miller@uiucdcsb.UUCP (11/10/84)
This is the second in the series of Students for Origins Research "Origins" pamphlets (2nd edition). They are in a PRELIMINARY (read: not final) form. The intended target audience is undergraduate students in public universities. There will be 5 in all: 1: The Creation/Evolution Debate 2: The Origin of Life 3: The Geological Column 4: The Fossil Record 5: The Age of the Earth I hope to get one done every two weeks, but I can't promise that timetable. Comments by *both* sides are sought. I don't expect the evolutionists to agree with the conclusions (obviously, or else they wouldn't be evolutionists) but I would like to hear what you have to say. I won't have time to reply, as just working on these pamphlets will take all of my spare time until they are completed. I'll save your replies, though, and try and get back to some of the more important ones after it is all finished. Personal replies from creation- ists may be mailed to me (uiucdcs!miller) if you don't want to deal with the flames of the net. I expect many "closet creationists" may want to take this route, and I would like to hear what you have to say also. I value everyone's opinions. I'm uploading this stuff from my p.c. at home. When it is in a final form, we'll ship it off and have it typeset along with the illustrations. A. Ray Miller Univ Illinois
miller@uiucdcsb.UUCP (11/10/84)
ORIGINS
No. 2: The Origin of Life
How did life begin? This question is fundamental in the study of
origins. Even the simplest life form, the cell, is amazingly complex.
``Biologists have broken through the cell's barrier of invisibility
and have charted its interior. They have found a forbiddingly small
yet enormously complex world; its magnitudes, like those of the
cosmos, astonish and confound'' [1].
Evolutionists believe that these amazingly intricate living sys-
tems developed solely through time, chance, and natural processes.
Creationists, on the other hand, believe the design and organization
found in living organisms could only result from the acts of an intel-
ligent Creator. What scientific evidence leads the creationist to
this conclusion?
TIME PLUS CHANCE
The evolutionary scenario requires a long series of events lead-
ing up to the origin of life. First, various elements must combine to
form different compounds, such as methane, ammonia, dihydrogen, and
water. These compounds then join to form more complex molecules such
as sugars, amino acids, and nucleotides. These molecules combine to
yield polymers, such as starches, proteins, and DNA. And these poly-
mers are only the building blocks of the cell.
What degree of complexity must these random chemical reactions
achieve to produce life? Frank Salisbury, who is himself an evolu-
tionary biologist, discusses the magnitude of the problem: ``Now we
know that the cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined.
It includes thousands of functioning enzymes, each one of them a com-
plex machine itself. Furthermore, each enzyme comes into being in
response to a gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of the
gene (its complexity) must be as great as that of the enzyme that it
controls ... A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The
DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its
chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one
consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 4^1000 different forms. Using
a little algebra (logarithms), we can see that 4^1000 = 10^600. Ten
multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600
zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension'' [2].
Given the vast complexities in even a simple cell, evolutionists
are forced to appeal to long time periods in order to justify the ori-
gin of life by means of chance chemical reactions. For example, the
prominent scientist Carl Sagan writes that: ``We need enzymes to make
polynucleotides, and polynucleotides to make enzymes. As a possible
way out of this quandary, I would like to suggest that we can trade
geological time for DNA polymerase or polynucleotide phosphorylase''
[3]. So the question becomes: ``are long time periods and random
chance sufficient to produce the intricate systems found in a simple
cell?''
It is estimated that the entire observable universe contains only
about 10^80 electrons. To be generous, suppose there were 10^80 nu-
cleotides, close enough together so that they could combine in chains
of length 1000 at the rate of one million combinations per second.
This process continues for five billion years (10^17 seconds). If
each chain was different, then (10^80)x(10^-3)x(10^6)x(10^17) = 10^100
chains could be formed. What is the probability of obtaining any par-
ticular DNA gene as described by Salisbury above? The unfathomable
odds are (10^100)x(10^-600) = 10^-500 or 1 chance out of 1 followed by
500 zeros!
The eminent astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle wrote that: ``Troops of
monkeys thundering away at random on typewriters could not produce the
works of Shakespeare, for the practical reason that the whole observ-
able universe is not large enough to contain the necessary monkey
hordes, the necessary typewriters, and certainly the waste paper
baskets required for the deposition of wrong attempts. The same is
true for living material. As our ideas developed, a monstrous spectre
kept beckoning. Just as the brain of Shakespeare was necessary to pro-
duce the famous plays, so prior information was necessary to produce a
living cell. But information from where?'' [4].
NATURAL PROCESSES
Clearly, time and chance seem insufficient to explain abiogenesis
(spontaneous generation of life). Something more is required to
transform disorganized matter into functioning, reproducing organisms.
What about a natural affinity to combine? Is there scientific evi-
dence for this? Ever since Miller's spark chamber experiments [5]
where amino acids were synthesized, evolutionists have thought this to
be the case.
Close scrutiny, however, reveals many problems with Miller's ex-
periments and with similar subsequent work. First, the simple amino
acids and compounds produced so far are a long, long way from the com-
plex system of coordinated macromolecules necessary to support life.
Second, Miller's amino acids were a 50% 50% mixture of laevoro-
tary (L-form) and dextrorotary (D-form). These two types are mirror
images of each other, and can be thought of as left and right handed
molecules. It has been found that the proteins which contribute to
living protoplasm are, with very few exceptions, L-form. Even in an
extremely long chain of L-form molecules, the presence of a single D-
form can be lethal. Natural processes produce only racemates (50% 50%
mixture) - a condition totally unsuitable for life's proteins.
Third, the destruction rates of the components are far greater
than the production rates. For example, Miller's spark chamber in-
cluded a ``trap'' to remove the amino acids as soon as they were
formed. Otherwise, the same environment which produced them would
have quickly destroyed them.
Similarly, consider the amino acids and proteins. In a cell,
these are found along with the sugars which are the components of DNA,
RNA, and the larger carbohydrates. What natural affinities are
present here? Amino acids have the natural tendency to react with,
not only other amino acids, but also with sugars. The combination
with sugars produces non-biological components. If it were not for
the compartmentalizing design already in the cell, which controls when
and where reactions take place, the acids and sugars would destroy
each other, and the construction of proteins, DNA, and RNA would be
impossible.
THERMODYNAMICS
The evolutionary model's progressive chain of events is beset
with many such barriers. It requires steps forward when scientific
evidence shows that natural processes work in the opposing direction.
A related phenomenon is known as the second law of thermodynamics.
First, however, some predictions of the two models must be considered.
The evolution model claims that organized life came from disor-
ganized matter and having begun, progressed to more organized and com-
plex structures. This process eventually reached the complexity we
see in life today, including Homo sapiens. From this basic framework,
the evolutionist, sitting in the theorist's chair, would expect to
find a principle operating in nature of disorder giving rise to order
and the simple giving rise to the complex.
The creation model, on the other hand, claims that the world was
created in perfect organization and fully functional. Any deviation
from that initial state then, would be a downhill change towards less
order. Thus, the creationist would expect to find a principle operat-
ing in nature of order tending to disorder and complexity tending to
simplicity.
Which model's predictions fit the facts better?
The second law of thermodynamics can be stated in several ways.
One definition is: ``An isolated system, free of external influence,
will, if it is initially in a state of relative order, always pass to
states of relative disorder until it eventually reaches the state of
maximum disorder'' [6]. The popular science writer Isaac Asimov
writes: ``As far as we know all changes are in the direction of in-
creasing entropy, of increasing disorder, of increasing randomness, of
running down'' [7]. This well established law of science is predicted
by the creation model, but conflicts with the basic predictions of the
evolution model and must be explained by means of secondary modifica-
tions.
Some may wonder about the implications of the second law of ther-
modynamics. Are there not instances of disorder being transformed
into order? For example, a seed growing into a tree or a pile of
bricks being built into a house represent examples of an increase in
order and complexity. What is happening here?
In every instance when order increases, several prerequisites
must be met. First, the system must be open to available energy.
Evolution meets this requirement, since it is open to energy from the
sun. That, however, is a necessary but not sufficient condition. The
transformation to a higher energy state must be accompanied by an en-
ergy converting mechanism using a preset plan. Bricks only become a
house as an intelligent human discriminantly orders them according to
the blueprints. The seed grows into a tree as it follows the plan
stored in its genetic code, the DNA. Evolution, however, depends upon
chance chemical reactions and random mutations, and has no plan forc-
ing its direction upwards towards greater complexity.
Many evolutionist have recognized this problem for their model.
``The simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and
maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work, but he neither
creates nor maintains organization. The work needed is _p_a_r_t_i_c_u_l_a_r
work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to
proceed'' [8]. Hubert Yockey analyzes the problem from an information
theory viewpoint. After demonstrating that there is no scientific
basis for evolutionary abiogenesis, he concludes: ``The `warm little
pond' scenario was invented _a_d _h_o_c to serve as a materialistic reduc-
tionist explanation of the origin of life. It is unsupported by any
other evidence and it will remain _a_d _h_o_c until such evidence is found
... One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current
wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance
and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not
faith has not yet been written'' [9].
Thus, it seems as if the fields of probability, biochemistry,
thermodynamics, and information science all agree with the creation
model better than they do with the evolution model. The creationist
examines the data only to find that time, chance, and the innate pro-
perties of matter are insufficient to explain the astounding complexi-
ty and interrelationships of even the simplest living system. The
conclusion is that time, matter, and energy must have been organized
into living systems by an intelligent Creator.
REFERENCES
[1] Rick Gore, ``The Awesome Worlds Within a Cell,'' _N_a_t_i_o_n_a_l _G_e_o_-
_g_r_a_p_h_i_c, Sept. 1976, p. 358.
[2] Frank Salisbury, ``Doubts About the Modern Synthetic Theory of
Evolution,'' _T_h_e _A_m_e_r_i_c_a_n _B_i_o_l_o_g_y _T_e_a_c_h_e_r, Sept. 1971, p. 336.
[3] Carl Sagan, article in _T_h_e _O_r_i_g_i_n_s _o_f _P_r_e_b_i_o_l_o_g_i_c_a_l _S_y_s_t_e_m_s: _A_n_d
_o_f _T_h_e_i_r _M_o_l_e_c_u_l_a_r _M_a_t_r_i_c_e_s, ed. Sidney Fox (New York, Academic
Press, 1965), p. 215.
[4] Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, _E_v_o_l_u_t_i_o_n _F_r_o_m _S_p_a_c_e (New
York, Simon & Schuster, 1981), p. 148.
[5] Stanley Miller, ``A Production of Amino Acids under Possible Prim-
itive Earth Conditions,'' _S_c_i_e_n_c_e, Vol. 117, 1953, pp. 528-529.
[6] Richard Weidner and Robert Sells, _E_l_e_m_e_n_t_a_r_y _C_l_a_s_s_i_c_a_l _P_h_y_s_i_c_s
(Boston, Allyn & Bacon, 1973), pp. 393-394.
[7] Isaac Asimov, ``Can Decreasing Entropy Exist in the Universe?,''
_S_c_i_e_n_c_e _D_i_g_e_s_t, May 1973, p. 76.
[8] George Simpson and William Beck, _L_i_f_e: _A_n _I_n_t_r_o_d_u_c_t_i_o_n _t_o _B_i_o_l_o_g_y
(New York, Harcourt, Brace & World, 1969), p. 292.
[9] Hubert Yockey, ``A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous
Biogenesis by Information Theory,'' _J_o_u_r_n_a_l _o_f _T_h_e_o_r_e_t_i_c_a_l _B_i_o_l_o_-
_g_y, Vol. 67, Aug. 1977, p. 396.
For more information on this topic:
Henry Morris, _S_c_i_e_n_t_i_f_i_c _C_r_e_a_t_i_o_n_i_s_m (San Diego, Master Book Publish-
ers, 1974).
Henry Morris and Gary Parker, _W_h_a_t _i_s _C_r_e_a_t_i_o_n _S_c_i_e_n_c_e? (San Diego,
Master Book Publishers, 1982).
A. E. Wilder-Smith, _T_h_e _C_r_e_a_t_i_o_n _o_f _L_i_f_e (San Diego, Master Book Pub-
lishers, 1970).
A. E. Wilder-Smith, _T_h_e _N_a_t_u_r_a_l _S_c_i_e_n_c_e_s _K_n_o_w _N_o_t_h_i_n_g _o_f _E_v_o_l_u_t_i_o_n
(San Diego, Master Book Publishers, 1981).
Randy Wysong, _T_h_e _C_r_e_a_t_i_o_n-_E_v_o_l_u_t_i_o_n _C_o_n_t_r_o_v_e_r_s_y (Midland, Michigan,
Inquiry Press, 1976).
last revision: fall 1984
Students for Origins Research
P.O. Box 203
Goleta, CA 93116-0203brian@digi-g.UUCP (brian) (11/15/84)
<Bug spelled backwards is Serutan> These arguments (that the probability of life arising by chance is calculated to be near zero, and that it violates the second law of thermo- dynamics) have been hashed and re-hashed so much that I don't know why I'm replying...but here goes. If I shuffle a deck of cards and deal out the entire deck, the probability that a *specific* sequence is dealt is 52!; however, if I deal out the deck and say "This is AMAZING! I have dealt a sequence that has only a 1 out of 52! chance of happening!! This must be my lucky day!" - my observation is meaningless, since I must get SOME sequence. Creationists seem to assume that there is ONE and ONLY ONE combination of proteins, amino acids, etc. that are capable of supporting life, when this is not the case. (They are also impressed by the fact that almost all of the naturally occuring assymetrical organics have the same "handedness" (L instead of D), while experimentally 'cooked up' ones are an even mix of about 50% L, 50% D. Give me a break! They are designated L or D by HUMANS, there is no intrinsic left- vs right-handedness in the molecules! Are you amazed at how cities have streets arranged alphabetically?) About thermodynamics; the original article seems to have invented an additional constraint on disorder->order (in addition to an outside energy source such as the sun). For some reason, a PLAN must exist!?!?! What sort of pseudoscientific claptrap is this?? This is NOT how the second law is stated. When carbon is compressed and heated, it turns into diamonds; a regular crystal structure arising out of less ordered carbon. What sort of 'plan' is at work here? If you intend to use the second law of thermo- dynamics in an attempt to disprove evolution, don't make up arbitrary (and stupid) 'rules' like this. Lastly, the same tired false reasoning is used - disproving evolution ALSO proves creationism. Disproving evolution does exactly one thing - disproves evolution. No evidence supporting creationism was presented, and yet the conclusion of the article says that the arguments presented (somehow) support creationism. Given that the arguments had holes you could drive a cliche' through, the article seems to prove that some creationists wouldn't know a logical argument if it evolved, climbed out of the sea, and bit them. Merlyn Leroy "If funny quotes were outlawed, only outlaws would have funny quotes"
miller@uiucdcsb.UUCP (11/21/84)
This is a repost of the second SOR pamphlet. Apparantly, it did not get to all
sites. Furthermore, I have seen no replies to it, so please mail me your
reply if you posted one to the net already. ihnp4 was down for a week; perhaps
that explains the problem.
A. Ray Miller
Univ Illinois
ORIGINS
No. 2: The Origin of Life
How did life begin? This question is fundamental in the study of
origins. Even the simplest life form, the cell, is amazingly complex.
``Biologists have broken through the cell's barrier of invisibility
and have charted its interior. They have found a forbiddingly small
yet enormously complex world; its magnitudes, like those of the
cosmos, astonish and confound'' [1].
Evolutionists believe that these amazingly intricate living sys-
tems developed solely through time, chance, and natural processes.
Creationists, on the other hand, believe the design and organization
found in living organisms could only result from the acts of an intel-
ligent Creator. What scientific evidence leads the creationist to
this conclusion?
TIME PLUS CHANCE
The evolutionary scenario requires a long series of events lead-
ing up to the origin of life. First, various elements must combine to
form different compounds, such as methane, ammonia, dihydrogen, and
water. These compounds then join to form more complex molecules such
as sugars, amino acids, and nucleotides. These molecules combine to
yield polymers, such as starches, proteins, and DNA. And these poly-
mers are only the building blocks of the cell.
What degree of complexity must these random chemical reactions
achieve to produce life? Frank Salisbury, who is himself an evolu-
tionary biologist, discusses the magnitude of the problem: ``Now we
know that the cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined.
It includes thousands of functioning enzymes, each one of them a com-
plex machine itself. Furthermore, each enzyme comes into being in
response to a gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of the
gene (its complexity) must be as great as that of the enzyme that it
controls ... A medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The
DNA gene controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its
chain. Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one
consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 4^1000 different forms. Using
a little algebra (logarithms), we can see that 4^1000 = 10^600. Ten
multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600
zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension'' [2].
Given the vast complexities in even a simple cell, evolutionists
are forced to appeal to long time periods in order to justify the ori-
gin of life by means of chance chemical reactions. ``We need enzymes
to make polynucleotides, and polynucleotides to make enzymes. As a
possible way out of this quandary, I would like to suggest that we can
trade geological time for DNA polymerase or polynucleotide phospho-
rylase'' [3]. So the question becomes: ``are long time periods and
random chance sufficient to produce the intricate systems found in a
simple cell?''
It is estimated that the entire observable universe contains only
about 10^80 electrons. To be generous, suppose there were 10^80 nu-
cleotides, close enough together so that they could combine in chains
of length 1000 at the rate of one million combinations per second.
This process continues for five billion years (10^17 seconds). If
each chain was different, then (10^80)x(10^-3)x(10^6)x(10^17) = 10^100
chains could be formed. What is the probability of obtaining any par-
ticular DNA gene as described by Salisbury above? The unfathomable
odds are (10^100)x(10^-600) = 10^-500 or 1 chance out of 1 followed by
500 zeros!
The eminent astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle wrote that: ``Troops of
monkeys thundering away at random on typewriters could not produce the
works of Shakespeare, for the practical reason that the whole observ-
able universe is not large enough to contain the necessary monkey
hordes, the necessary typewriters, and certainly the waste paper
baskets required for the deposition of wrong attempts. The same is
true for living material. As our ideas developed, a monstrous spectre
kept beckoning. Just as the brain of Shakespeare was necessary to pro-
duce the famous plays, so prior information was necessary to produce a
living cell. But information from where?'' [4].
NATURAL PROCESSES
Clearly, time and chance seem insufficient to explain abiogenesis
(spontaneous generation of life). Something more is required to
transform disorganized matter into functioning, reproducing organisms.
What about a natural affinity to combine? Is there scientific evi-
dence for this? Ever since Miller's spark chamber experiments [5]
where amino acids were synthesized, evolutionists have thought this to
be the case.
Close scrutiny, however, reveals many problems with Miller's ex-
periments and with similar subsequent work. First, the simple amino
acids and compounds produced so far are a long, long way from the com-
plex system of coordinated macromolecules necessary to support life.
Second, Miller's amino acids were a 50% 50% mixture of laevoro-
tary (L-form) and dextrorotary (D-form). These two types are mirror
images of each other, and can be thought of as left and right handed
molecules. It has been found that the proteins which contribute to
living protoplasm are, with very few exceptions, L-form. Even in an
extremely long chain of L-form molecules, the presence of a single D-
form can be lethal. Natural processes produce only racemates (50% 50%
mixture) - a condition totally unsuitable for life's proteins.
Third, the destruction rates of the components are far greater
than the production rates. For example, Miller's spark chamber in-
cluded a ``trap'' to remove the amino acids as soon as they were
formed. Otherwise, the same environment which produced them would
have quickly destroyed them.
Similarly, cells contain amino acids, which are the components of
proteins, and sugars, which are the components of DNA, RNA, and the
larger carbohydrates. What natural affinities are present here? Ami-
no acids have the natural tendency to react with sugars, resulting in
non-biological components. If it were not for the compartmentalizing
design already in the cell, which controls when and where reactions
take place, the acids and sugars would destroy each other, and the
construction of proteins, DNA, and RNA would be impossible.
THERMODYNAMICS
The evolutionary model's progressive chain of events is beset
with many such barriers. It requires steps forward when scientific
evidence shows that natural processes work in the opposing direction.
A related phenomenon is known as the second law of thermodynamics.
First, however, some predictions of the two models must be considered.
The evolution model claims that organized life came from disor-
ganized matter and having begun, progressed to more organized and com-
plex structures. This process eventually reached the complexity we
see in life today, including Homo sapiens. From this basic framework,
the evolutionist, sitting in the theorist's chair, would expect to
find a principle operating in nature of disorder giving rise to order
and the simple giving rise to the complex.
The creation model, on the other hand, claims that the world was
created in perfect organization and fully functional. Any deviation
from that initial state then, would be a downhill change towards less
order. Thus, the creationist would expect to find a principle operat-
ing in nature of order tending to disorder and complexity tending to
simplicity.
Which model's predictions fit the facts better?
The second law of thermodynamics can be stated in several ways.
One definition is: ``An isolated system, free of external influence,
will, if it is initially in a state of relative order, always pass to
states of relative disorder until it eventually reaches the state of
maximum disorder'' [6]. The popular science writer Isaac Asimov
writes: ``As far as we know all changes are in the direction of in-
creasing entropy, of increasing disorder, of increasing randomness, of
running down'' [7]. This well established law of science is predicted
by the creation model, but conflicts with the basic predictions of the
evolution model and must be explained by means of secondary modifica-
tions.
Some may wonder about the implications of the second law of ther-
modynamics. Are there not instances of disorder being transformed
into order? For example, a seed growing into a tree or a pile of
bricks being built into a house represent examples of an increase in
order and complexity. What is happening here?
In every instance when order increases, several prerequisites
must be met. First, the system must be open to available energy.
Evolution meets this requirement, since it is open to energy from the
sun. That, however, is a necessary but not sufficient condition. The
transformation to a higher energy state must be accompanied by an en-
ergy converting mechanism using a preset plan. Bricks only become a
house as an intelligent human discriminantly orders them according to
the blueprints. The seed grows into a tree as it follows the plan
stored in its genetic code, the DNA. Evolution, however, depends upon
chance chemical reactions and random mutations, and has no plan forc-
ing its direction upwards towards greater complexity.
Many evolutionist have recognized this problem for their model.
``The simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and
maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work, but he neither
creates nor maintains organization. The work needed is _p_a_r_t_i_c_u_l_a_r
work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to
proceed'' [8]. Hubert Yockey analyzes the problem from an information
theory viewpoint. After demonstrating that there is no scientific
basis for evolutionary abiogenesis, he concludes: ``The `warm little
pond' scenario was invented _a_d _h_o_c to serve as a materialistic reduc-
tionist explanation of the origin of life. It is unsupported by any
other evidence and it will remain _a_d _h_o_c until such evidence is found
... One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current
wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance
and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not
faith has not yet been written'' [9].
Thus, the scientist examines the fields of probability, biochem-
istry, thermodynamics, and information science only to find that time,
chance, and the innate properties of matter are insufficient to ex-
plain the astounding complexity and interrelationships of even the
simplest living system. The conclusion is that matter and energy must
have been organized into living systems by an intelligent Creator.
REFERENCES
[1] Rick Gore, ``The Awesome Worlds Within a Cell,'' _N_a_t_i_o_n_a_l _G_e_o_-
_g_r_a_p_h_i_c, Sept. 1976, p. 358.
[2] Frank Salisbury, ``Doubts About the Modern Synthetic Theory of
Evolution,'' _T_h_e _A_m_e_r_i_c_a_n _B_i_o_l_o_g_y _T_e_a_c_h_e_r, Sept. 1971, p. 336.
[3] Carl Sagan, article in _T_h_e _O_r_i_g_i_n_s _o_f _P_r_e_b_i_o_l_o_g_i_c_a_l _S_y_s_t_e_m_s: _A_n_d
_o_f _T_h_e_i_r _M_o_l_e_c_u_l_a_r _M_a_t_r_i_c_e_s, ed. Sidney Fox (New York, Academic
Press, 1965), p. 215.
[4] Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, _E_v_o_l_u_t_i_o_n _F_r_o_m _S_p_a_c_e (New
York, Simon & Schuster, 1981), p. 148.
[5] Stanley Miller, ``A Production of Amino Acids under Possible Prim-
itive Earth Conditions,'' _S_c_i_e_n_c_e, Vol. 117, 1953, pp. 528-529.
[6] Richard Weidner and Robert Sells, _E_l_e_m_e_n_t_a_r_y _C_l_a_s_s_i_c_a_l _P_h_y_s_i_c_s
(Boston, Allyn & Bacon, 1973), pp. 393-394.
[7] Isaac Asimov, ``Can Decreasing Entropy Exist in the Universe?,''
_S_c_i_e_n_c_e _D_i_g_e_s_t, May 1973, p. 76.
[8] George Simpson and William Beck, _L_i_f_e: _A_n _I_n_t_r_o_d_u_c_t_i_o_n _t_o _B_i_o_l_o_g_y
(New York, Harcourt, Brace & World, 1969), p. 292.
[9] Hubert Yockey, ``A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous
Biogenesis by Information Theory,'' _J_o_u_r_n_a_l _o_f _T_h_e_o_r_e_t_i_c_a_l _B_i_o_l_o_-
_g_y, Vol. 67, Aug. 1977, p. 396.
For more information on this topic:
Henry Morris, _S_c_i_e_n_t_i_f_i_c _C_r_e_a_t_i_o_n_i_s_m (San Diego, Master Book Publish-
ers, 1974).
Henry Morris and Gary Parker, _W_h_a_t _i_s _C_r_e_a_t_i_o_n _S_c_i_e_n_c_e? (San Diego,
Master Book Publishers, 1982).
A. E. Wilder-Smith, _T_h_e _C_r_e_a_t_i_o_n _o_f _L_i_f_e (San Diego, Master Book Pub-
lishers, 1970).
A. E. Wilder-Smith, _T_h_e _N_a_t_u_r_a_l _S_c_i_e_n_c_e_s _K_n_o_w _N_o_t_h_i_n_g _o_f _E_v_o_l_u_t_i_o_n
(San Diego, Master Book Publishers, 1981).
Randy Wysong, _T_h_e _C_r_e_a_t_i_o_n-_E_v_o_l_u_t_i_o_n _C_o_n_t_r_o_v_e_r_s_y (Midland, Michigan,
Inquiry Press, 1976).
last revision: fall 1984
Students for Origins Research
P.O. Box 203
Goleta, CA 93116-0203bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (11/22/84)
If anything demonstrates the futility of arguing with Creationists by citing *facts*, this gem by Ray Miller does. Since this newsgroup was formed, many people have contributed numerous articles, which conclusively refute the positions he takes here. I would have thought Ray would be embarrassed to repeat these thoroughly discredited arguments in this forum, but apparently not. Having said that, I will now proceed to point out, again, some of the holes in Ray's arguments. I know it's futile, but perhaps some of the others out there will find it useful. > Evolutionists believe that these amazingly intricate living sys- > tems developed solely through time, chance, and natural processes. > Creationists, on the other hand, believe the design and organization > found in living organisms could only result from the acts of an intel- > ligent Creator. What scientific evidence leads the creationist to > this conclusion?...[Ray then proceeds to amaze us with the complexity of life] This is just the old "Argument from Design" -- "Look, how wonderful and complex life is, it must have had a Designer. Such things just could not have come about in any other way". The argument from design has been completely discredited, and is not taken seriously by anyone but Creationists anymore. It is bad theology and even worse science. Indeed, one can argue just as persuasively that life as we see it on Earth is so kludgy that it could *must* have arisen by chance. Rather than showing evidence of careful design, it shows instead incredible (and stupid) complexity, just what one would expect from opportunistic evolution. This kludgyness is seen both at the molecular level (where, for example, a very large proportion of the DNA in the human body codes for *absolutely nothing*), and at the organ level (remember the Panda's thumb, Ray? How about the human eye, whose overall design is clearly inferior to that of the octopus?) The solution that Nature has provided to the problem of life on Earth *is indeed* extraordinarily complex. But this implies absolutely nothing about how it may have arisen. It is not valid to conclude that there is anything at all remarkable about the *fact* that life exists on Earth. Indeed, we have only seen one possible example of life. The real question is, what other solutions are possible, and (in particular), how likely it is that *a* solution would have arisen under conditions similar to those found on the primitive Earth. > Given the vast complexities in even a simple cell, evolutionists > are forced to appeal to long time periods in order to justify the ori- > gin of life by means of chance chemical reactions. For example, the > prominent scientist Carl Sagan writes that: ``We need enzymes to make > polynucleotides, and polynucleotides to make enzymes. As a possible > way out of this quandary, I would like to suggest that we can trade > geological time for DNA polymerase or polynucleotide phosphorylase'' > [3]. So the question becomes: ``are long time periods and random > chance sufficient to produce the intricate systems found in a simple > cell?'' 20 years ago, when the Sagan article was written, it did indeed seem difficult to understand how cross-catalysis between enzymes and polynucleotides could have arisen. But a great deal has been discovered since then. One is the fact (which I mentioned before and which Ray has ignored) that RNA is autoatalytic (Kruger, Graboswki, Zaug, Sands, Gottschling and Cech, *Cell* 31, 147-152 (1982)). Thus it is reasonable to postulate a primitive mode of RNA replication that completely bypasses the need for enzymes. Enzymes would have evolved much later. I recently attended a lecture in which evidence was given for a very early RNA consisting of a 9-base sequence that, through a process of successive doubling, produced 18- and 36-base "hairpins" with paired bases, and then a 72-base "cloverleaf" molecule that became the present-day transfer RNA. A few more doublings then produced the very long RNA chains that we see today in ribosomal RNA. All of this could have been catalyzed by inorganic catalysts (e.g., clays) in the environment and by autocatalytic routes. Of course, once transfer RNA and ribosomes are produced, a great step towards the machinery required for protein synthesis has been made. The more the actual geological record is studied, the more evident it is that life formed quickly. The obvious conclusion is that the probability of forming life is very high, and that it doesn't take long periods of time to do it. We may not understand fully at the present time exactly how it happened, but there is no doubt that it did. It is simply invalid to reason that Creationism must be correct if scientists cannot at this moment explain everything about how life was formed. As the above examples show, we already know a great deal, and are learning more each day. The Creationist claim that life could not have arisen without the intervention of a Creator is simply not in accord with the facts. > It is estimated that the entire observable universe contains only > about 10^80 electrons. To be generous, suppose there were 10^80 nu- > cleotides, close enough together so that they could combine in chains > of length 1000 at the rate of one million combinations per second. > This process continues for five billion years (10^17 seconds). If > each chain was different, then (10^80)x(10^-3)x(10^6)x(10^17) = 10^100 > chains could be formed. What is the probability of obtaining any par- > ticular DNA gene as described by Salisbury above? The unfathomable > odds are (10^100)x(10^-600) = 10^-500 or 1 chance out of 1 followed by > 500 zeros! Ray should know by now that this is a red herring. It is completely irrelevant whether a *particular* gene is formed or not. As I pointed out before, the same argument can be used to "prove" that Ray Miller's particular gene compliment did not arise by chance combination of his parent's genes. Just as most random combinations of Ray's parents' genes would have produced a viable individual (but not Ray), the real question is what proportion of random combinations of bases would code for biologically active macromolecules. I have quoted evidence from several sources that indicates *this* probability is indeed high. Neither Ray nor anyone else has disputed these facts. It has also been pointed out many times that no biologist proposes the preposterous mode of producing genes that Ray suggests. Ray suggests that we put the nucleotides in a box and shake it up, so to speak, until, hey presto! Eventually we make an insulin gene. But there is direct evidence (which I have already posted) that the first genes were quite short, and that longer ones were obtained by a process of doubling and redoubling of short ones. The complex genes we see today are the result of at least 3.5 billion years of evolution. Nevertheless one sees at the molecular level clear evidence that genes with entirely different functions have arisen from the same common origins. If you want to talk probabilities, Ray, what is the probability of producing at random a particular 9-base sequence that is the precursor (through successive doubling) of today's genes? Answer: extremely high. > The eminent astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle wrote that: ``Troops of > monkeys thundering away at random on typewriters could not produce the > works of Shakespeare, for the practical reason that the whole observ- > able universe is not large enough to contain the necessary monkey > hordes, the necessary typewriters, and certainly the waste paper > baskets required for the deposition of wrong attempts. The same is > true for living material. As our ideas developed, a monstrous spectre > kept beckoning. Just as the brain of Shakespeare was necessary to pro- > duce the famous plays, so prior information was necessary to produce a > living cell. But information from where?'' [4]. With all due respect to Sir Fred, who has gotten in over his head on this one, and who in addition has an axe to grind: The analogy is false. This quote ignores the fact that chemical reactions are driven by characteristic reaction rates, and are not all equally probable, as has been mentioned on the net many times. *That* is where the organizing principle is to be found. > Close scrutiny, however, reveals many problems with Miller's ex- > periments and with similar subsequent work. First, the simple amino > acids and compounds produced so far are a long, long way from the com- > plex system of coordinated macromolecules necessary to support life. > Second, Miller's amino acids were a 50% 50% mixture of laevoro- > tary (L-form) and dextrorotary (D-form). These two types are mirror > images of each other, and can be thought of as left and right handed > molecules. It has been found that the proteins which contribute to > living protoplasm are, with very few exceptions, L-form. Even in an > extremely long chain of L-form molecules, the presence of a single D- > form can be lethal. Natural processes produce only racemates (50% 50% > mixture) - a condition totally unsuitable for life's proteins. > Third, the destruction rates of the components are far greater > than the production rates. For example, Miller's spark chamber in- > cluded a ``trap'' to remove the amino acids as soon as they were > formed. Otherwise, the same environment which produced them would > have quickly destroyed them. Creationists love to point to the trap in Miller's apparatus. The fact is that a trap is *not* necessary to prevent amino acids from being destroyed. Miller's experiment was done 30 years ago, but since then hundreds of other experiments have been performed, many without Miller's trap, under many conditions, and the result is that it is hard *not* to produce them. Why do Creationists harp on Miller's experiment as if it were the only one? One recent one was performed at the University of Illinois, where Ray works, by Professor Clifford Matthews. This process produces life precursors so copiously that it would have left the Earth "knee-deep" in protein. Why doesn't Ray know about this? Ray also ignores the fact, which has been mentioned before on the net, that meteors are found containing amino acids of clearly extraterrestrial, abiogenetic origin. If amino acids can be produced so easily in interplanetary space, how can we believe that they would be difficult to produce on Earth, where the conditions were so much more favorable? Finally, Ray fails to mention the fact, which he ought to know, that the L and D amino acids do not easily polymerize together. It is much more likely to get chains of L only and chains of D only than a random mixture of the two. Again this is driven by reaction rates involving the stereochemistry of polypeptides, and does not consider the probable pre-existence of structures such as ribosomes and transfer RNA's (see above) which would have facilitated the selective assembly of amino acids into into proteins. > Similarly, consider the amino acids and proteins. In a cell, > these are found along with the sugars which are the components of DNA, > RNA, and the larger carbohydrates. What natural affinities are > present here? Amino acids have the natural tendency to react with, > not only other amino acids, but also with sugars. The combination > with sugars produces non-biological components. If it were not for > the compartmentalizing design already in the cell, which controls when > and where reactions take place, the acids and sugars would destroy > each other, and the construction of proteins, DNA, and RNA would be > impossible. This one is a new one on me. Ray should read a bit about chemical clocks if he would like to understand how chemicals can be thouroughly mixed and yet produce complex dynamical behavior similar to that which takes place in a cell. > The second law of thermodynamics can be stated in several ways. > One definition is: ``An isolated system, free of external influence, > will, if it is initially in a state of relative order, always pass to > states of relative disorder until it eventually reaches the state of > maximum disorder'' [6]. The popular science writer Isaac Asimov > writes: ``As far as we know all changes are in the direction of in- > creasing entropy, of increasing disorder, of increasing randomness, of > running down'' [7]. This well established law of science is predicted > by the creation model, but conflicts with the basic predictions of the > evolution model and must be explained by means of secondary modifica- > tions. Creationists frequently claim that Creationism *predicts* the second law of thermodynamics. This is mere grandstanding. To my knowledge they have never said anything more profound than what is said in this paragraph. They have provided no mathematical analysis that shows that the second law is actually a *consequence* of Creation. In fact, if the Creator is indeed "all-powerful", then there is no reason why She could not have created the Universe in a state of maximum disorganization, together with physical laws that would have caused it to become more and more organized with time. Thus, aside from the assertions of its supporters, Creationism "predicts" nothing at all in this regard. Ray accuses evolutionists of inventing "secondary modifications" of the second law to explain why it doesn't conflict with evolution. Nothing could be further from the truth. The irreversible thermodynamic regime far from equilibrium, which has been studied extensively by Nobel laureate Ilya Prigogine, characterizes much of the universe, and in particular the whole biosphere. This is no secondary modification, but in fact an entirely new major branch of physics. I recently asked Professor Prigogine his opinion of Creationist thermodynamics, and he replied that Creationists simply do not understand thermodynamics. He commented that, far from having arisen *in spite* of the second law, life is in fact a *consequence* of it. So Creationist misunderstanding of the second law is very profound. > In every instance when order increases, several prerequisites > must be met. First, the system must be open to available energy. > Evolution meets this requirement, since it is open to energy from the > sun. That, however, is a necessary but not sufficient condition. The > transformation to a higher energy state must be accompanied by an en- > ergy converting mechanism using a preset plan. Bricks only become a > house as an intelligent human discriminantly orders them according to > the blueprints. The seed grows into a tree as it follows the plan > stored in its genetic code, the DNA. Evolution, however, depends upon > chance chemical reactions and random mutations, and has no plan forc- > ing its direction upwards towards greater complexity. Ray's assertion that there must be a preset plan assumes the very thing he is trying to prove. The fact is, that *far from equilibrium*, organized systems do indeed arise spontaneously from states of lower organization. This is, of course, at the cost of net entropy production for the universe as a whole. A familiar example is a hurricane, which arises spontaneously from the available energy in the ocean and atmosphere when the conditions are favorable. This happens, not despite the laws of thermodynamics, but as a *consequence* of them. The spontaneous formation of organized structures is *characteristic* of far-from-equilibrium irreversible thermodynamics. > Thus, it seems as if the fields of probability, biochemistry, > thermodynamics, and information science all agree with the creation > model better than they do with the evolution model. Only if you ignore what these fields of science *really* have to say. The fact is that there is a lot we don't know about how life arose, but there is a lot we do know. None of what we know is in conflict with the above-mentioned fields. Because there is still much to be learned, Creationists can have fun (as Ray has) in ridiculing the field of biogenesis. But they can only do this at the expense of truth. -- "When evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve" Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
scott@normac.UUCP (Scott Bryan) (11/26/84)
This is a reply to whomever wrote the article, I don't think it was Ray Miller, I suspect it was a one "Henry Morris, Scientific Creationism" and will address this article to him. The reason I am replying is that I think the author owes me an explanation of what he is trying to accomplish by posting this article. So whomever you are please tell me what you hope to accomplish here. Is it to stop the research into the question? Is it to save all the souls who believe this blasphemy and will rot in hell for it? When I see an article that offers some explanation for a complex philosophical issue like the origins of life I expect to understand what the authors purpose is. Please make this clear in the future. Scott Bryan
gjphw@iham1.UUCP (11/27/84)
This article is intended to criticize two issues mentioned in
A.R. Miller's (uiucdcsb!miller) posting of SOR pamphlet #2. While both
issues have been debated in the past, it appears as if the discussions
have not had any discernible effect on introductory pamphlets intended
for public consumption (see especially SOR pamphlet #1). The
representation of chemistry as an exercise in combinatorics and the
prerequisites for classical thermodynamics are in dispute.
In the section labeled TIME PLUS CHANCE, arguments against a natural
origin for life are advanced based upon the huge number of different
combinations of elements that must be tried before a self-sustaining
and self-reproducing system can be discovered. While it is an
interesting mental exercise, it is not correct to imply that all
combinations of all elements are equally likely to occur. The
calculations provided in this section assume that any combination of
nucleotides in a DNA chain are equally likely. The operant concept
that is suspect is *random*.
Chemistry is not the study of random combinations of atoms but
rather the elucidations of the rules that govern combinations of atoms;
it is a study of order and patterns, not randomness. Elements
preferentially form certain compounds in specified environmental
conditions. It is premature to consider that all is known about the
possible rules governing the formation of DNA from nucleotides and
proteinoids. While there is little doubt that a trial of all random
combinations would require an immense amount of time, who has the
available evidence to support the argument that all nucleotide
combinations are equally likely, and therefore random?
Within the section labeled THERMODYNAMICS, two errors are apparent.
The first is the assertion that evolution begins with disorganized
matter and ends with Homo sapiens. As written by Darwin, evolution as
a biological principle begins with the existence of living organisms
and attempts to describe the present relationships among living
organisms. The admittedly large step of abiogenesis is not subsumed
under traditional evolutionary theory.
Second, the statement of the second law of thermodynamics (entropy)
is not precise. While it is expected that an isolated system will go
toward equilibrium (i.e., uniform and constant temperature, pressure,
etc.), no mention is made as to how long might be required to achieve
this equilibrium state. More precisely, classical thermodynamics is an
idealization which applies to systems at equilibrium, with the
definition of what constitutes a system left rather vague. If the
prerequisite for the application of entropy is a system at equilibrium,
there would appear to be few places for this law to operate on the
surface of the Earth. Systems or clusters or aggregates not at
equilibrium may still move toward greater disorder, but the basis is not
then derived from a naive application of the second law of thermodynamics.
Since the identification of the second law of thermodynamics with
the order of a system involves the use of statistical physics (Newton's
laws applied to a large collection of molecules), conditions which
violate the prerequisites of thermodynamics can be explored using
statistical physics. The first condition for thermodynamics is a
system at equilibrium. To achieve equilibrium, all parts and molecules
of the system must be able to continuously exchange energy and momentum
with one another. In other words, a system must be at least spatially
contiguous. A second condition for the application of thermodynamics
is that all forces must be of short range. Systems involving
gravitation violate this prerequisite, though if the gravitation is
uniform throughout the system, corrections can be applied.
But remember, all of these predictions involving entropy are based
upon Boltzmann's theory of gases which is, after all, only a theory!
--
Patrick Wyant
AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL)
*!iham1!gjphw