Science in Christian Perspective
Letter to the Editor
Problems of Chemical Evolution Not Solved by Prigogine
Walter Bradley
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Texas A & M University
College Station, Texas 77843
From: JASA 31 (June 1979): 127-128.
I would like to respond briefly to Dr. Jerry D. Alberts' communication entitled "New Insights into Thermodynamics" (Journal ASA, September, 1979). Having carefully read Prigogine's and Nicolis' new book Self-Organization in Nonequilibrium Systems (1977) (which I highly recommend), 1 believe Albert has greatly exaggerated the degree to which Prigogine's work has resolved the thermodynamic difficulties in chemical evolution. Prigogine, Nicolis and Babloyantz (1972, 1977) in commenting on biological complexity have recently noted:
''All these features bring the scientist a wealth of new problems. In the first place one has systems that have evolved spontaneously to extremely organized and complex forms..."
Furthermore, Prigogine repeatedly has argued that one cannot simply dismiss the
problems by some vague appeal to non-equilibrium thermodynamics as Albert and
many others do. The mechanisms responsible for the emergence and maintenance of
coherent states must be established.
Nicolis and Prigogine (1977) have shown that a chemical system whose
kinetic description
involves a set of nonlinear equations is inherently unstable. In such a system
a small fluctuation from steady-state may continue to grow larger, causing the
system to move further from equilibrium, with an associated increase in energy
dissipation. Nicolis and Prigoginc suggest two models that would have
the required nonlinearity, a highly improbable (by their own admission) trimolecular model
and a series of chemical reactions which explicitly show
autocatalytic activity.
For the trimolecular model, if the relative reaction rates satisfy
very specific
criteria, the boundary conditions are tightly controlled and rapid removal of
reaction products throughout the system occurs, one can show a
spatial variation
of concentration of two molecules that were initially homogeneous.
This very low
degree of spontaneous ordering in view of the number of constraints required on
the system causes one to wonder whether a system capable of producing
biologically
significant complexity would not have so many constraints and
conditions required
that their simultaneous satisfaction would be a miracle in its own right.
While autocatalytic activity can and does give the required kinetic
nonlinearity
in some important chemical reactions in the metabolism of living
systems, it remains
so be demonstrated experimentally that these models have any real significance
in the prebiotic condensation of protein and DNA. No significant autocatalytic
activity has been noted in these systems. More importantly, however,
these models
in their current formulation predict at best higher yields in
otherwise unfavorable
chemical reactions without any mechanism to control the sequencing
which is absolutely
essential to function. Prigogine, Nicolis and Babloyantz have acknowledged the
great gulf between their hypothetical models and prebiotically
significant reactions
by commenting at the end of an article in Physics Today, November, 1972,
"One is tempted to hope (emphasis added) that these aggregation phenomena will provide valuable indications of how higher organisms develop'' (a much more cautious statement than that attributed to them by Albert).
Prigogine's work has clearly opened the doors to a better
understanding of irreversible
processes in living systems and the role energy and mass flow play in
sustaining
such systems. His work does not, however, give any adequate answer to how such
living systems came into existence.
That a seed can become a tree or an egg, a chicken is not surpris
ing if sufficient mass and energy flow through a system with a
mechanism for converting
the energy into the required specific work. Living systems through
DNA and enzymes
contain such a mechanism. Apart from living systems, nature is not
full of "processes
that bring order from chaos." Our dismal failures in synthesizing either
protein under prebiotie conditions or DNA under any conditions
suggests that the
required nonlinearity via autocatalytic activity is absent. Neither
can one solve
the problem by arguing by analogy to a system such as eunventiunuus
heat conduction
that does have the required instability. It is certainly significant
that theory
predicts and experiments (as well as daily experience) confirm the existence of
convectiuness currents. This stands in sharp contrast to synthesis of DNA and
protein where the autocatalytic activity required by theory remains at present
unconfirmed experimentally and the synthesis of these molecules,
unsuccessful.
I would urge Dr. Albert to read more completely Prigngine's work to
avoid drawing
exaggerated conclusions and then describing those who might disagree as being
"unwary or uninformed."