However, the "problem" still remains, right?
not to me, it doesn't. the last 23 years of discoveries have filled in so much of the "missing" information that I see an easy trend toward not needing to fear those "problems". Back to the atomic thoery and the atomic bomb analogy - in 1940, most people would not have thought that the bomb was possible.
Today, most people don't think that creating life in the lab will be possible. Historical trends suggest otherwise.
saquist said:
The Principle Steps for the Origin of Life...
Roughly, yes. However, there is much more detail available in how that membranes and hereditary molecules could have come about. Not to mention that rudimentary heretitary information could have existed prior to our fancy DNA system; #5 is compressed beyond a point that I would consider accurate.
saquist said:
30 years or more later, scientist were still unable to experimentally to produce all the 20 necessary amino acids under conditions that could be considered likely. You tell me has anything changed?
There was a link provided already to someone who attempted to reproduce that experiment, and it talked about other failed attempts to mimic the results with different chemical compositions.
Back in 1996, I asked my biology teacher why, if the Uery-Miller experiment created amino acids so effectively, someone didn't set up the same experiment and let it run untouched for 15 years. She had no answer. I still wonder this. You question is valid, but I thihnk it needs to be taken a step further - *why* haven't those 16 been created? Have been been trying and failing? have people not been trying? How have people been structuing thier experiments?
Why hasn't there been a stronger push to try and create the remaining amino acids in those 20? I honestly have to say that I don't know. I've wondered this out loud for the past 10 years. Maybe it's hard to get funding for such 'boring' experiments these days. Or maybe the studies have happened, and have all failed. I don't like the current "publish or die" push in academics, and certainly articles on "we didn't get amino acids again!!" would have a hard time getting published - to everyone's detriment.
Despite these problems, ton has changed in the general mindset of both society and the scientific community since 1953. For one, I don't think that it is still considered that all 20 amino acids are required for life. Our current understanding of viruses and prions suggest today a much more gradual path from non-living to living matter than was expected 54 years ago. Why are those 20 considered "required"?