure of homology.” Homology is the idea that certain structures present in different species have a structural or other biological resemblance to each other. The classic example is the pattern in the bones of vertebrate limbs. In a wide variety of mammal species, example, from bats to whales to horses to people, there’s a consistent pattern of having one bone in the upper part of the limb (our arms or legs), connected to two bones, that are then connected to a series of five bones that have 2 segments in the large bone (thumb, big toe) and 3 segments in the other four. Such so-called “homologous” structures are thought to be evidence of “common descent.” In other words some ancient ancestor of all mammals had this pattern of bones so all the mammals in the world today that are descended from the ancestor inherited this pattern. VK: Certainly, at least on the surface, that makes sense. So what’s the problem? RD: The problem is that when Darwin wrote about the support that homology provided for his theory science knew very little about embryology – the study of how life develops following conception. Today, we know a lot more and we now know that the seeming homologous structures in adult animals don’t arise from similar embryological processes or from identical or similar genes. In other words while the adult features seem to be similar they come about from significantly varying developmental processes. This directly conflicts with the notion that the supposedly homologous structures came from a common ancestor because if all the common features were inherited from a common ancestor that ancestor would have passed along its embryological features not just the adult result. There’s a good discussion of this problem in Michael Denton’s book entitled Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Chapter 7 for those who want to study further. VK: So just like with the fossil record, evidence that is often used to demonstrate the truth of evolution actually has significant scientific problems. Are there any other illustrations of scientific problems with the “particles to people” view of evolution? RD: There are actually lots of them and Dr. Sarfati discussed a number of them during his time in the Anchored by Truth studio. VK: For instance? RD: For instance, just about every proposed mechanism for how life could have arisen from non-living chemicals involves some variation on Darwin’s musings about a “warm little pond” – in other words the notion that the primordial oceans contained a nutrient rich broth that is sometimes termed “pre-biotic soup.” The chemicals necessary for life were supposed to have been present in this soup in such densities that random collision between the right molecules produced abiotic organic compounds that were then used to assemble the first cell or at least the cell’s precursor, whatever that would have been. The existence of these abiotically produced organic compounds is absolutely essential for the scheme to have worked. The problem is that rocks of purportedly great antiquity, by conventional dating, methods have extensively examined and none contain any evidence of these abiotically produced organic compound even the so-called “dawn rocks” of Western Greenland that were supposedly laid down within 3 or 4 hundred million years of the earth’s formation. The same thing is true of all the other rocks of similar antiquity. VK: So the rocks contain no evidence of this pre-biotic soup and without it the whole origin hypothesis falls apart. But some scientists now believe that the earliest life was formed underwater near these heating vents in the deep ocean. RD: Yes. That hypothesis is frequently mentioned in ocean exploration programs on one or another science channel. The problem with this theory is that all life depends on very lengthy chains of amino acids that are called polypeptides. Well, polypeptides won’t form in the presence of excess water. Even if the requisite amino acids were present they wouldn’t combine into the lengthy polypeptides so again there’s an absolute chemical barrier to life starting underwater hypothesis. VK: In other words the difficulties against life having arisen spontaneously from non-living chemicals are starting to stack up like a bricks in a brick wall. Are there any other bricks that are problematic? How about the famous experiments by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey? Didn’t they create the chemicals needed by life when they stimulated a chemical medium with methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water using electric discharges? RD: Urey and Miller were successful at creating organic compounds. That much is true. But the good news pretty much ends there. VK: How so? RD: First, there is no evidence that the conditions Urey and Miller used in their lab were present in the primordial earth. At a minimum, they used an oxygen free atmosphere because oxidation would quickly break down any organic chemicals that formed. Think rust. But there is evidence of oxidation in supposedly ancient rocks so it’s more likely that the early atmosphere contained oxygen than that it didn’t. Next, amino acids come in two varieties: levorotary and dextrorotary. The amino acids that support life are all levorotary. Dextrorotary forms are lethal. The combination of the two is called a racemate. Miller’s experiments and others since only produce racemates, never pure levorotary amino acids. Third, the amino acids they produced were captured in special traps. If those traps hadn’t been there the amino acids would have broken down before they could be determined to be present. Moreover, Urey and Miller’s experiment where they produced the amino acids wasn’t the first experiment they conducted. They had done others where they didn’t get anything. So, even when they got a result it involved the application of a considerable amount of intelligence. It was the exact opposite of the operation of blind chance. VK: Wow. That last thought really forces you to think doesn’t it? Even if a team of scientists today were successful at producing life in a test tube or laboratory beaker that wouldn’t demonstrate that life could have formed randomly or chaotically. Because - presumably - the scientists would have been applying intelligent guidance and decision making at every step within their process. And, of course, that’s assuming they had duplicated exactly the conditions on the earth at the time life is supposed to have formed and that is, and always will remain, unknowable. Well, this truly has been a remarkable series and yet we really have only skimmed the surface of all these topics. But the takeaway for the series and as well as from each episode is that faithful, committed Christians can believe in the truth of Genesis without having to give up their confidence in real science. As you would expect of an almighty and all-knowing Creator, He has provided His special revelation in a way that is entirely consistent with the way that He created and sustains the universe. Sounds like a great time to praise our Creator in prayer. ---- PRAYER OF ADORATION FOR THE CREATOR (radio version) VK: We’d like to remind our audience that a lot of our radio episodes are linked together in series of topics so if they missed any episodes or if they just want to hear one again, all of these episodes are available on your favorite podcast app. To find them just search on “Anchored by Truth by Crystal Sea Books.” If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not famous but our Boss is!” (Bible Quotes from the New Living Translation) The Book of Job, chapter 38, verses 4 through 7 The epistle to the Colossians, chapter 15 verses 1 through 17 https://creation.com/right-perspective-interpreting-data

(NOTAS Y ENLACES COMPLETOS AQUÍ: https://www.jaimerodriguezdesantiago.com/kaizen/173-el-misterio-de-la-vida-ii-la-sopa-primordial)Mi hija Gabriela nació hace 7 meses. No parece mucho, pero en este tiempo la hemos visto cambiar y desarrollarse, día a día, casi hora a hora. Hemos visto cómo ese bichillo pequeñajo de ojos achinados que era al nacer, se ha ido convirtiendo en una personita, que no para de moverse y que, aunque no domine aún el lenguaje, tiene claro lo que quiere. Bueno, en realidad, eso último no es nuevo: mandona ha sido siempre. Lo de llamarla pequeña dictadora no era gratuito. Hay cosas con las que claramente se nace. Te decía al final de la pasada temporada que tener hijos conlleva un cierto efecto perspectiva, una sensación parecida a la que sienten los astronautas al ver nuestro planeta desde el espacio. Ellos se asombran de lo frágil, minúscula y solitaria que parece la Tierra flotando en mitad de la nada. Y aunque mi obsesión viene de antes, creo que ver nacer y crecer a un hijo es una de las experiencias vitales que más se asemejan a esa sensación. Nos pone cara a cara frente a ese gran misterio que es la vida. El misterio de cómo empezó todo y de qué demonios hacemos nosotros aquí. Y aunque son preguntas para las que ni tenemos, ni seguramente tengamos nunca, respuestas definitivas, sí hay algunas que hemos ido encontrando por el camino. En el anterior capítulo hablamos de cómo creemos que nació el Universo, cómo se formó la Tierra y cómo ésta se llenó de agua, el elemento fundamental para nuestras vidas, hasta convertirse en aquella canica azul que fascinó a los astronautas.Y lo dejamos ahí, justo antes de enfrentarnos a otras dos preguntas complicadas: ¿qué es la vida y cómo surgió en nuestro planeta? Pues hala, ya tenemos tema para hoy. Empezamos la temporada con cosas sencillitas.

On today's ID the Future distinguished nanoscientist James Tour explains to host Eric Metaxas why the origin-of-life community is further than ever from solving the mystery of life's origin, and how the public has gotten the false impression that scientists can synthesize life in the lab. Tour explains that origin-of-life scientists aren't even close to intelligently synthesizing life from non-life in the lab. The problem, Tour says, is that some leading origin-of-life researchers give the impression they are right on the cusp of solving the problem. Not so, Tour says. He offers the analogy of someone claiming, in the year 1500, that he has the know-how to build a ship to travel to the moon, when no one yet knows Read More › Source

Episode 197 – Eternal Information – Part 5 – Living Information Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. Script: I will praise you because I have been remarkably and wondrously made. Your works are wondrous, and I know this very well. Psalm 139, verse 14, Christian Standard Bible ******** VK: Hello! I’m Victoria K. Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. Thank you for joining us here today on Anchored by Truth as we continue the series which we are calling “Eternal Information.” Like several of the other series that we have done on Anchored by Truth this “Eternal Information” points out a fundamental truth about the universe we see around us. Everywhere we look the universe exhibits order and design. That is true for the inanimate features of the universe and even more true for living creatures. Today we are going to focus on the undeniable elements of design present in living creatures. In the studio we have RD who is an author and the founder of Crystal Sea Books. When we look at the composition of living creatures it’s hard to avoid noticing an amazing level of complexity isn’t it? RD: Yes, it is. Anyone who has ever contemplated the properties of a living cell for even a moment has to recognize that human beings still do not have the ability to create structures or systems with that level of design finesse. Our most elegant examples of technology and advanced design pale in comparison to the complexity present to every cell on the planet. Yet, the most amazing thing is that some people continue to insist that all of that sophisticated complexity could have arisen by chance. So, today we’re going to do more of an in-depth look at the most amazing information storage medium on the planet – DNA. We’re doing this because we want people to have facts that run directly counter to the assertion that random chance could have produced living creatures. VK: Well, just as a brief review to set the stage – we have already learned several critical things about information as a fundament component of the created order. Information stands alongside matter, energy, time, and space as a fundamental component that is evident when we make empirical observations about the universe. The difference between information and these other components is that information is non-material. Speaking technically, information is massless. Information is not created by and does not interact with matter, energy, time, or space. We can use matter and energy to transmit, receive, or store information but neither matter nor energy create information. A chemical formula for apple pie or rocket fuel can be written on the same piece of paper using the same ink. The paper and ink do not create the formula, tell us what is in the formula, or affect the formula in the slightest. Thus, information, differs from other massless parts of the universe like photons which are also massless. But photons can be created by matter and energy and do interact with them. RD: And we have seen during this series that information contains specified sequences, elements, codes, and symbols that are arranged or encoded for a specific purpose to produce specific effects. So, in addition to information being non-material another overarching concept that leaps out at us about information is that information is ordered, organized, and specified. All definitions of information reflect these fundamental attributes. VK: So, in studying these attributes of information one information scientist, Dr. Werner Gitt’s has formulated four laws that describe how information behaves within the universe. The first law is “A material entity cannot generate a non-material entity.” The second law is that “Universal information is a non-material fundamental entity.” The third law of information is that “universal information cannot be created by statistical processes.” Universal information is simply a way of saying that real information possesses the attributes of order, structure, meaning, and potential action that can produce results. This helps us distinguish information from the kind of nonsense that would be produced by a cat walking on a keyboard. The cat might produce some characters on a computer screen that resemble information, but the letters on the screen won’t have order, purpose, or enable meaningful action to take place. RD: Exactly right. These first three laws then lead to a fourth law that will be particularly relevant to our discussion today. The fourth law is that “universal information can only be produced by an intelligent sender.” Anything that has order, specificity, and purpose must reflect intelligence. There are many predicable patterns in nature that are regular and repeating like crystal lattices or ripples spreading across a pond – but those patterns don’t convey meaning or purpose. They may be beautiful but they don’t tell anyone who much sugar to put in the pie or where the treasure is buried. This distinction immediately leads us to our subject today. Many people believe that chemistry can explain everything we need to know about how living creatures function, but it can’t. VK: As Dr. Jonathan Sarfati reminded us when he was a guest on Anchored by Truth, the information stored in DNA cannot be explained by the chemical components of DNA anymore than the chemical components of paper and ink can explain what appears on a printed page. Paper and ink have chemical elements that form them, but it requires intelligence to use that paper and ink to store or transmit information. RD: Yes. I sometimes ask people a sort-of trick question: “Is biology the product of chemistry and physics?” The answer is clearly no. If chemistry and physics could produce biology we could load some carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen into a vat, provide an energy source like electricity or heat, and “poof” out would come some cells –or at least some organic compounds. But we can’t. VK: But some people would say we have already done that. Some people are under the impression that scientists have created life from non-living chemicals in laboratories. RD: Many people are under the misimpression that the famous experiments conducted by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago starting in 1953 produced life. They didn’t. Some of the more accurate reporting noted that the Miller-Urey experiments while not producing life did produce organic material. Even this was a considerable overstatement of what Miller-Urey produced. The Miller–Urey experiments involved filling a sealed glass apparatus with the gases that some scientists had speculated were necessary to form life—methane, ammonia and hydrogen. They thought these gases might be similar to the conditions that they thought were in the early atmosphere. They also included water vapor to simulate the ocean). Next, while a heating coil kept the water boiling, they struck the gases in the flask with a high-voltage (60,000 volts) tungsten spark-discharge device to simulate lightning. Below this was a water-cooled condenser that cooled and condensed the mixture, allowing it to fall into a water trap below. VK: Well, what did they get out of their experiment and why was it so widely regarded as an evolutionary breakthrough? RD: Within a few days, the water and gas mix produced a pink stain on the sides of the flask trap. As the experiment progressed and the chemical products accumulated, the stain turned deep red, then muddy. After a week, the researchers analyzed the substances in the water trap used to collect the reaction products. The dominant solid material was an insoluble toxic carcinogenic mixture called best referred to as tar or resin. Tar or resin a common product that results from organic reactions, including burning tobacco. This tar was analyzed. What Miller and Urey were looking for was amino acids. VK: Why were they looking for amino acids? RD: The basic structure of all life on earth, whether plant or animal, is a cell. Some creatures like bacteria are only a single cell. Human beings contain over 35 trillion cells. Regardless of the number all life on earth is cellular based. Cells are composed of permeable membranes that encase the components of the cell that actually carry on the business of life. Those components include protein “machines” and other things like nucleic acids. The most famous nucleic acid is, of course, deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA. The proteins that make life possible are built from amino acids. Amino acids are small organic compounds consisting of 10 to 20 atoms. There are hundreds of known amino acids but only 20 of those are used by living creatures. VK: So, did they find any amino acids? RD: They didn’t find any amino acids on their first attempt, so Miller modified the experiment and tried again. In time, trace amounts of several of the simplest biologically useful amino acids were formed—mostly glycine and alanine – but the yields were extremely small. Even Miller admitted at the time “The total yield was small for the energy expended.” After hundreds of replications and modifications using techniques similar to those employed in the original Miller–Urey experiments, scientists have only been able to produce tiny amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. The other amino acids require much more complex synthesis conditions. And without all 20 amino acids available as a set most known protein types cannot be produced. VK: That would seem to be a big problem. But there were other very significant problems weren’t there? RD: Yes. There was a huge problem with the material that was produced. Chemists divide amino acids into levorotary and dextrorotary. Levorotary or dextrorotary refer to the “chirality” of the molecule - in simple terms whether the molecule is “left handed” or “right handed.” The amino acids of all living forms are levorotary or left-handed. As organic chemist A.E. Wilder-Smith has noted “If even very small amounts of … the dextrorotary type are present, proteins of a different three dimensional structure are formed, which are unsuitable for life’s metabolism.” VK: In other words, the presence of right-handed amino acids can be lethal. So, did the Urey-Miller experiments ever produce pure left-handed amino acids? RD: No. Nor have any similar experiments since produced pure left-handed amino acids. They always produce a combination of the two kinds of amino acids which chemists call a “racemate.” Usually, the proportion produced in these kinds of experiments is what you’d expect – about 50-50. So, this points out one of big failures of the Urey-Miller experiments to be helpful to the idea that living cells could have been produced randomly. Not only didn’t the experiments produce anything that was “alive” – despite all the media hype, they didn’t even produce the kind of building blocks with which real cells are made. VK: And Urey himself acknowledged this problem. He was once asked how life could have formed spontaneously when living creatures require left-handed amino acids but the lab experiments like his only produce mixtures. His reply was, “Well, I have worried about that a great deal and it is a very important question … and I don’t know the answer to it.” Moreover, that’s just the beginning of the problems pointed out by their experiments. The Urey-Miller experiments used an “atmosphere” that was devoid of oxygen – what is commonly referred to as a “reducing atmosphere.” But the earliest known rocks, even according to the long age conventional theories, all show signs of oxidation. Rust is one common form of oxidation with which we’re all familiar. The presence of oxygen in the early earth atmosphere would be a real problem because oxidation would break down any early organic compounds faster than they could be created. RD: So, many scientists today are trying to explain the origin of life by positing that it occurred near deep sea ocean vents. But for life to form water vapor, ammonia, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and methane must be present to produce the amino acids. Those amino acids must then combine spontaneously into long chains called polypeptides. But polypeptide synthesis won’t take place in the presence of excess water. Excess water would break down the polypeptides into the component amino acids. So, the appeal to life originating near deep ocean vents comes with a problem that is really unsolvable. VK: The point about all of this is that contrary to widespread public opinion scientists have never “created life in a test tube.” Some surveys have found that as much as 75% of the general public believes they have. Further, scientists have never even produced the kind of amino acids living creatures need simply by shooting an energy source through a mixture of chemical elements, even when they preselect for elements that form the proteins required by life. Scientists can produce levorotary amino acids but only through very carefully designed synthesis protocols that aren’t anything close to the processes found in nature. So, far from demonstrating that random forces could have generated the components of life the Urey-Miller experiments actually demonstrated the extreme improbability of that happening. RD: Right. The Urey-Miller experiments were a success – just not a success at showing how easily the components of living creatures can be produced by undirected “natural” processes. The Urey-Miller experiments were a success at demonstrating the extreme improbability of random processes producing the compounds needed by living creatures and the impossibility of those compounds then becoming organized into proteins, nucleic acids, or cells. But even if the Urey-Miller experiments had produced some or most of the necessary amino acids that still wouldn’t have been very helpful to their original aim. VK: Why not? RD: Because presumably in designing their experiments Urey-Miller injected a considerable amount of “intelligence,” into their experiments. Said slightly differently Urey-Miller applied a considerable amount of information when they designed and conducted their experiments. Remember on their first trial they didn’t get anything “useful” for life. So, they redesigned the experiment. This is a clear example of them acquiring and using information in an attempt to show that life could have arisen without intelligence or information. VK: What you’re saying that even if a group of scientists went into a lab, put some chemicals into beakers, provided an energy source, captured any products formed, and then discovered the right kind of amino acids none of that is random. The scientists are the ones picking the chemicals they put in the beaker and they are using information to do that because they already “know the answer.” They already know what chemical elements are present in living creatures and they know the proportions the various elements represent. The scientists already know that all living creatures need a source of energy to sustain their activity, their life. And they have a pretty good idea of what kind of energy must be present. Too much energy living things get fried. Too little energy living creatures die of starvation or freeze to death. Living creatures live within very narrow limits of the type and amounts of energy they need to sustain themselves. But none of that information would be available to an “organic soup” drifting about in a primeval earth being struck by lightning or boiled by volcanic rifts. The absence of information would be fatal – if there was anything living that could die – which there wouldn’t be. Information is the essential component for transforming inanimate chemical elements into living entities. RD: Yes. Scientists studying living things, then determining the constituent parts of those living things, and then attempting to induce similar things to organize into living things doesn’t demonstrate that life could have arisen randomly. It does the exact opposite. Information and its application were present throughout the process that Urey-Miller attempted to construct. As you just said, Information is an essential component for transforming inanimate chemical elements into living entities. An all-mighty, all-wise God could create the elements He wanted. He did on day one. Then on day three He took some of those elements are organized them in such a way that living things emerged. VK: You’re referring to Genesis, chapter 1, verses 11 through 13 which read, “Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.” That’s from the New International Version. RD: Yes. God can create atoms and molecules out of nothing (and he did) because God is infinite in power, wisdom, and sovereignty. God created the atoms and molecules on the first day and then began organizing them into a creation that suited His purposes, including the creation of man on day six. Day three is when he turned those atoms and molecules into the first cells with which He built vegetation. Now, we’re not told expressly when God created the plants that live beneath the seas but it might have been on day three or even day two when the Bible tells us He organized the waters into the seas and the sky. Christians are not left with a dilemma about how hundreds of billions of atoms could all come together at the right place at the right time to make the first living cell. But people who want to leave God out of the arrival of life are. VK: Well, this is a series about information so let’s do a quick check at some of the places information is present in what we know about the process for creating life. Atheists and radical secularists have to figure out how enough hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen arrived at one place and began forming just the right set of chemical bonds to turn those elements into amino acids. So, the first application of information is what elements are going to comprise living creatures. And those aren’t all of the elements that are contained in living creatures. The human body has 21 separate elements some of them in very tiny amounts. Yet despite their relatively small presence they are necessary for us to live. RD: Yes. And it’s not sufficient just to have the elements available. Those elements must combine in just the right way to create twenty different forms of amino acids because those amino acids are going to be necessary to form proteins. The next place information is present is in the chemical structure of the amino acids. And just having the 20 different amino acids doesn’t make a cell or even a protein. Proteins are typically comprised of between 100 to 500 acid “blocks” in a chain. But the proteins don’t just exist as long strings dangling around. The protein string is called its primary structure but then all proteins fold into complicated shapes called their tertiary structure. It’s in their tertiary structure that proteins will interact with one another to perform the functions that sustain life. VK: So, there’s information displayed in how the amino acids are lined up into a particular protein and then, of course, a bunch of free floating proteins doesn’t mean anything is living. Without a permeable cell membrane holding everything together you’d just have a bunch of junk protein. And the cell wall has to be permeable because even though it encloses the cell’s contents energy sustaining materials must come in and waste products must go out. So, there’s more information that describes the membrane’s construction and information that prescribes what energy source is safe for use and what is toxic. And all that is just talking about a single celled organism. We haven’t even begun to think about multi-celled creatures much less mammals and man. There are a great many layers of information necessary to make life, even simple life, possible. RD: Yep. And even if you can get past all those informational barriers all you’ve done is get life going. Cells need instructions for how to operate and, of course, that’s all contained in DNA – which as we are going to see next time actually operates as a four-dimensional information system all by itself. We might have excused Charles Darwin for thinking that living cells are relatively simple constructs but ever since the biomolecular revolution in the 1950’s that excuse has gone away. James Watson and Francis Crick first discovered the structure of DNA in 1953, almost seven decades ago. Since then we’ve mapped the incredible complexity of life in increasingly fine detail including the human genome. Each new discovery adds to our knowledge of how life works but also adds barriers to the idea that random, chaotic forces could have solved the informational puzzle. To this day, no scientist has ever created “life in a test tube” nor have they even produced even the most basic compounds, the right amino acids, from which living creatures are formed. VK: So, as you say physics plus chemistry do not equal biology. Physics plus chemistry plus information equals life. You know it’s just a little bit silly to believe that unintelligent and undirected matter and energy could produce life when even the most intelligent scientists that have lived among us have not been able to do it. That’s one of the reasons King David proclaimed we are “fearfully and wonderfully made.” This sounds like a great time to go to prayer. Today let’s listen to a prayer of corporate confession because we have all fallen short of the standards that God has prescribed for the creatures made in His image. But we can praise Him that there was One who met those standards and then allow us to rest on His perfect merit so we don’t need to rest on our imperfections. ---- PRAYER OF CORPORATE CONFESSION VK: We’d like to remind our audience that a lot of our radio episodes are linked together in series of topics so if they missed any episodes or if they just want to hear one again, all of these episodes are available on your favorite podcast app. To find them just search on “Anchored by Truth by Crystal Sea Books.” If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not perfect but our Boss is!” (Bible Quote from the Good News Translation) Acts, Chapter 17, verses 23 and 24, Good News Translation Why the Miller Urey research argues against abiogenesis (creation.com) The human genome is amazingly complex (creation.com) Four Dimensional Genome (creation.com) We are less than dust (creation.com)

Anna opens up the conversation about Bipolar Disorder; What is it? And how to seek help? With guests; Arlene Bailey, Dr. Lorcan Martin, and Dr. Stanley Miller in addition to our weekly health news with Danielle Barron.

11ª Hipótesis de Miller Teoría de La Sopa Primitiva Los experimentos, que comenzaron en 1953, fueron llevados a cabo por Stanley Miller bajo condiciones simuladas. Que reproducían aquellas que se pensaba que habían existido poco después de que la Tierra comenzara su acreción a partir de la nebulosa solar primordial. Los experimentos se llamaron «experimentos de Miller». El experimento original de 1953 fue realizado por Miller cuando era estudiante de licenciatura y su profesor Harold Urey. El experimento usaba una mezcla altamente reducida de gases (metano, amoníaco e hidrógeno). No obstante la composición de la atmósfera terrestre prebiótica aún resulta materia de debate. Otros gases menos reductores proporcionan una producción y variedad menores. En su momento se pensó que cantidades apreciables de oxígeno molecular estaban presentes en la atmósfera prebiótica, y habrían impedido esencialmente la formación de moléculas orgánicas. Reparemos en el relato …

Since it's inception, evolutionary theory has remained controversial for many. Although one might think only uneducated laypeople find the idea unpalatable, quite a sizeable minority of scientists too struggle to come to terms with Darwinism. In today's episode, Will Barlow explores a number of major scientific objections to evolution, including the Cambrian explosion, mutations as an insufficient mechanism, irreducible complexity, and the fossil record itself. Additionally, he briefly explores the issue of abiogenesis--the presumed starting point for any evolutionary development. Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sdx6kuhRqQY&feature=emb_imp_woyt See below for notes. —— Links —— We are doing follow-up discussions to these episodes on YouTube. Check them out! See other episodes in this Scripture and Science Class Check out Barlow's previous podcast episodes Learn more about and support the church Barlow and his team are starting in Louisville, KY, called Compass Christian Church Find more articles and audios by Barlow on his website: Study Driven Faith Support Restitutio by donating here Designate Restitutio as your charity of choice for Amazon purchases Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Sean Finnegan on Twitter @RestitutioSF Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library. Who is Sean Finnegan?  Read his bio here —— Notes —— Scientific Objections to Evolution • Evidence problems (open scientific questions)• Methodological problems• Evolution or design? Evidence Problems The theory of evolution has several major open problems that are yet to be solved: • The Cambrian Explosion• Mutations The Cambrian Explosion Much of the fossil record could be viewed in a light to support evolution, but the Cambrian Explosion poses a big problem: • The theory of evolution requires slow changes over a long time• Cambrian explosion was a big change in a short period of time Simply put, what is the Cambrian explosion? • Evolution would predict species would diverge and lead to new genera, families, orders, classes, and then phyla• Most animal phyla (and many major classes within them) appear fully formed in the Cambrian period “According to modern paleontologists James Valentine, Stanley Awramik, Philip Signor, and Peter Sadler, the appearance of the major animal phyla near the beginning of the Cambrian is ‘the single most spectacular phenomenon evident in the fossil record.'”— Jonathan Wells, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, page 16. Some scientists have suggested that pre-Cambrian organisms might be too delicate to make good fossils • Recent scientific discoveries have shown that this is untrue• Scientists have found fossils in the Cambrian period that are small and soft tissued Mutations Mutations are considered incredibly important to the evolutionary framework: • Recall that as populations are isolated and different conditions exist, random mutations lead to speciation (according to evolution)• Recent studies on mutation have challenged this understanding “Rather than mutations building up molecular machinery, improving an organism relentlessly, many mutations actually destroyed parts of a creature's DNA, or rendered some of the molecular machinery it coded for ineffective. It turns out that some of the mutations which break things can sometimes have a salutary effect.”— Michael Behe, “God and Evolution,” God is Great, God is Good, page 86. Mutations that break genes can have a positive effect. For example: • If a child receives the gene for sickle cell anemia from one parent and not the other, that child will experience more resistance to malaria Evolutionist Richard Lenski and his team observed a situation in bacteria where two successive mutations improved the survivability of the bacteria.However, there is one problem… “The first mutations to help were the breaking of genes. The bacteria rapidly lost the ability to make the sugar ribose (a component of RNA); for some reason that helped the mutant bacteria compete against non-mutants. A handful of other genes involved in metabolism were also deleted. Some bacteria had their ability to repair DNA badly damaged. Most bacteria lost the ability to metabolize the sugar maltose.” “The mutations were incoherent, scattered in different genes, with no recognizable theme among them. They were not in the process of building any new system in the cell. They simply took advantage of opportunities that helped them grow faster in their current milieu. This is what random mutation does, even when it ‘helps.'”— Michael Behe, “God and Evolution,” God is Great, God is Good, page 89. Methodological Problems The theory of evolution has many methodological problems: • Misleading Evidence for evolution• Irreducible complexity• The fossil record• Origin of life Misleading Evidence for Evolution Proponents of evolution have used several pieces of misleading information: • Haeckel's embryos• Miller's origin of life experiment Haeckel's Embryos If you look at many scientific textbooks, you will find a drawing of Haeckel's embryos.The problem is that they are fake! Miller's Experiment Stanley Miller conducted a series of experiments in 1953 to demonstrate that life could spontaneously arise: • Miller used an atmosphere of hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water vapor — and life appeared!• However, that atmosphere is not the scientifically accepted atmosphere Irreducible Complexity “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”— Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species Michael Behe (professor of biochemistry) believes that there are many examples that violate Darwin's principles.He calls these “irreducibly complex” things “machines.” An “irreducibly complex” system is “a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.”— Behe, Darwin's Black Box, page 39. Behe uses an example from modern life to explain what he means by an “irreducibly complex” system: a mousetrap.Can a mousetrap work without a hammer, spring, or platform? Behe give many examples in his book of systems that, from a biochemical perspective, are irreducibly complex: • Blood clotting• Bacterial flagellum Responses to Behe: • Collins says that most of Behe's examples may have plausible solutions in the future• Dawkins argues that there is not an “all or nothing” nature to certain examples Behe gives• Lenski's experiment showed that bacteria could see successive mutations (two-step machine) The Fossil Record What about the fossil record? It is perhaps the only place where we can scientifically observe speciation (the change in species over time).Jonathan Wells challenges the fossil record. Imagine that you dig in your backyard and find two skeletons! They are both dated to 30 years ago. One is adult sized and the other is half of that.Can you assume a familial relationship? We can apply this type of critical thinking to the fossil record. Just because two fossil specimens look like they are related does not make them related. Consider archaeopteryx. Is it half-bird, half-reptile? Does it fit in the gap that evolutionists want?It does not. The supposed reptilian precursors to this animal are found after it in the fossil record. “We are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of the archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of the transition remain unknown.”—Pierre Lecomte du Nouy, cited in Strobel, The Case for a Creator, page 58. Origin of Life Remember that evolution does not describe the origin of life — the theory begins when life begins.However, it is interesting to challenge abiogenesis theories in conjunction with evolution. Challenges to abiogenesis theories: • The probability of randomly producing a “simple” protein are astronomically low• No natural selection available before life begins Evolution or Design? What is the best conclusion given the evidence? • If we believe in evolution, it still could be consistent with God-designed life and guidance.• If we don't believe in evolution, there is strong evidence for design in the living beings around us.• Either way, atheism doesn't do the best job of explaining the evidence.

Podcast Playlist https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSv6OKbhH4JPB39EGAHhOOHzkpZgXVfQ5 00:00 - Biologist Ken Lyon explores the Origin of Life 00:29 - Where did life come from? 01:21 - To understand life It has to be understood on many different scales 01:51 - Why are some molecules important to life space isotopes? 02:50 - Would life look similar on other planets? 05:31 - Do you like the theory that life started at the bottom of the ocean? 07:07 - What is the anatomy of a thermal vent? 08:00 - Why is the Urey-Miller experiment important for understanding life? 10:50 - How old is biological life in comparison to the Earth itself? 11:33 - How does having amino acids on an early earth lead to life as we know it now? 12:07 - What is the RNA World hypothesis? 13:26 - Breaking down how amino acids might link into nucleobases from pond theory 14:03 - We still don't know how life made sugar (ribose) from inorganic materials 14:51 - The kreb cycle has such small components, some argue it might be fundamental to any organic life on any planet. 16:12 - What is the role of boron in creating silica glass? 17:17 - New experiments show how inorganic life can form the basic components of the Krebs cycle 19:09 - Scientist found more amino acids once Stanley Miller died and they re-analyzed his work 19:45 - How often do grad students reproduce and vary the Urey-Miller experiment? 21:15 - How to pronounce the longest word in English, pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis 21:50 - What is emergence? Can you describe emergence with a Lego metaphor? 23:09 - How does Conway's game of life give us a visual example of how simple rules can lead to complex phenomena 25:50 - Where does information first show up in the steps of life? 30:24 - What are Janus particles And what can we learn from them? 37:28 - How could early organic molecules have evolved to self replicate? 38:46 - Let's try to summarize what we have learned so far 40:32 - What is the Minimotif Synthesis Hypothesis? 41:49 - It's important to understand small chains of amino acids can fold in countless ways 44:17 - RNA World Theory 101 46:31 - Why do amino acids tend to link up naturally? 49:53 - We try to calculate how many viruses are in the room with us 52:16 - Is a virus a life? 52:38 - The story of Henrietta Lacks and her unique cancer cells 54:55 - Do you have an opinion on gene drives? 57:06 - How haplotypes with specific genes can destroy gametes to guide evolution 59:45 - Human have caused the 6th great extinction

Episode 174 – 10 Facts Every Christian Needs to Know 2 Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. Script: Thank you for making me so wonderfully complex! Your workmanship is marvelous—how well I know it. Psalm 139, verse 14, New Living Translation ******** VK: Hello! I’m Victoria K. Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. We’re excited to be with you today as we continue the new series we started last time on Anchored by Truth. So, In the studio today we have RD Fierro. RD is an author and the founder of Crystal Sea Books and he is the one picking the facts we are covering in this series. RD, you’ve entitled this series “10 Facts Every Christian Needs to Know.” I’m sure many listeners would wonder how in the world you settled on the 10 facts that we are including in this series. There are surely thousands of facts that are relevant to the Christian faith. Picking 10 means you have to have done some hard thinking. RD: Well, I’d first like to start by thanking everyone for joining us here today. And you are absolutely right that there are thousands, or perhaps hundreds of thousands of facts that are relevant to the Christian faith. I have wanted to do this series for a while to highlight a couple of key points. First, as we discussed last time the Christian faith is a faith of facts. In other words the Christian faith is a faith that reflects the real world, and not just the world as it is today but the entire history of the world – both natural and human history. One of the ways we can be confident about the truth of the Christian faith is that Christianity permits us to test it by examining its principle source – the Bible – through the lens of logic, reason, and evidence. VK: Now in saying that I want to be sure that people understand that we are not elevating man’s logic over the revelation made in the Bible. What you are saying is that the Bible may be tested in the same way a farmer tests his fruit trees. Jesus gave us this test in Matthew, chapter 12, verse 33 which says, “A tree is identified by its fruit. If a tree is good, its fruit will be good. If a tree is bad, its fruit will be bad.” That’s the New Living Translation version of that verse. We can be sure of the Bible’s trustworthiness because we can evaluate its content for accuracy, reliability, consistency, and relevance. When we do so we see that it possesses the attributes we would expect of a book that claims to be the word of God. The Bible is consistent with what we know about world and human history and it gives evidence of supernatural origin. RD: Yes. We do not judge the Bible. The Bible judges us. But the Bible commands us, to use our minds in worship. In John 10:38, Jesus said to a group of people who were about to stone him, “even though you do not believe me, you should at least believe my deeds, in order that you may know once and for all that the Father is in me and that I am in the Father.” Even Jesus didn’t just demand unquestioning obedience. He gave evidence, and a lot of it, that He was who He said He was. In the same way the Bible provides evidence that it is what it says it is. So, part of what we’re doing in this series is to look at a set of facts that serve the same purpose that Jesus’ deeds did. These facts confirm the Bible and its message. But you are right that deciding on just 10 facts was not easy. VK: So, how did you do it? RD: Whenever I think about the Bible I always try to ensure that I start out with the big story. The Bible is one grand saga – the saga of creation, fall, and redemption. The saga features a chosen people, the Jews, a chosen family, the family of David, and, of course, one central person – the Messiah who was Christ Jesus. Those are the primary actors in this unfolding, grand drama but make no mistake – we are all players on the stage. So, when I started thinking about which facts that pertain to Christianity I went back to the places where the grand saga is so misunderstood in our day and age. And, of course, no surprise the misunderstanding of the story begins at the beginning. VK: It’s obvious to anyone who is paying attention that the book of Genesis is the most attacked book in the Bible. For more than a century and a half the attacks have been relentless. In our culture the belief that all life arose from the random collision of inanimate particles has largely supplanted a belief in the creative activity of God. Even many Christians now fall for the idea that God may have started everything but somehow He used evolution to move life along. Long-age uniformitarianism has replaced the idea that the surface of the earth we see resulted from a catastrophic world-wide flood. Few people now believe that the world wide dispersal of human beings and the proliferation of languages resulted from God correcting the behavior of His people at Babel when they tried to build a tower that would reach the heavens. RD: Yes. As you said Genesis is the most attacked book in the Bible and for good reason. If Satan and his human minions can dispense with the necessity of God as creator they can fill the gap with any nonsense that is convenient at the moment. God as creator means God as regulator and the one idea that fallen people hate is that they are accountable to a holy sovereign. So, the first fact that I chose to feature in this series, and that we addressed on our last episode, is the whole notion of what is sometimes termed “deep time.” The simple fact is that there is abundant scientific evidence that is consistent with the age of the earth and universe being thousands of years old rather than millions or billions of years old. VK: Deep time is essentially the idea that the universe and the earth are billions of years old. The secular world must have deep time in order to maintain the illusion that the General Theory of Evolution is plausible. Evolution needs billions of years of time to change bacteria into biologists. The only supposed creative force evolution has is beneficial mutation - in other words the random interaction of unthinking matter. To make the whole evolutionary hypothesis plausible the scheme needs lots of time. Lots of time is necessary so that lots of those random, chaotic, interactive events can take place. They need untold trillions of those interactions in the hope that a few of them will produce a living being so complex that the code that describe its construction can contain 3 billion data elements. RD: Deep time is the root of the evolutionary weed. Destroy the root and the weed dies. VK: I like that phrase. “Deep time is the root of the evolutionary weed.” It’s graphic but appropriate. So, we addressed the issue of deep time in our last episode of Anchored by Truth. What fact do you want to tackle today? RD: Today I want to address the fact that the complexity of life makes it impossible that life could have arisen as a result of the random collision of atoms and molecules – even if you could explain the existence of the atoms and molecules to begin with. VK: Ok. I think we’re going to need to probe some of the specifics that lead to a statement as definitive as that. RD: I agree. So, let’s start out with the fact that unlike Charles Darwin thought a living cell is not a simple blob of protoplasm. Living cells are enormously complex structures. In fact the simplest living cell is more complex than the most sophisticated machine ever built by man. VK: I think we better get into some specific examples of what you’re thinking about. RD: I agree. So, let’s start with some basic facts about cells. All life on earth is cellular based. We know that there are different types of cells – some have nuclei and some don’t – but all life on earth is based on cells. Some living forms are only a single cell but. Higher forms of life have a great many cells. Recent estimates are that the human body contains 200 different types of cells and about 30 Trillion individual cells. But regardless of whether we’re talking about a single cell bacterium or a human being all life on earth is based on the existence of cells. VK: And we know that all cells are composed of a cell wall, or membrane, that encloses the cells machinery which consists of various proteins. The number of proteins that a particular cell contains varies widely but even the simplest cell contains thousands of individual proteins. Estimates say that the simplest bacterial cell is comprised of at least 100 Billion atoms. That’s Billions with a “B.” In other words, every single cell on earth is a phenomenally complicated system and the complexity of life only increases as we move up the chain. RD: Right. And the sheer numbers only begin to hint at the complexity. All of those protein machines must not only be present but they must be able to properly perform their individual function. Why don’t you go ahead and read that section about cellular composition from Michael Denton’s classic book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis? VK: This is from page 263 from a chapter entitled “The Enigma of Life’s Origin.” The American biochemist Harold Markowitz has speculated as to what might be the absolute minimum requirement for a completely self-replicating cell … Such a cell would necessarily be bound by a cell membrane and the simplest one feasible is probably the typical bilayered lipid membrane utilized by all existing cells. The synthesis of the fats of the cell membrane would require perhaps a minimum of five proteins. A minimum of ten proteins would be required for the nucleotide building blocks of the DNA, and for the DNA synthesis. Such a cell would also require a protein synthetic apparatus for the synthesis of its proteins. If this was along the lines of usual ribosomal system, it would require about eighty proteins. … This is the smallest hypothetical cell we can envisage ... since we have allowed no control functions, no vitamin metabolism and extremely limited intermediary metabolism. RD: So, what Denton was describing was the simplest theoretical cell. Some bacterial cells approach that level of “simplicity” but the cells of higher organisms multiply the level of complexity present within each cell. We can get some idea of how much more complicated higher organisms are by considering DNA. The DNA of the simplest self-reproducing organism, Mycoplasma genitalium, has the smallest known genome of any free-living organism. Its DNA contains 482 genes with 580,000 base pairs. But Mycoplasma can’t actually survive by itself. It only survives by parasitizing more complex organisms, which provide many of the nutrients it cannot manufacture for itself. Mycoplasma has DNA which consists of approximately 500,000 base pairs. Human DNA by comparison consists of 3 Billion base pairs. VK: So, the point of all this is really very simple. Living creatures are enormously complicated systems. Yet the General Theory of Evolution contends that all of this complexity arose as the result of the random collision of bits of matter floating in what is sometimes called a “pre-biotic soup.” Wow. That would have to have been an extremely fortunate accident for 100 Billion of the right atoms to all collide with one another in such a way that a permeable cell wall was instantly formed that contained hundreds of individual proteins that immediately began acting together to sustain and replicate themselves. How do evolutionists address this obvious problem? RD: Well, typically they don’t actually attempt to address the issue of original cellular formation. They try to come at the problem indirectly by talking about how organic pre-cursors may have formed. All of the proteins that comprise cellular machinery are made up of amino acids. So, the evolutionists try to show how these amino acids may have formed without intelligent intervention. That’s one of the reasons the Miller- Urey experiments were so sensationalized during the latter half of the 20th century. VK: In 1953 Harold Urey of the University of Chicago and his 23-year-old graduate student, Stanley Miller. The Miller–Urey experiments involved filling a sealed glass apparatus with gases that had been speculated were necessary to form life—namely methane, ammonia and hydrogen (to mimic the conditions that they thought were in the early atmosphere) and water vapor (to simulate the ocean). Next a heating coil kept the water boiling, and they struck the gases in the flask with a high-voltage to simulate lightning. Below this was a water-cooled condenser that cooled and condensed the mixture, allowing it to fall into a water trap below. The result was a sort of gooey tar mixture that contained some amino acids. And some scientists of the day proclaimed that scientists had created life in a test tube. Some still do and the Miller-Urey experiments is still prominently featured in many textbooks as proof that life arose from non-life. RD: That’s the contention but the truth is that the Miller-Urey experiments not only didn’t create life they proved how difficult it is for life to have arisen randomly. In his well-known book called Algeny Jeremy Rifkin wrote this: “It turns out that the particular amino acids Miller formed in his experiment are totally unsuitable for the formation of life. Chemists divide amino acids into levorotary and dextrorotary. The latter are incapable of supporting life. … For biogenesis to take place all … amino acids of living protoplasm must be levorotary … if even small amounts of the dextrorotary type are present, proteins of a different three dimensional structure are formed, which are unsuitable for life’s metabolism. … Miller’s experiment produced only [combinations of the two types].” VK: One survey of adult Americans believe that as many as 75% of adult Americans believe that scientists have produced life from non-living chemicals but that’s not true is it? RD: No. All similar experiments since Miller-Urey have resulted only in the production of a combination of levorotary and dextrorotary amino acids which as Rifkin said are completely unsuitable to sustain life. So, all of this biochemistry leads us back to where we began in stating our fact for this episode: the complexity of life makes it impossible that life could have arisen as a result of the random collision of inanimate atoms and molecules. VK: Well, as you put it some people believe that chemistry plus physics equals biology. But that’s not true is it? RD: No. And even if a scientist did create “life in a test tube” that would not prove life arose or could arise without intelligent intervention – unless the scientist wanted to claim they themselves were not intelligent! And it is not just that life displays incredible complexity. There are least 3 specific forms of complexity that are present in life: irreducible complexity, specific complexity, and informational complexity. When we speak of “irreducible complexity” we are simply saying that living systems are not only complicated but they must operate as a system. Take one part away or if a single part malfunctions and you don’t just affect that part. The entire system ceases to function. This is very similar to mechanical systems with which we are more familiar. Someone may drive a car worth $100,000 but you can take away a $3 spark plug wire or valve stem out of a tire and the whole car stops. The failure of a single, seemingly insignificant part stops the entire system from functioning. VK: The most graphic example of the failure of a single part stopping an enormously complicated system was the 1986 Challenger disaster. According to Wikipedia “The disaster was caused by the failure of the two redundant O-ring seals in a joint in the Space Shuttle's right solid rocket booster (SRB). The record-low temperatures of the launch reduced the elasticity of the rubber O-rings, reducing their ability to seal the joints. The broken seals caused a breach into the joint shortly after liftoff, which allowed pressurized gas … to leak and burn through the wall to the adjacent external fuel tank. This led to the separation of the right-hand [solid rocket booster’s] aft attachment, which caused it to crash into the external tank, which caused a structural failure of the external tank and an explosion.” RD: Yes. Most people don’t realize that there are dozens of biochemical reactions that must be present for vision to occur. Remove a single one and even though the eye itself might be fine the entire system fails. But the complexity of life is not just irreducible it is also specified. The example most often given of specified complexity is language. We can have a very long sequence of random letters – hundreds, thousands, or millions yet without specificity most of that series will be meaningless. VK: An analog might be if we filled a swimming pool with a child’s letter blocks. There would be enormous complexity in the jumble of blocks but how much meaning would be present. If we started pulling out blocks one at a time, occasionally we will pull out a sequence of 2 or 3 letters that has meaning. The letter “t” and “o” might come out and that means something. Then we pull a “p” and that means something because now we have “top.” But after that, then what? If we pulled out another “p” we could be on our way to “topple” but how likely would we pull out the “l” and “e” in that order? So, a physical situation can be enormously complex but meaningless. But that is not at all how life exists. RD: And with your letter blocks in the pool analogy we start to see the impossibility of aligning the 100 Billion atoms in the simplest cell by random interaction. Specified complexity means that the complexity has been so arranged that it produces use, meaning, or in the ultimate expression – life. Life, all life, exhibits specified complexity. Cells not only have billions of atoms but all of those atoms are organized into micro-machines that perform specific purposes and all those micro-machines must work together properly or the system fails. VK: So, specified complexity leads us to the conclusion that life contains informational complexity. Back to your formula – chemistry plus physics does not equal biology. Nor does the addition of time complete the package for life. Chemical plus physical systems that have been around for a while are just old systems. What transforms chemistry plus physics into biology is information. You might say that information is necessary for animation. Right? RD: Right. There’s a great book that discusses this need thoroughly and compellingly called In the Beginning was Information. Informational complexity is exhibited in all living systems but it is most potently exhibited in DNA. DNA is far more than just a series of hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and other elements clinging together in long molecular strings. DNA is an information storage system that is far more complicated, at its simplest, than the most sophisticated human information system. Originally it was thought that the genes that DNA contains controlled the attributes of the creature. It was thought that one gene controls one attribute. VK: But that’s not true at all is it? RD: No. The genes of all higher order animals are pleiotropic which means that most genes control or contribute to the control of multiple aspects of the creature. Moreover, we now know that DNA differs greatly from human information systems in that it is not two dimensional in its storage capacity. It is three dimensional. It can be read not just right to left but left to right and even up and down. In some cases some parts of the code are skipped in providing instructions to the cell while in other cases that part of the code is used. And there is a relatively new discipline called “epigenetics” which tells us that contrary to long standing ideas certain characteristics acquired by an individual during their lifetime can be passed immediately to their descendants. VK: It used to be thought that there was an absolute barrier between what are referred to as “somatic” cells and “germ” cells. Somatic cells are used to build the “body” of the creature. “Germ” cells are reproductive cells. It was thought that there was an absolute barrier between the two and it was called the Weismann barrier. But the latest science indicates that isn’t always true. Yet all of this amazing complexity must be specified somewhere with the DNA. The big point is that living beings do not and cannot exist without enormous information systems being present in every component of the living creature – the cell. RD: Right. The simplest cell will not work if its component parts don’t function properly individually and collectively. The same is true for body systems that those cells build. That’s irreducible complexity. The cells and body systems must be organized in very specific ways. They must exist as systems that have utility, function, and purpose so they must have been developed and must be maintained in very specific configurations. In other words, they are specified in their design and function. That’s specified complexity. And present throughout all living creatures are incomprehensible amounts of information. And the information is not a direct consequence of the underlying chemistry any more than the information on the page of a book is dependent on the chemistry of the ink and paper. The information present in living creatures transcends the physical storage apparatus in the same way that the information contained in a computer has nothing to do with chips, plastic, wires, or metal. And information is the exact opposite of randomness and chaos. Chaotically derived information is not only ridiculous it is impossible. VK: Well, as you said the complexity of life makes it impossible that life could have arisen as a result of the random collision of atoms and molecules – even if you could explain the existence of the atoms and molecules to begin with. And even King David knew that 3,000 years ago as our opening verse from Psalm 139 demonstrated. Life is complex – irreducibly, specifically, and informationally. But let’s hasten to add that as complex as it is to us, it presents no challenge to an omniscient God. Today let’s listen to a prayer for children who are getting ready to go back to school. And let’s remember that as important as education is to our children parents must always be alert to what their kids are being taught in school, especially public schools. That’s one of the reasons it is so important for us to ground ourselves firmly in facts so we can correct the impressions that circulate so widely today – such as the idea that evolution can explain the marvelous complexity of life. Evolution can’t but the Bible does. ---- PRAYER FOR CHILDREN STARTING SCHOOL VK: Before we close we’d like to remind our audience that a lot of our radio episodes are linked together in series of topics so if they missed any episodes in this series or if they just want to hear one again, all of these episodes are available on your favorite podcast app. To find them just search on “Anchored by Truth by Crystal Sea Books.” If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not perfect but our Boss is!” (Opening Bible Quotes from the New Living Translation) Psalm 139,verse 14, New Living Translation How simple can life be? - creation.com Why the Miller Urey research argues against abiogenesis - creation.com C14 dinos - creation.com

En este video vas a conocer algunas de las hipótesis científicas que explican como es que se origino la vida en nuestro planeta, y por que no hasta quizás en otros(? A continuación te dejo los minutos en los que vas a poder encontrar el desarrollo de cada una de las teorías (porque soy lo mejor del mundo y quiero ahorrarte tiempo en tus tareas). 01:25 - Caldo primordial (Oparin) 02:30 - Stanley Miller 04:22 - Microesferas (Sidney Fox) 05:37 - El mundo del ARN 06:53 - Panspermia Si te gustó el video ponele me gusta y suscribite! Y si te gustaria sugerir el tema del próximo video, te leo atentamente en los comentarios!!! Puedes apoyarme a seguir creando contenido por aquí! https://cafecito.app/undatodecolor Seguime en mis redes así estas al tanto de todas las pavadas que subo que juro que son super interesantes!!! IG: https://www.instagram.com/guille_bio/ Tw: https://twitter.com/guille_bio Fb: https://www.facebook.com/undatodecolor Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3B346oVlGvKoY9tLZR1n0l?si=0RfA80P2Q-SjD2MkkkOBRw #ciencia #biologia #vida --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/undatodecolor/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/undatodecolor/support

Sabemos más de algunas lunas y planetas que de las profundidades marinas... El 80 por ciento no han sido cartografiadas y apenas se sabe de la vida en las zonas abisales, donde la luz no llega, las condiciones de presión y temperatura son duras y su exploración requiere de tecnología avanzada. Sin embargo, poco a poco vamos desplazando esa última frontera. Una investigación internacional ha realizado la mayor secuenciación de muestras de ADN de esa región de los océanos y ha descubierto que existe una gran diversidad y que la mayoría de las especies son desconocidas. Hemos entrevistado a Covadonga Orejas, investigadora del Instituto Español de Oceanografía y coautora del estudio. La COVID 19 ha provocado un incremento de trastornos mentales como ansiedad, estrés o depresión. Verónica Fuentes, nos ha informado de un macroestudio con 150.000 personas que revela que el riesgo se mantiene hasta un año después de la infección. Carlos Briones nos ha hablado del famoso experimento de Stanley Miller que reproducía las condiciones de la Tierra primitiva. Según un reciente estudio, de haber tenido en cuenta el material de los matraces los resultados habrían sido muy distintos. Con Jesús Puerta hemos empezado la historia de los aceleradores de partículas, los instrumentos empleados por los físicos para conocer la intimidad de la materia. Javier Ablanque nos ha llevado en su máquina del tiempo a 1947 para conocer un artilugio de espionaje denominado Burán que fue desarrollado por Leon Theremin. Este sistema de escuchas podía registrar y traducir las vibraciones causadas en el cristal por las conversaciones. De la mano de Esther García, hemos viajado a Taiwán para visitar el péndulo del rascacielos Taipei 101, en su día el más alto del mundo. Escuchar audio

On today's ID the Future, biologist Jonathan Wells and host Eric Anderson discuss a recently discovered problem with the famous Miller-Urey experiment, long ballyhooed in biology textbooks as dramatic experimental evidence for the naturalistic origin of life. The newly uncovered problem involves the glassware used in the experiment. It is an interesting finding, but as Wells explains, it is far from the first problem discovered with the experiment, nor the most serious one. While biology textbooks often present the 1952 experiment by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey as a key icon of evolution, even those origin-of-life researchers who hope to one day to discover a credible naturalistic scenario for the origin of the first living cell concede that the experiment Read More › Source

Today's ID the Future offers a sneak peek at the new book Taking Leave of Darwin: A Longtime Agnostic Discovers the Case for Design by Neil Thomas (Discovery Institute Press). Here Scotsman Andrew McDiarmid reads from a Chapter 2 segment titled “The Elusive First Step.” Much of the book is a critical examination of Darwin's theory of biological evolution, in its original and updated forms; but here Thomas takes up Darwin's proposal for the unguided origin of the first living cell. Thomas, like others before, points up the persistent and growing problems with a designer-free origin of life, but here he also explores some of the cultural influences that primed society to view the leap from non-life to life as Read More › Source

Por Marco Antonio Peres Sou leitor assíduo da Folha de São Paulo, principalmente quando os assuntos são economia e política Um dia que tinha um pouco mais de tempo fui ler a página “ciência”, devo esclarecer que este meu dia estava em seu final. O título era chamativo: “Equipe cria ‘tijolos primordiais' da vida”. O subtítulo era sugestivo: Experimento dos EUA mostra que molécula prima do DNA, que contém os genes, pode ter surgido “do nada”. Explicava o artigo que, cientistas da Universidade da Califórnia, em San Diego, conseguiram reconstruir reações que teriam originado a primeira molécula “viva” na Terra. Eles conseguiram imitar o ambiente necessário para a formação dos ingredientes do RNA (ácido ribonucléico), uma molécula “prima” do DNA (ácido desoxirribonucléico), que contem os genes. O experimento sugere que o RNA pode de fato ter sido a primeira molécula vital - molécula que tem a capacidade de se duplicar - explicam os cientistas que a capacidade de duplicação, presentes em todos os seres vivos, é o que define o termo “vida”. Os cientistas esclareciam que conseguiram produzir em laboratório dois dos quatros “tijolos” que formam a molécula do RNA: a citosina e a uracila (0s outros dois são guanina e timina). Existia a teoria, faltava à prova da possibilidade de formação a partir de substâncias simples, existentes há 4 bilhões de anos. Provaram os cientistas a possibilidade de surgir os dois “tijolos” - citosina e uracila - a partir de uma solução de uréia concentrada. Acredita-se que a uréia estivesse presente em grande quantidade em vários ambientes terrestres, como em lagoas em evaporação. Registrava o artigo que a citosina produzida no experimento foi suficiente, para os cientistas, provarem o surgimento da uracila; através de uma reação chamada hidrólise (em que a água “quebra” uma molécula em outras menores). Um dos cientistas, Stanley Miller, o outro foi Michael Robertson, foi um dos primeiros pesquisadores a propor que as condições existentes na atmosfera da Terra eram propícias à formação de moléculas orgânicas (que contêm carbono, presentes nos seres vivos). Como afirmei esta minha leitura estava se passando no final do dia, próximo a meia noite, e adormeci. Sonhei que estava sonhando. Neste sonho localizei um lugar maravilhoso, sentei-me de pernas relaxadas e saboreei a euforia de meu ser. O dia estava brilhante, sol vivo e o céu limpo. Ali sentado, impressionou-me a proximidade de tudo: chão, árvores, rochas, nuvens, etc. Na ilusão, estiquei um dos meus braços ao céu, percebi uma coisa diferente na maneira como sentia meu corpo. Meu braço deslizava para cima, e levava meu corpo a deslizar pelo espaço. Era leveza total. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/malhete-podcast/message

My AP Biology ThoughtsEpisode #12Welcome to My AP Biology Thoughts podcast, my name is Helena and I am your host for episode 12 called Unit 7 Evolution on Miller and Urey..  Today we will be discussing the first experiment to prove that organic molecules can be formed from inorganic compounds. Segment 1: Introduction to the Miller Urey experiment Stanley Miller and Harold Urey were biochemists at the University of Chicago in 1952, who wanted to explore how life came to be billions of years ago. They created an experiment that was meant to simulate the conditions that they believed could have existed on young earth billions of years ago, around the time the first life was thought to have formed. The point of their experiment was to test what kind of environment needed in order to create life. Their experiment tested Primordial Soup Theory developed by both Alexander Oparin and J.B.S. Haldane. The theory states that energy (lighting and rain) energized the gases in earth's early atmosphere to create simple organic compounds that formed an organic “soup”. This soup eventually turned into complex organic polymers and lastly life.  Segment 2: Example of Miller Urey experiment Miller and Urey tested this theory by designing an experiment in which they used a glass flask attached with a pair of electrodes, to hold water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen, which were the main components of young earth's atmosphere. This flask was connected to another flask that was half filled with water, and held over a heating source. When the water was heating it vaporized and mixed with the gas mixture. As this was happening electrical sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lighting. This simulated atmosphere was cooled so the water condensed in order for it to sink into a U-shaped trap at the bottom of the apparatus. After a day the solution in the trap turned pink, and at the end of the week they removed the boiling flask and added mercuric chloride to prevent microbial contamination. They stopped the reaction by adding barium hydroxide and sulfuric acid. They then evaporated it to remove impurities. They found that 10%-15% of carbon present was in the form of organic compounds. Miller and Urey used paper chromatography and found that 2% of the carbon went into amino acids, including 13 of 22 amino acids essential to make proteins in living cells, glycine being the most abundant.  Segment 3: Digging Deeper into Miller Urey experimentWhile the experiment only created organic molecules and not a living biochemical system (which in reality would take thousands of years), the results were still, to a large extent, enough to prove the primordial soup hypothesis. This is significant because the experiment was the first to show that organic molecules can be formed from inorganic compounds. It also inspired various other experiments, building more evidence for this theory of the origin of life. Thank you for listening to this episode of My AP Biology Thoughts. For more student-ran podcasts, make sure that you visithttp://www.hvspn.com/ ( www.hvspn.com). Thanks for listening!  Music Credits:"Ice Flow" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Subscribe to our PodcastApple Podcasts Spotify Google Podcasts   Stitcher   https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC07e_nBHLyc_nyvjF6z-DVg (YouTube) Connect with us on Social Media Twitterhttps://twitter.com/thehvspn ( )https://twitter.com/thehvspn (@thehvspn)

Today’s ID the Future features Part 1 of an extended interview that first appeared on a podcast show hosted by distinguished Rice University synthetic organic chemist James M. Tour. As he typically does, since it’s the Science & Faith podcast, Dr. Tour begins his show by asking his guest for a statement of faith. Miller, a Christian, gives his, and then they dive into origin-of-life science. In a surprisingly accessible discussion given the depth of the material, the pair cover a range of issues—thermodynamics and the origin of the first cell, entropy, free energy, order and disorder, molecular engines, non-equilibrium thermodynamics, and the need for engines and information to overcome the vicissitudes of entropy. Also in the mix—feedback loops, Jeremy Read More › Source

This week Gareth Hopkins (Petricor, Thunders) joins the gang once again to talk about comics, his work and join in on this weeks fun chat about comic book cover that we like, and some not so much! It's a fun talk about the good, the bad and in some cases the WTF of the comic book cover world. Plus there's great indie book recommendations and plenty of laughs! HERE ARE THE COVERS WE TALK ABOUT ON THIS EPISODE! Great stuff to check out this week - Gareth Hopkins, Petricor, Thunders, Batman Adventures, Captain America, House of Secrets, Ernie Chan, The Midnight Howl, The S Factor, Henry and Stanley Miller, Yeast, Darren, Bad Dreams, Grenade, Will Kirkby, Kia Wordsmith, Ian Ashcroft, Accent UK CLICK HERE TO GET COPIES OF OUR ANTHOLOGY - AWESOME COMICS Let us know what you think! Email: awesomecomicspod@gmail.com  Join the discussion today at our facebook group Awesome Comics Talk Check out the folks who sponsor this lil show - the mighty folks at Comichaus! If you love our Intro/Outro music, then check out the brilliant Chad Fifer and more of his musical badassery at www.chadfifer.bandcamp.com

Heute vor 90 Jahren wurde der Biologe und Chemiker Stanley Miller geboren, bekannt für sein Experiment zun Ursprung des Lebens.

Yaşam nedir ve belki daha da önemlisi, neden var? Ahlaki veya teolojik bir soru değil benimkisi; milyonlarca yıl önce, dünyada hiçbir yaşam varlık göstermezken, nasıl oldu da ilk canlılar ortaya çıktı? İşte, çıktılar bir şekilde! Ama nasıl? Fiziksel teorilerle bunu anlayabilir miyiz, yoksa sadece deneye mi başvurmalıyız? Bütün bu soruların henüz kesin bir cevabı yok, ama son birkaç yıl içerisinde yapılan atılımlarla, ciddi fikirlerimiz oluşmaya başladı. Yeryüzünde canlılığın ortaya çıkışı ile ilgili pek çok teori ve varsayım mevcut. Bunlar arasında en kabul göreni, ki deneysel olarak en azından çalışırlığı gösterilmiş olanı “ilkel çorba modeli”[1]. Ta lisedeki derslerden de hatırlayabileceğiniz gibi, bu teori atmosferdeki karbondioksit ve azot gazları ile okyanuslardaki suların (aynı zamanda su buharının) belli sıcaklıklarda ve belli çevresel etkenlerin varlığı altında, mesela güneşten gelen morötesi ışınlar sayesinde zaman içerisinde organik molekülleri üretmek üzere bir araya geleceği üzerine kurulu. Kısaca hatırlayalım; ilkel atmosferde yoğun olarak karbondioksit, metan ve azot gazları mevcuttu. Aynı zamanda yeryüzünde de sıvı halde su vardı. Ortam şimdikine göre daha sıcaktı ve çok şiddetli yıldırımların oluştuğu, şimşeklerin çaktığı hareketli bir hava durumu vardı. Eğer aynı ortamı bir deney düzeneğinde tekrarlarsanız, ortamdaki gazların su ile tepkimeye girerek öncül amino asitleri ve diğer temel organik bileşikleri oluşturduklarını görürsünüz. Elbette, bu tepkimeler için gereken enerji de ortam sıcaklığı ve yıldırımlar ile sağlanıyor. Ortaya çıkan öncül bileşikler zaman içerisinde bir araya gelerek daha karmaşık yapıları üretiyor. Alexander Oparin ile John Haldene’in geliştirdiği Harold Urey ve Stanley Miller [2] tarafından da doğruluğu test edilen bu model, ilkel yaşamın ne şekilde ortaya çıkmış olabileceğine ışık tutuyor. İlkel atmosferden esinlenerek yaratılmiş bir görsel. Hem aktif atmosfer hareketleri, hem de diğer dış etmenler çorbada hayat için gerekli enerjiyi sağlıyordu. Kaynak: archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com Karmaşık organik bileşiklerin varlığı illa ki canlı hayatı göstermiyor. Oluşan bu bileşikler pekala hiçbir canlılık aktivitesi göstermeden de varlıklarına devam edebilir. Yani, doğum, kendi ihtiyacı olan molekülleri üretme, çoğalma ve ölüm. O halde, bunları bir araya getirip canlılığı ortaya çıkaran güç nedir? Aklınızdan geçen her neyse, bunun cevabı termodinamik ve enerji-entropi ilişkisinde gizli. Hemen kısaca termodinamik ile enerji ve entropiden bu yazı ile ilgili olduğu kadar bahsedelim. Termodinamik, anlam olarak ısı hareketi demektir ve temelde enerjinin, yani iş yapabilme yetisinin nasıl diğer enerji formlarına, özellikle de işe ve ısıya dönüştüğünü inceleyen oldukça kadim bir bilim dalıdır. Entropi ise, termodinamiğin en önemli değişkenlerinden birisi olup sistemdeki düzensizliği ifade etmede kullanılır. Bir sistem ne kadar düzensizse, yani ne kadar çok farklı durumda bulunabiliyorsa, entropisi de o kadar yüksektir. Termodinamiğin dört yasasından bir tanesi enerjinin yoktan var edilip vardan da yok edilemeyeceğini söyler; kısacası enerji kapalı bir sistemde sabittir (eğer evrenimizin dışında bir şey yoksa, evrenin de toplam enerjisi sabittir). İkinci yasa ise, ki aslında bize zamanın akış yönünü verir, kapalı bir sistemdeki entropinin azalmayacağını söyler; ne yaparsanız yapın toplam entropiyi düşüremezsiniz. Yine eğer evrenimiz dışında herhangi bir şey yoksa, evrenin entropisi, yani düzensizliği, sürekli artmak zorundadır. Eğer entropiniz daha fazla artmıyorsa, denge durumu dediğimiz duruma gelmişsiniz demektir, yani artık fiziksel olarak daha başka bir değişim gözlemleyemeyeceksiniz. Canlılar içinse bu, ölüm demek. Entropi ya sabit kalacağı ya da sürekli artacağı için, entropinin artışını izleyerek zamanın hangi yönde aktığına karar verebilirsiniz; eğer odanın için sıktığınız parfüm şişesine geri dönüp orada yoğunlaşmaya başlıyorsa,

To listen and download Part One, please follow this link to Kevin DuRard's Beatport page: http://mixes.beatport.com/mix/nocturnegy-best-of-2014-pt-1-kevin-durard-mix/212224^14^ Cedric Gervais f. Miley Cyrus - Adore You (Extended Club Remix) ^15^ Ariana Grande f. Zedd - Break Free (Noodles Extended) ^16^ Kiesza - Hideaway (Dzeko & Torres Remix) ^17^ Rave Radio f. Chris Willis - Feel the Love ^18^ Meghan Trainor - All About That Bass (JNR Vs. David Guetta Dub) ^19^ Bright Lights & 3LAU - How You Love Me (Arston Remix) ^20^ Lady Gaga f. Christina Aguilera - Do What U Want (Steven Redant Barcelona Remix) ^21^ Jennifer Lopez - First Love (Edson Pride Remix) ^22^ Offer Nissim f. Maya Simantov - Everybody Needs a Man (Club Mix) ^23^ Havana Brown - Warrior (Dave Audé Remix) ^24^ Taylor Swift - Shake It Off (Ranny's Sunset Mix) ^25^ Sia - Chandelier (DJ Aron Summer Remix) ^26^ Taito Tikaro & Flavio Zarza f. Stanley Miller - Lovin You ^27^ Armin van Buuren f. Laruen Evans - Alone (Extended Mix) ^28^ Mr. Probz - Waves (Robin Schulz Remix) Click here for a high quality continuous mix file (256 kbs)

How do we look for life beyond Earth? And how did it first get started down here? To help us take on these big questions, we explore the science of SETI and the chemistry of creating life. Plus, science gets cinematic as we meet the scientific adviser for Prometheus, and find out how his work could help us understand alien atmospheres. In the news, how to sequence a baby using just the mother's blood, and the simple intervention that could prevent millions of malaria cases. In Question of the Week, can we create life in the lab from just elements and heat? Like this podcast? Please help us by supporting the Naked Scientists

How do we look for life beyond Earth? And how did it first get started down here? To help us take on these big questions, we explore the science of SETI and the chemistry of creating life. Plus, science gets cinematic as we meet the scientific adviser for Prometheus, and find out how his work could help us understand alien atmospheres. In the news, how to sequence a baby using just the mother's blood, and the simple intervention that could prevent millions of malaria cases. In Question of the Week, can we create life in the lab from just elements and heat? Like this podcast? Please help us by supporting the Naked Scientists

Experimentos olvidados hace medio siglo nos revelan nuevos datos sobre el origen de la vida. En 1953, Stanley Miller, de la Universidad de Chicago, sometió a mezclas de gases que supuestamente formaban la atmósfera de la Tierra primitiva a descargas eléctricas de 60.000 voltios (que simulaban rayos producidos en tormentas). El análisis de los compuestos generados reveló la formación de moléculas orgánicas, sin embargo, algunos de los aminoácidos más importantes, en particular los que contienen átomos de azufre, nunca aparecieron. Ahora, nuevos análisis aportan datos reveladores.

National Geographic Channel 2009 As far as we know, life is unique to Earth. So how did it come to be? And why here? We’ve all wondered about the origins of life, but one scientist in San Diego believes that he and his mentor found the answer. Dr. Jeffrey Bada at UC San Diego, sheds new light on renowned scientist Stanley Miller’s controversial experiment from a half century ago. Like Miller, Bada recreates conditions on Earth before life began 4 billion years ago. But this time, Bada introduces 21st century technology that Miller could only dream of. While cameras roll, the San Diego scientist mixes up a batch of “primordial ooze,” then, similar to the mythical Dr. Frankenstein, zaps it with a bolt of electricity—“primordial lightning.” The results? Amino acids, the building blocks of all life. It was this stunning experiment that first demonstrated that life could have evolved spontaneously from a combination of chemical processes present on early Earth. Still, how could these amino acids evolve to become bacteria, animals, and eventually humans? How did life start reproducing itself from something that isn’t alive?