pmd@cbscc.UUCP (01/29/84)
From "Origins Research" Vol. 1, No. 3 Sept.-Dec. 1978 Used by permission. Paul Dubuc. THE PROBABILITY OF LIFE FROM NON-LIFE By Terry Brown Terry Brown completed two years of undergraduate study at the University of California, Riverside and received his B.A. degree in biology from the University of California at San Diego. He is currently [at the time of publication] working toward a Masters degree in Public Health at Loma Linda University. The following was written for a Human Physiology class during Summer, 1978. In this paper some of the basic facts of biochemistry which pertain to the supposed mechanistic formation of prebiotic proteins on the *early earth* are examined. Problems with the required primitive environment are briefly mentioned including 1) a reducing atmosphere, 2) ultraviolet radiation, and 3) underwater, steam and ice theories. The exclusive presence of L form amino acids in living organisms is discussed. Finally the probability of life evolving from non-life is shown to be hoplessly small, even after making fourteen non-trivial concessions. When considering the theory of evolution most people think of the progression of fish to reptile or primate to man, but there are many serious objections at an even earlier stage--the biochemical transition from non-biological matter to the first living organism. Evolutionists generally postulate that in a primitive atmosphere, over billions of years, natural elements combined to form amino acids which in turn joined to form proteins. These proteins along with sugars, phosphates, organic bases for nucleic acids, lipids for membranes and other special-purpose organic molecules combined to form the first living cell that had the capacity for metabolism and reproduction. Reducing Atmosphere Needed It is interesting to note that two very common substances interfere with the formation of amino acids and peptide bonds, the bond linking amino acid units together to form peptides (protein). Oxygen (O2) inhibits the formation of amino acids while liquid water (H2O) acts stereochemically to block the formation of the peptide bonds between amino acids.[1] With these well known chemical facts in mind, it is not surprising to notice that such men as Stanley Miller (at UCSD, and Nobel Prize winner for his work on abiotic formation of amino acids) postulate that the atmosphere of the primitive earth contained no free oxygen. Such an atmosphere is called a *reducing atmosphere*. This is a tremendously significant assumption for evolutionists to make, and there is of course no conclusive geological or meteorological evidence for this idea. The assumption of a reducing atmosphere presents an overwhelming problem for the molecules-to-man theorists. Without free oxygen (O2) there is no known way to form ozone (O3), and without ozone, the tremendously powerful ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun would completely sterilize the surface of the earth. Not only would growing polymers of biochemically active compounds be destroyed by this UV radiation, but certainly any life forms on the surface would be destroyed in rapid fashion. Recognizing the lack of protection from ultraviolet rays on the surface, some scientists have postulated that the first macromolecules of life were formed underwater. This, of course, takes care of the UV problem, but we have to remember that liquid water prevents the overlap of atomic orbitals needed for the pepticle bond to form. To get around this problem, some scientists have postulated formation of proteins on ice or in steam clouds. This is admittedly a clever approach to getting rid of liquid water, but leads to two inescapable problems. First is the fact that heat in excess of 100 deg. C destroys (denatures) every known protein by ripping apart the peptide bond. So much for the formation of long polymers of amino acid chains. With the *ice theory* one must recognize that chemical reactions are slowed tremendously at low temperatures, and it can be shown that below 0 deg. C peptide bonds cannot be formed without the presence of catalysts known as enzymes. Note that all enzymes are proteins. Where did the first enzymes come from? D vs. L Amino Acids There is another extremely significant fact of organic chemistry that I would like to note at this point. This is the problem of *handedness* and optical activity of organic molecules with an asymetric carbon atom (amino acids, for example). These molecules can exist in either the D or L conformation, mirror images of each other, called stereoisomers, and they are chemically indistinguishable from one another except for their ability to reflect polarized light. Whenever amino acids are synthesized in the laboratory, the yield is almost exactly a 50-50 mixture of the D and L forms. This is a very significant finding, and there is not one reputable chemist in the world that will deny this basic observation. But, here's the rub -- excluding a few insignificant exceptions, it seems that every amino acid in every protein in every living organism on earth is in the L configuration. This is pretty amazing when you consider the fact that there are no chemical differences in the D and L form other than their crystal structure. In the experiments done by Miller and others, simulating supposed primeval earth atmospheric conditions (conditions chosen for their innate tendency to thermodynamically favor the formation of amino acids), the amino acids formed were always a racemic mixture (D and L forms in equal amounts). In addition, there is always a special trap employed to remove these products because they would be destroyed if they remained in the reaction media for only a short time. The conditions leading to their formation also lead to their destruction. Now it can be seen that two problems occur at this point. First what is the proposed mechanism by which these newly formed amino acids are removed from the reaction system? In Miller's experiment there was an extremely sophisticated artificial chemical trap which removed these amino acids immediately upon their formation. Secondly, as was noted earlier, and as has been observed in all laboratory syntheses of amino acids and polypeptides, the amino acids formed are racemic mixtures of the two isomers. But all living organisms happen to come into existence with only the L form of amino acids in its protein molecules? Many scientists have tried to explain this, but as of yet there is *no satisfactory answer*. As will be shown soon, the probabilities involved in the selection of either all D or all L amino acids under natural conditions are embarrassingly miniscule. Up to this point we have encountered several insurmountable problems for the chance, mechanistic formation of some of the macromolecules upon which life is dependent. There is the necessity of excluding free oxygen from the reaction system, with the resultant lack of ozone to preserve the products of the elaborate biochemicals. Next, the problems of excluding liquid water, which interestingly enough has not been found anywhere else in the known universe (it either exists frozen with CO2 as on Mars, or in vapor form in the vacuum of space). Then there is this bothersome problem with *handedness*, all amino acids occurring in living tissues exist in the L form, while in the non-living state they are formed in racemic mixtures (equal D and L). It is on this last observation that the science of probability enters the picture. Please note that we have not even mentioned the genetic code which is responsible for the sequencing and manufacture of proteins, which takes place in a complex series of chemical reactions which would be utterly impossible without the assistance of highly ordered proteins called enzymes. The Complexity of Living Organisms How complex are living organisms, even the smallest and simplest ones? Dr. Harold J. Morowitz of Yale University has done extensive research for the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) to discover the theoretical limits for the simplest free-living thing which could duplicate itself. Stated more technically, he was looking for the minimal biological entity capable of self-replication in an autonomous fashion. He took into consideration the minimum operating equipment needed and the space it would require, also giving attention to electrical properties and the hazards of thermal motion. From his studies comes the conclusion that the smallest such theoretical entity would require 239 or more individual protein molecules.[2] This is not very much smaller (simpler) that the smallest actually known autonomous living organism, which is the miniscule, bacteria-like Mycoplasma hominis H39. It has around 600 different kinds of proteins.[3] From present scientific knowledge, there is no reason to believe that anything smaller ever existed. Using data provided by Morowitz, it can be calculated that the average protein molecule in the theoretical minimal living organism would contain around 445 amino acid units. Let's look at the probability of one of these protein chains being all L conformation. There are 20 commonly occurring amino acids, 19 of which are optically active (glycine is not, as it has no asymetric carbon atom). In many bacteria glycine makes up just over 8 percent of the total amino acid molecules, so in this theoretical protein we estimate that there will be 35 glycine residues, leaving 410 "spots" for the other 19 types of amino acids. Since these amino acids are presumed to have been formed naturally in the primitive environment, they would have occurred in statistically equal amounts of L and D forms. Now ... the probability of all the amino acids being L in this protein molecule is 1 in 2^410 (or 1 in 10^123). This is an extraordinarily small probability, but even if such a molecule did occur, there would need to be at least 238 more molecules similar to it to have a complete cell. The odds of this happening (all 239 chains of 410 amino acid length) are only 1 in 10^29345. To get an idea of the magnitude of this exponential number, it is estimated that there are 10^78 atoms in the entire universe. The Probability of Abiogenesis If one wants to be completely overwhelmed with the improbability of chance formation of life, he should look at a theoretical experiment done by James Coppedge of the Center for Probability Research in Biology, located in Northridge, California.[4] Recognizing the extreme improbability of chance arranging ordered molecules, he does a series of calculations based on Morowitz' simplest life form. In this experiment he gives chance a chance, by making fourteen concessions, [see end of article] all fourteen of which are highly extreme, and are offered in the conviction that "if chance fails under such extreme conditions, it should indicate clearly that perhaps it is unreasonable to rely on it at all in the quest for the way life began". Now, without detailing his calculations, the odds against one minimum set of proteins happening in the entire history of the earth are 10^119701 to 1. This figure is hopelessly large, and exceeds our ability to imagine a number so large (and a chance so small). Coppedge gives an imaginary illustration to get a palpable sense of the enormous dimensions of these numbers.[5] He calls it "the case of the traveling amoeba". Imagine an indestructible amoeba, and a most tenacious one, whose task it is to carry all the atoms of the universe across an imaginary string which is 30 billion light years long (the diameter of the universe). It moves at the rate of one inch per year, and there are 10^28 inches in this length of string. It therefore takes 2x10^28 years for a round trip, and the amoeba only carries one atom at a time across this long trail and then dumps it, only to return for more atoms. The time it would take to carry the entire universe across would be the time for one round trip multiplied by the number of atoms in the universe (10^78). This gives us 10^107 years, give or take a millenium. But Coppedge points out that his calculations revealed that it would take chance 10^171 years to form one usable protein of average length. If we divide that by the length of time it takes to move one universe by slow amoeba, we arrive at the astounding conclusion that: The amoeba could haul 10^64 universes across the entire diameter of the known universe during the expected time it would take for only one protein to form by chance, under those 14 conditions so favorable to chance! Imagine this--even if the amoeba had moved had moved *only one inch* during the 15 billion years that the universe is supposed to have existed, it would still be able to carry 6x10^53 universes across the string while one protein is forming. Sooner or later our minds come to accept the idea that it is not worth waiting for chance to manufacture a protein, let alone to come up with the DNA-RNA-ribosome system for self replication. Well, most of our minds come to accept this idea. But consider this remarkable statement by Harvard professor George Wald: The important point is that since the origin of life belongs in the category of at-least-once phenomena, time is on its side. However improbable we regard this event,... given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once... Time is in fact the hero of plot. Given so much time, the 'impossible' becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs miracles.[6] But it is clear to the unbiased, intelligent observer that there is not nearly enough time available to perform such a miracle. Conclusion In concluding this section I would add that the whole problem of abiogenesis -- that is, life from formerly non-living chemicals -- devolves upon the method by which the first self-replicating system evolved. The insuperable barrier, however, is that DNA can only be replicated with the specific help of certain protein molecules (enzymes) which in turn can only be produced by the command and direction of DNA. Each depends on the other an both must be present for replication to take place. Freeman J. Dyson, of the Institute of Advanced Studies, wrote in 1971: Nature has been kinder to us that we had any right to expect. As we look out into the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the universe must in some sense known that we were coming. Professor Dyson goes on to assert: I believe the universe is friendly. I see no reason to suppose that the cosmic accidents that provided so abundantly for our welfare here on earth, will no do the same for us wherever in the universe we choose to go... I hope that with this article I may have persuaded a few people... to look to the sky with hopeful eyes. This stops just short of the most logical step of all -- to look to the sky not with hope that the *cosmic accidents* will be friendly, but in gratitude, trust, and obedience to the creator who logically must be back of these events that have provided for our welfare. **************** The fourteen assumptions (or concessions) giving chance numerous advantages which would not have actually existed at the time of the presumed evolution of the first living thing: 1. Assume that the primitive atmosphere was as the evolutionists claim. 2. Suppose that all 20 amino acids did form naturally and in the right proportions, by the action of ultraviolet rays, lightning, and heat. 3. Presume that the amino acids were formed only in the L configuration. 4. In the calculations which follow, assume the average length of protein is 400 amino acids. 5. Postulate that all the atoms on earth have been used to form amino acids. 6. Consider all the formed amino acids are grouped in sets. 7. Let these groupings be magically protected from the destructive effect of UV rays, especially the damaging ones at 2600 Angstroms wavelength. 8. Concede that all the amino acids would automatically unite, without the need for the 7 kcal of bond energy or enzyme catalysis, etc. 9. Allow one substitution in each chain, even at the "active sites", with no ill effects. 10. Assume a rate of chain formation at the fantastically rapid rate of one-third of a ten-million-billionth second per chain formation (150 thousand trillion times the rate of reaction in living things, based on E. coli protein formation rates). 11. Every unusable chain is instantaneously dismantled, its component amino acids being used again in the reaction, which occurs at a rate of 10^24 per year per set. 12. If a usable sequence is obtained, the action will stop and this protein preserved for use in the 239 chains needed. 13. If the 239 chains are made, they will be assumed to be able to merge into one group, ready to work together in a living system (no geographical separation). 14. Assume the universe to be 15 billion years old and the earth 5 billion. ****************** References 1. Lehninger, Albert L. _Biochemistry_, Worth Publishers, New York, 1970, pp. 774, 777. 2. Morowitz, H.J. _Energy Flow in Biology_, New York Academic Press, 1968, p. 84. 3. Hans R. Bode and Harold J. Morowitz, "Size and Structure of the Mycoplasma Hominis H39 Chromosome", in the _Journal of Molecular Biology_, Vol. 23, 1967, page 98. 4. James F. Coppedge, _Evolution: Possible or Impossible?_, Zondervan, 1973, pages 105-115. 5. ibid., pages 119, 120. 6. Henry Morris, _Scientific Creationism_, Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego, page 66, quote of George Wald, "The Origin of Life", in _The Physics and Chemistry of Life_, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1955, page 12. 7. Freeman J. Dyson, "Energy in the Universe", in _Scientific American_, vol. 224, Sept. 1971, page 59.
brian@digi-g.UUCP (Brian Westley) (01/30/84)
Just to point out some of the logical errors in the argument against life developing from inorganic chemicals...You claim that: 1) since L & D amino acids, when synthesized, form a 50/50 mix, and 2) since the simplest form of life needs approx. 410 acids, and 3) since almost all life uses L acids, that 4) the probability of this arising by chance is 2^410?!? This is just plain stupid. When amino acids were first discovered, only the natural ones were known. When later they (and new ones) were synthesized in the lab, the left & right handedness cropped up, so the L and D modifiers were added. All the known natural acids were arbitrarily dubbed L to make it easier on future biology students. Also, you stated that: 1) free water hasn't been detected anywhere else in the universe, therefore 2) Earth is the only place in the universe with free water. Go to Alpha Centari and see if you can detect free water in THIS system. Unexcited free water is hard to detect over a distance of many parsecs, and excited water doesn't stay water very long if anything else is around. (signed) Merlyn Leroy
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (01/31/84)
Just to point out some of the logical errors in the argument against
life developing from inorganic chemicals...You claim that:
1) since L & D amino acids, when synthesized, form a 50/50 mix, and
2) since the simplest form of life needs approx. 410 acids, and
3) since almost all life uses L acids, that
4) the probability of this arising by chance is 2^410?!?
This is just plain stupid. When amino acids were first discovered,
only the natural ones were known. When later they (and new ones) were
synthesized in the lab, the left & right handedness cropped up, so the L
and D modifiers were added. All the known natural acids were arbitrarily
dubbed L to make it easier on future biology students.
The point is that when supposed early earth conditions are simulated
(as in Stanley Miller's experiments) a racemic mixture of amino acids
is always produced. Yet these are the conditions under which life is
supposed to have first come into existence. Of course only natural amino
acids existed when they were first discovered. They are the only ones that
exist in nature (living things). Yet when the "natural" evolution of these
living things from non-living chemicals is simulated, both types of amino
acids are produced. Not only that, they have to be removed immediately from
the reaction medium if they are not to be destroyed.
Also the distinction between D and L amino acids is not just that the L is
natural and D synthesized. As the article points out, they are
stereoisomers. That is, the molecular structures are mirror images of each
other--like our right hand is to our left. (Hence the term *handedness*).
Also, you stated that:
1) free water hasn't been detected anywhere else in the universe, therefore
2) Earth is the only place in the universe with free water.
Go to Alpha Centari and see if you can detect free water in THIS
system. Unexcited free water is hard to detect over a distance of many
parsecs, and excited water doesn't stay water very long if anything else
is around.
The article did not state that the earth was the only place in the universe
with liquid water (I don't know what you mean by *free water*. The article
referred to liquid water.) The point was made that liquid water prevents the
formation of peptide bonds between amino acids. Earth is the only place
known to have free water, yet life is supposed to have had its beginning
here. The point is that an environment without liquid water would have been
more suitable for abiogenesis (though there are many other problems to
overcome). You seem to have gotten the argument backwards here.
Perhaps this explains why a few evolutionist scientists (like Sir Fred Hoyle
and Francis Crick (sp?) entertain (and even espouse, in Hoyle's case)
theories that the first microrganisms came from outer space and then evolved
into us. This doesn't explain how those life forms came into existence,
however.
Paul Dubucrrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (02/01/84)
Right on, Mervyn Leroy! To emphasize how wrong-headed Terry Brown is, suppose despite everything we miraculously had evidence from the Creation of Ls & Ds being present in a 50/50 mix. Brown's resort to "probability" & calculations is STILL absurd. From many analagous situations successfully treated in the sciences, the situation (50/50 Ls & Ds then, only Ls in developed life) is clearly a case of a selection mechanism at work (by definition not a probabilistic device). This in turn points up Brown's equivocating use of the words "impossible" & "insurmountable" : he confuses "impossible in principle" with "impossible in fact". At best, the specific theories he criticizes are the latter. His criticisms don't impugn the ability of a "mechanistic" account to succeed. The mere fact we're able to imagine things like "selection mechanisms" shows that mechanistic accounts of the origin of life are indeed possible in principle. Brown inflates his case in another way: he misrepresents the state-of- debate in origins research by omitting to make the obvious point that Miller's production of amino acids by a discharge in a "primeval" gas mixture, which he cites, creates "life" from "nonlife", destroys for all time the first & most crucial claim of vitalists & supernaturalists, forcing creationists into quibbles over matters of detail: components of a fully worked-out account. To appreciate the enormity of such a (forced) concession, one need only call to mind the century-long debate vitalists waged (& lost) in the 1800s.
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (02/08/84)
The stupidity of Paul Dubuc & A. Ray Miller is truly awesome, & like any laborious achievement, such as the Pyramids, the marvel is not so much how it was accomplished but why. The real threat posed by "creationists" & their ilk is not to wear us out by endless argument but, like the threat of pollution, to bury us in garbage by never shutting up (maybe they take an oath?). Conscientious replies like John Hobson's & Richard Harter's are laudable but have no effect on "creationists" except to provide them with quota- tions to further extend their lengthy articles. I think we should grant Dubuc's request & give "creationism" its own mailing list. It could be named "net.futility", or, better yet, made an ARPAnet group, "fa.futility" : compiling digests would be easy since the editor would simply broadcast a zero-length message every two weeks. That way if "creationists" still sent mail to other lists, we could flame back with net.jokes.d-style rebukes such as "This is not the non- sense mailing list, idiot! Post to net.futility or get scorched!!" Even a newsgroup for miscellaneous items ought to observe minimum stan- dards of intelligibility & content. Cheers, Ron Rizzo
richard@sequent.UUCP (02/11/84)
I suppose it doesn't happen very often, eh? :-) But when it doesn't happen, there's no-one to ponder it. When is does happen, we get suspicious? Don't claim that Supernatural Powers must have been responsible for our creation until you have a database of how many worlds similar in evolutionary conditions made it to this level. If every fourth world seems to have sentient life, *then* get suspicious. Or if we wander through the universe for a few thousand years, visiting millions of planets, and we're *still* alone, definatly start wondering. Any other conclusion means you're just being hasty. Have patience. ;-) from the confused and bleeding fingertips of ...!sequent!richard I just hope we last that long.
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (02/18/84)
I want to sincerely thank Bill Jefferys for taking the time to submit a reasoning response to my submission of Terry Brown's paper, "The Probability of Life from Non-Life". I very much prefer this type of argument to being called stupid or getting a behavioral analysis in the mail. However, as one who has taken a binding oath never to "shut up" :-), I would like to give my response to Bill's article. First I want to make a few technical objections to some of Bill's statements. 1) I don't know what point that Bill is trying to make by saying that Brown's argument is "as old as the hills". That may be true, but it is does not disqualify the argument. Also, Bill stated that evolutionists have repeatedly pointed out the fallacies of this argument. Could you give a reference? 2) I don't think the assertion that Brown is setting up a "straw man" is correct. When biology textbooks attempt to give us an explanation of the origin of life, they cite the conditions of the early earth that Brown has in his paper, and Stanley Miller's experiments as a starting point. Brown explains the problems with some of the abiogenesis scenarios (I have read others). The calculations performed by James Coppedge were an attempt to determine the feasibility of sponteaneous generation occurring under the evolutionists conditions. Contrary to Bill's statement, the assumptions made by Coppedge are not imputed to evolutionists, nor are they purported to be necessary for sponteanous generation to occurr. Most of them were made simply to make abiogenesis MORE probable for the purposes of his calculations. Yet the calculated probability is still miniscule. 3) Brown does not detail the probability calculations. He cites the book "Evolution: Possible or Impossible" by James Coppedge, Zondervan, 1973. This book is apparently out of print, and I have noticed that public librarys are not inclined to stock creationist books. With that out of the way I would like to give my comments on Bill's discussion of the 14 "assumptions" made by Coppedge (not Brown) in his calculations. Those following this discussion should refer to Bill's article for a listing of them, since they are only referred to by number here. >> Brown claims that none of these conditions would have existed at the >> time of the emergence of life, but as an astronomer, I know that the truth >> of point 14 has been firmly established by an overwhelming mass of evidence >> from many different disciplines. Also, despite Brown's attempt to depict >> point 1 as a major concession to evolutionary theory, it is in fact well >> established by now on both astronomical and physical grounds (and not on >> grounds of its necessity for abiogenesis), that the early Earth must have >> had a reducing atmosphere, as the giant planets do today. This may be a valid point, but Brown's assertion that the conditions would not have existed is not an important part of his argument. The point is that, though he may think them debatable, they are taken as true anyway for the purposes of the calculations made. Also I would like to ask you again for references concerning the proof that the earth *must* have had a reducing atmosphere (no O2) on grounds independent of abiogenesis. Can we simply infer that because Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune have reducing atmospheres, then Earth must have had one also? >> As to point 2, I certainly do assume that amino acids would have formed >> naturally, and the experiments of Miller and others clearly demonstrate >> this possibility. Brown pointed out that it did not really lend support for abiogenesis. Miller's apparatus used a trap to remove the amino acids from the reaction media. That media is more adept a destroying the amino acids than forming them. >> I do not assume that the proportions of amino acids initially >> produced have to be the same as in the final proteins. No, but I think it makes the calculations easier and more favorable to abiogenesis. >> I am not sure about point 7. Some shielding may have been needed >> at some time; on the other hand the use of the term "magically" seems to >> me to be gratuitous. It implies that natural means did not exist >> to accomplish this end, and I challenge Brown or anyone else to prove that. Brown discussed some of the natural means of shielding and separation from liquid water that have been proposed by theorists and the problems with them. Why is the burden on Brown to prove that no means of sheilding existed? How is he supposed to "prove" that? Anyway, the calculations assume that sheilding did exist. >> As for points 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, they are simply >> silly and not needed to explain the origin of life. I am offended that >> Brown would presume to attribute such claptrap to evolutionists, but >> I realize that this is only part of his debating technique. As will be >> seen below, these points are the heart of his preposterous model for >> the origin of life. Again, the assumptions were not attributed to evolutionists but were made to test the probability of abiogenesis occurring. I think that without some of them the calculations would be impossible to make in the first place. The probability of abiogenesis without them should me much smaller. That is the whole point. >> Now how does he propose to form life? His model (which he falsely >> attributes to evolutionists) is that we decide on a particular "minimal" >> configuration consisting of 239 proteins each consisting of 400 amino >> acids. He then proposes that we (in essence) put the amino acids we >> have formed naturally into a box, shake them up, and see if we have formed >> *that particular combination*. If not, we have failed and have to start >> over again. If we have, we succeed and stop the experiment. He then >> remarks (and I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the calculation) >> that the probability of this happening is exceedingly remote. However, >> "garbage in, garbage out" - the whole calculation is, in my view, meaningless >> and irrelevant. The configuration for the simplest self replicating organism was obtained from a NASA researcher (H.J. Morowitz from Yale, probably not a creationist -- see the reference cited in Brown's article). I think this was determined to give scientists an idea of the least they would be able to expect when looking for life on other planets. Why didn't they consider a virus? I think because viruses depend on living cells for their reproduction. They steal some of the cell's own genetic material. I don't think any *particular combination* was specified in the calculations. Any *useable* amino acid chain was considered a success and preserved for the formation of the simplest cell, which would require 239 different kinds of proteins. The emphasis is not on a particular set of proteins but on how many different kinds are required for the cell. The point is that we cannot have a self replicating organism made up of only a few different kinds of protein molecules. The figure of 239 was derived independantly from any known living organism and it was noted that the figure comes close to the number of proteins making up the simplest known single-cell organism. >> The second fallacy in the model is in requiring the successful assembly >> of all this material in one fell swoop. Brown does not consider the >> possibility of any life precursors, that is, smaller units with perhaps >> limited powers of self-replication that might have existed under the >> conditions of the primitive Earth. Can he prove that such things did not >> exist? I don't think so, since our knowledge of molecular biology >> is still primitive. Moreover, I believe that any reasonable theory >> of abiogenesis would have to make use of this idea. Again, why is the burden of proof laid on creationists? They have to prove that any conceivable mechanism (life precursors) did not exist. This is like requiring the atheist to prove the non-existence of God before his beliefs could be considered tenable. It doesn't matter that such proposed life precursors (e.g. coacervate droplets and proteinoid microspheres) have not proven adaquate. Creation is still not considered a valid possibility for the origin of life. Scientist still feel quite justified in ruling out divine creation as a possibility. In the "two- faced" approach to the issue, many scientists will assert that the concept of a creator is beyond science, that science cannot address the possibility. Yet many of them will promote their unsubstantiated views of the origin of life as superior to the creation view, saying, in effect, that creation is not true. Creationists are often belittled because they believe in a Creator and search for scientific evidence to support that belief. This is supposed to show their inherent narrow mindedness and a great hinderance to their meaningful contribution to science. I see buried in this attitude the assumption that atheistic presuppositions are inherently superior and more objective than theistic ones. One who studies origins with the idea that a creator is responsible is being narrow minded while one who studies it under the conviction that there is no God behind it all is not. I don't get it. Has God been proven not to exist so as to make those who believe in his existence foolish and narrow minded? Why is scientific research to support non-theistic conclustions justified and research to support theistic conclusions mocked? >> Brown emphasizes the fact that each amino acid has its stereoisomer >> counterpart. He challenges evolution theory to explain why only the L >> forms exist in life today. One possible answer was mentioned already on >> the net - namely that the first life form or life precursor to have reached >> the point where it could self-replicate using the "soup" of L and D amino >> acids that existed at the time would have quickly taken over and left >> progeny that were like it. Other mechanisms might have operated, for >> example catalysis (by either inorganic or organic catalysts) might well >> have been important and have favored either the production or the linking >> of one type of amino acid. I don't think Brown made any such challenge. Only the observation that all existing life contains the L form. He remarked that this fact was interesting since there isn't really that much difference between the stereoisomers. Again, the calculations made only take L amino acids into account. Also, where do you get the idea that the if the first life precursor had all L amino acids it would have "taken over", preventing others (maybe using D types) from continuing? This seems to make the assumption that abiogensis could have only happened once, or maybe more than once but with only the L type acids. Is this a sound assumption to make? >> Creationists want you to think that any incompleteness or controversy >> in evolution theory is evidence for creationism. This is a false premise. Your right, that is a false premise. It is also a false premise that nothing is evidence for creationism. For myself, I don't presume to prove creation by disproving evolution. Only to open the door for a competing explaination of origins. >> Viewed in this way, Brown's claim to have disproven evolution is not >> different from the claim of early aerodynamicists to have proven >> that bees cannot fly. The bees, of course, having never heard of >> aerodynamics, went on flying anyway. Our old Earth hasn't heard >> of Brown's proof either, and so it went out and created life anyway. >> Despite all the carping of the creationists, this fact is securely >> established by the overwhelming mass of diverse and independent >> evidence available to science today. This is very interesting. Throughout your whole article you have claimed not to be trying to prove abiogenesis, but here in the last two sentences you state that it is a fact. You say that there is much evidence to support it but you feel no obligation to present any of it, only ad hoc explanations. Then you challenge creationists to disprove those. >> I think that creationists are simply unaware of the strength, >> quantity and diversity of evidence that flatly contradicts >> their stand. Certainly when I read criticisms of evolution >> by major creationist authors, I am impressed by the shallowness >> of their presentation of the *science*. Perhaps this is because >> their preconceived creationist bias makes it difficult for them to >> read the literature objectively. Their belief they can destroy what >> has been built up during centuries of research by some of the most >> talented, creative and intelligent of human minds, by nitpicking at >> details and attempting to argue evolution out of existence >> (as exemplified by Brown's article), is in my view pathetic. >> This is really too bad, because they are missing out on one of the >> most exciting adventures ever undertaken by our species. In any >> case, their efforts are doomed to failure. I am not sure that what creationists believe goes against all of the "centuries of research". I would just like to mention what I think to be one of the best creationist critiques of evolution in case you or others are interested. It is "Evolution: Nature and Scripture in Conflict?", by Dr. Pattle P. T. Pun (PhD Biology), Zondervan, 1982. Dr. Pun is an advocate of what is called "progressive creation". He rejects the "young earth" arguments of "fiat creationists" like Dr. Henry Morris as both unscientific and unbiblical. He also shows an appreciation for the evidence supporting evolution. I would also like to say that the argument against abiogenesis is not an attempt to "argue evolution out of existence". I see no reason to interpret it that way. As Byron Howes has already pointed out it is only and argument against chemical evolution, not neo-Darwinism. I don't think that fact makes it a non-issue or a "straw man" argument, however. Science does not give us any alternative but to believe that abiogenesis has occurred (Creationist disbelief is regarded as unscientific) even though there is not much empirical support for the phenomenon. For the time being, I find more reason not to believe in abiogenesis than to believe in it. I would not go as far as to say that attempts to prove it are "doomed to failure". I am no prophet. Well, I think this must be my last major contribution to this discussion. As I said before, the extra time I want to devote to my little daughter takes precedence. I would still appreciate responses to the things I have said here. I know better that to think that I have the last word on anything. Also, I hear rumors that cbscc may be taken off the net. If that happens it's good-bye for good, I guess. Mail will still work I suppose. Paul Dubuc ... cbosgd!cbscc!pmd
guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) (02/18/84)
> Creationists are often belittled because they believe in a Creator and > search for scientific evidence to support that belief. This is supposed > to show their inherent narrow mindedness and a great hinderance > to their meaningful contribution to science. I see buried in this attitude > the assumption that atheistic presuppositions are inherently superior > and more objective than theistic ones. One who studies origins with > the idea that a creator is responsible is being narrow minded while > one who studies it under the conviction that there is no God behind > it all is not. I don't get it. Has God been proven not to exist so as > to make those who believe in his existence foolish and narrow minded? > Why is scientific research to support non-theistic conclustions justified > and research to support theistic conclusions mocked? We jump here from "creator" to "God", which by the passing mention with no clarification I read as "the traditional Judaeo-Christian God". There *is* a difference between saying "we didn't get here via abiogenesis and evolution" and "the God of the Old Testament did it". I also don't see that the presupposition of "we got here via abiogenesis and evolution" as being "atheistic"; lots of people who believe in that God support that presupposition. When are those who do research to support theistic conclusions going to provide evidence for those conclusions, not just against the "non- theistic" conclusions (I do not take the question of whether the abiogenesis/ evolution model is "non-theistic" is a to be settled)? If the concerns of theology are amenable to scientific investigation, let those who consider those concerns important to science show how. If not, discussions of "scientific creationism" shouldn't contain assumptions about the nature of a creator or creators. Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (02/27/84)
In an effort to keep this as short as possible, I have responded only to Paul Dubuc's most important points. The reducing atmosphere, the question of concentrating amino acids, or the exclusive use of L amino acids, have been well covered by others in recent contributions. >> 1) I don't know what point that Bill is trying to make by saying >> that Brown's argument is "as old as the hills". That may be true, >> but it is does not disqualify the argument. Also, Bill stated that >> evolutionists have repeatedly pointed out the fallacies of this >> argument. Could you give a reference? A recent article is "Creationist Misunderstanding, Misrepresentation and Misuse of the Second Law of Thermodynamics" by Stanley Freske, *Creation/Evolution*, Spring 1981. I'm sorry that I can't give you any earlier ones, but I have read some (even many years ago) and they do exist. The point is that the argument is clearly fallacious, yet creationists insist on trotting it out. >> 2) I don't think the assertion that Brown is setting up a "straw man" >> is correct. When biology textbooks attempt to give us an explanation >> of the origin of life, they cite the conditions of the early earth >> that Brown has in his paper, and Stanley Miller's experiments as a >> starting point. Brown explains the problems with some of the abiogenesis >> scenarios (I have read others). I have to disagree with you here. Although Brown (and Coppedge, who was responsible for the calculation) do refer to Miller, and to Bode and Morowitz, the final model they produce is so unlike what scientists *really* postulate for abiogenesis that it amounts to setting up a straw man. If they want to criticise abiogenesis, they should specifically criticise what biologists have proposed, rather than criticising a position of their own devising. >> ...Brown's assertion that the conditions [old Earth and reducing atmosphere] >> would not have existed is not an important part of his argument. The >> point is that, though he may think them debatable, they are taken as >> true anyway for the purposes of the calculations made. I think that Brown is grandstanding here, and on many other of his points that he "generously" concedes to "make it easier to create life." I don't fault him for using standard debating tricks, but I want people to be aware of them. >> Again, the assumptions [Brown's points 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and >> 13] were not attributed to evolutionists but were made to test the >> probability of abiogenesis occurring. I think that >> without some of them the calculations would be impossible to make in >> the first place. The probability of abiogenesis without them should >> me much smaller. That is the whole point. I strongly disagree. In particular, condition #9 makes abiogenesis much harder (see below). >> I don't think any *particular combination* was specified in the calculations. >> Any *useable* amino acid chain was considered a success and preserved for >> the formation of the simplest cell, which would require 239 different kinds >> of proteins. I stand (slightly) corrected. Coppedge's actual assumption (#9, as quoted by Brown) is: >> Allow one substitution in each chain, even at the "active sites", with >> no ill effects. This is hardly different from requiring particular proteins to be formed. The allowable proteins can differ from the target proteins only in one position. Notice how a very restrictive assumption has been cleverly slipped in in the guise of "making it easier" to form life. Freske addresses this point in his article, which criticises a similar calculation by Gish. He says, "Gish doesn't mention whether anyone has systematically examined the properties of any significant number of [amino acid] sequences. but even if thousands had been investigated, this would be nowhere near [1 in] 10^119 [which Gish assumed], and it would be just as reasonable to assume that 1 in a trillion(10^12), 1 in a billion (10^9) or even one in a million (10^6) has the desired characteristics. Actually, the evidence we have points in this direction. For example, examination of hemoglobins of different species shows that only 7 out of a total of 140 sites always has the same amino acid (Perutz, 1968 [*Nature*, Vol. 219, p. 902]). The probability of these 7 sites being correctly occupied, assuming again 20 different amino acids, is 1 in a little over a billion (1.3x10^9)." >> Again, why is the burden of proof laid on creationists? They have to >> prove that any conceivable mechanism (life precursors) did not exist. Coppedge's calculation is based on an unreasonable model of how life might have come into existence, a model that ignores the possiblilty of life precursors, which are generally believed by scientists to have been necessary. If Brown wants to maintain that Coppedge's calculation "proves" life could not have formed abiogenetically, it is up to him to show that the normal assumptions scientists make are untenable. Otherwise there is no valid proof. >> Creationists are often belittled because they believe in a Creator and >> search for scientific evidence to support that belief. This is supposed >> to show their inherent narrow mindedness and a great hinderance >> to their meaningful contribution to science. I see buried in this attitude >> the assumption that atheistic presuppositions are inherently superior >> and more objective than theistic ones. One who studies origins with >> the idea that a creator is responsible is being narrow minded while >> one who studies it under the conviction that there is no God behind >> it all is not. I don't get it. Has God been proven not to exist so as >> to make those who believe in his existence foolish and narrow minded? >> Why is scientific research to support non-theistic conclustions justified >> and research to support theistic conclusions mocked? Paul, I hope that you are not implying that every scientist who believes in abiogenesis or evolution is an atheist. If so, it will be my turn to have hurt feelings. I see no problem whatever in the idea that the Creator endowed our universe with physical laws that allow life to form abiogenetically and with reasonably high probability. I find it much harder to believe that God created the universe and all species a mere 10,000 years ago, and then (I would have to say maliciously) left us with an overwhelming amount of evidence that the universe is 15 billion years old, and that abiogenesis and evolution have occurred. My father, who was trained as a biochemist before he entered the ministry, has pointed out to me on many occasions that science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. The task of science, as I see it, is to understand the physical laws of the universe and to explain the diverse phenomena we see in accordance with that understanding. It is not in the spirit of science to explain phenomenona that we do not understand at a particular time by appealing to special intervention by the Creator. Of course, everyone has the right to *believe* anything he or she wishes. What they do not have the right to do is to teach religious beliefs *as science* in the public schools. If they object to their children being taught certain things in school, it is their duty to teach their their own beliefs at home or in their religious organizations. But KEEP IT OUT OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS! -- Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {ihnp4,kpno,ctvax}!ut-sally!utastro!bill (uucp) utastro!bill@ut-ngp (ARPANET)