|
Q
|
Are you familiar with the work of a fellow named Miller?
|
|
A
|
Stanley Miller?
|
|
Q
|
I believe so, yes, sir.
|
|
A
|
There are a lot of people named Miller.
|
|
Q
|
Are there any Millers other than Stanley Miller that would be working in your particular area of endeavor?
|
|
A
|
Not that I'm aware of.
|
|
Q
|
Did Mr. Miller, or let's say Doctor Miller, did Doctor Miller come up with anything unusual in the 1950's in his
research?
|
|
A
|
Yes.
|
|
Q
|
What did he come up with?
|
|
A
|
In Miller's experiments, he took a system of methane, ammonia and water, and in a closed system he provided
energy through an electrical, high frequency electrical spark discharge, and he demonstrated the synthesis of amino
acids, carbocyclic [sic, carboxylic] acids, and other prebiotic intermediates.
|
|
Q
|
Who was the previous historian, excuse me, the previous scientist in history who dealt with that same subject
matter on a significant basis?
|
|
A
|
The origin of life?
|
|
Q
|
Yes.
|
|
A
|
Prior to the Miller experiment, I would say that the leading name in that field was A. I. O'Parin [sic, Oparin].
|
|
Q
|
And prior to that?
|
|
A
|
Prior to that, in a sense, the field didn't really exist.
|
|
Q
|
Why was that?
|
|
A
|
Because people believed through the 1800's that life arose spontaneously all the time; that maggots arose and
became meat [sic], and mice old piles of rags [sic], and so forth and so on. And as long as people [p. 103] believed
that, there was no need to have a theory of the origin of life.
|
|
Q
|
Who put that theory to rest?
|
|
A
|
Louis Pasteur.
|
|
Q
|
And what were Doctor Pasteur's experiments?
|
|
A
|
Basically his final experiments that were most persuasive in this field consisted of flasks of sterile medium to
which no organisms were admitted, and these flasks remained sterile for long periods of time.
|
|
Q
|
So?
|
|
A
|
Meaning no growth of living organisms occurred in them.
|
|
Q
|
What work has been done since Stanley Miller's work in the area of generating life in the laboratory?
|
|
A
|
Well, there have been some several thousand experiments on the, of the type done by Miller, follow-up
experiments, where various energy sources have been flowed [sic, have flowed]; there have been the flow of
various kinds of energy through systems of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen, and there has been a study of
the kinds of molecules that are produced in such energy flow systems. These experiments universally show that the
flow of energy through a system orders it in a molecular sense.
|
|
Q
|
Has anybody created life by the flow of energy?
|
|
A
|
Have any of those experiments resulted in the synthesis of a living cell? Is that the question?
|
|
Q
|
Yes, sir.
|
|
A
|
No. Not to my knowledge, anyway.
|
|
Q
|
Would you say that this area has received intensive scientific scrutiny in the scientific community?
|
|
A
|
Yes.
|
|
Q
|
Do you have any explanation of why you have not been able to synthesize life in the laboratory?
|
|
A
|
It's an extremely difficult problem.
|
|
Q
|
What is the difficult—
|
|
A
|
I would point out to you that we have put far more money into trying
to cure cancer, and that is still an unsolved problem, also. We have put far more time, money, effort and human
endeavor into that problem, and that is also an unsolved problem because it is a very difficult problem.
|
|
Q
|
What is the information you need to accomplish that?
|
|
A
|
To accomplish the synthesis of a living cell?
|
|
Q
|
Yes, sir.
|
|
A
|
Two kinds of information. One is the detailed understanding of the chemical structure of the small molecules,
micro molecules, organelles and other structures that make up a living cell. And secondly, one has [p. 104] to know
the kinetic processes by which those structures came about in prebiotic systems.
|
|
Q
|
In perusing some of the literature that you've written last night, I came up with an article which would seem to
indicate that [you] sincerely believe that given enough time and research, that you or scientists like you can
ultimately go back to the ultimate combinations of atoms which led to the formation of molecules.
|
|
A
|
That is not a question.
|
|
Q
|
Do you recall an article to that effect?
|
|
A
|
Well, you said "we can go back to that" and then there should be an 'and' clause, 'and do some things'.
|
|
Q
|
Do you believe that you can go back and ultimately understand how atoms combined to form molecules?
|
|
A
|
That is a branch of chemistry. That is rather well understood.
|
|
Q
|
Well, I'm talking about the first molecules on the surface of the earth. Do you understand my question?
|
|
A
|
No, I don't. |
|
MR. CHILDS: May I approach the witness, your Honor? |
|
THE COURT: Yes.
|
|
Q
|
The article that I have is Biology as a Cosmeological [sic, Cosmological] Science,
reprinted from Main Currents and Modern Thought, volume 28, number 5, May through June, 1972.
Page 50 to, well, the page number I have on this is 615186. The first column is in brackets. I'd like you to read that
paragraph, please.
|
|
A
|
"If we are able to obtain the kind of theory of self-order, this kind of theory of self-ordering should challenge us
to apply the most profound insights we can muster to link biology to non-equilibrium physical chemistry."
"The job seems very formidable indeed, but the rewards could be very great; the ability to seek out our origins in
terms of a law that would promulgate our action. This is truly a new frontier, and one that challenges the maximum
intellectual effort of which we are all capable."
|
|
Q
|
Do I understand this paragraph to mean that you believe that you and scientists from the scientific community
can explain the origins of man in terms of the laws of atomic interaction?
|
|
A
|
I believe that the origin of life can be explained in terms of the laws of atomic interactions. [Smith 1982a, p. 585,
l. 25, to p. 590, l. 25]
|
|
Q
|
Is your theory that—Let me start over. Do you know how life formed on the surface of the earth?
|
|
A
|
I have a theory of how life formed on the surface of the earth.
|
|
Q
|
Have you been able to take that theory and create life in the laboratory?
|
|
A
|
No. [Smith 1982a, p. 600, l. 20, to p. 601, l. 1]
|
