On Sat, 31 Aug 1996 21:02:14 -0400, Brian D. Harper wrote:
>JR>"The origin of life is a relatively easy thing and there's a wide
>variety of conditions under which it will take place," said Stanley
>Miller, professor emeritus at the University of California at San
>Diego and a pioneer in the field.
SJ>If Miller really said this and he sincerely means it, then it
>confirms everything Johnson says about the hard-core Darwinists not
>even understanding the problem. One might ask Prof. Miller that if
>"The origin of life is a relatively easy thing and there's a wide
>variety of conditions under which it will take place", why after 40
>plus years of trying, he and his colleagues haven't been able to do
>it?
BH>I too was surprised by Miller's comment. I suspect he got caught
>up in all the excitement, he's usually not one to make exagerated
>claims.
OK. I won't press the point. It is always possible he was misquoted.
But he did say it is just a matter of "learning the tricks".
[...]
>JR>...Efforts to make microscopic life from these basic elements on
>Earth suggest the chance of life arising under similar circumstances
>is the same everywhere, chemists, biologists and other experts say.
>SJ>Do I detect the "chance" theory "of life arising"?
BH>No. The statement says nothing about the mechanisms responsible
>for the origin of life, it just says that if life arose here then it
>has the same chance of arising elsewhere "under similar circumstances".
OK. I was thrown by the reference to "chance". This is really the
Predestinist Theory, which is probably the direct opposite of the
chance theory:
"A predestinist believes that the laws of the universe contain a
built-in bias that favors the production of the chemicals vital to
biochemistry and ultimately to human life itself. No difficult or
extended process was involved in the origin of life, according to
this system. If we set up the right experiment, everything would
fall quickly into place. To a predestinist, the Miller-Urey
experiment provided the expected validation of his beliefs. If
glycine and alanine were present surely the remaining amino acids
would also appear in large quantities, and nucleotides too, as soon
as the appropriate experimental modifications were made. The
principle had been proved; the remainder was just a matter of mopping
up." (Shapiro R., "Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Origin of
Life", Summit Books: New York, 1986, p108)
BH>Even so, the statement is absurd, it is not the *efforts* to make
>life that leads to this suggestion, but success at making life.
Agreed. There has been a lot of "efforts" but no "success"! :-)
>SJ>The same theory that we are continually being told that no one
>has believed for 30 years? :-) Thaxton, et al note that the appeal
>to chance is not quite dead yet:
BH>Have you had a chance yet to check for yourself whether what
>you were told is indeed the case?
See the Thaxton et al quote which refers to Eigen (one of the leaders
in OOL) still relying on chance. I have quoted Dawkins in 1991 (only
5 years ago) relying on chance to produce the first self-replicating
molecular system:
"We can accept a certain amount of luck in our explanations, but not
too much. The question is, how much? The immensity of geological
time entitles us to postulate more improbable coincidences than a
court of law would allow but, even so, there are limits. Cumulative
selection is the key to all our modern explanations of life. It
strings a series of acceptably lucky events [random mutations]
together in a nonrandom sequence so that, at the end of the sequence,
the finished product carries the illusion of being very very lucky
indeed, far too improbable to have come about by chance alone, even
given a timespan millions of times longer than the age of the
universe so far. Cumulative selection is the key but it had to get
started, and we cannot escape the need to postulate a single-step
chance event in the origin of cumulative selection itself." (Dawkins
R., "The Blind Watchmaker", Penguin: London, 1991, pp139-140).
Dawkins' book has blurbs of favourable reviews from such evolutionary
heavyweights as: Ruse: "...I hope I will not be thought to be
pushing things to an embarrassing point if I say that Dawkins' book
can be compared to Galileo's, not only in type but in standard"
(Professor Michael Ruse); Cairns-Smith: "He disposes of the
arguments for God the Designer without diminishing our sense of the
mystery and complexity of our world" (A. G. Cairns-Smith); "An
astonishingly lucid exposition of Darwinism...Dawkins's most
wonderful book" (Franciso J. Ayala); Wilson, "The best general
account of evolution I have read in recent years..." (Edward O.
Wilson)"; Maynard Smith: "The secret of good science writing is that
one should understand the ideas oneself: good writing comes from
clear thinking..." (John Maynard Smith).
Indeed, OOL specialist Francis Crick has said of TBW "If you doubt
the power of natural selection I urge you, to save your soul, to read
Dawkins' book." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance", InterVarsity
Press: Downers Grove Ill., 1995, p76)
There is no hint of censure of Dawkins by these heavyweights, for
appealing to chance to generate the first self-replicating molecule.
Indeed, OOL specialist Shapiro in 1986 (just ten years ago) gives the
chance origin of life as "that explanation which had received the
most acceptance":
"The earth was four billion years old. The sky looked much as it
does now, but its gases were strange. In place of oxygen, the
atmosphere contained methane, hydrogen, and fumes of ammonia.
Life was absent. The planet was covered with a shallow, sterile
sea. Bleak islands provided the only lands; no continents existed
yet. The landscape was not quiet, however. Roaring volcanoes
sent forth lava. Steam and poisonous gases escaped into the air
from hot springs bubbling nearby. Now and then a thunderstorm lashed
out at our planet. Flashes of lightning illuminated the scene. The
electrical discharges agitated the gases of the atmosphere, causing
them to combine with each other and with water. Strange new
molecules were formed, called amino acids and nucleotides. They had
not been seen previously on the earth. They were the building blocks
of living matter. Gradually, more and more amino acids and
nucleotides filled up the seas, creating a rich organic soup, more
concentrated than a chicken broth. The molecules collided in the
broth, and every so often stuck together. Larger and larger
molecules were formed. In the course of hundreds of millions of
years, all manner of molecules were created by random collision.
Some had spiral shapes, other were spherical, and still others had
long strands. Finally, AFTER BILLIONS OF CHANCE EVENTS, a molecule
was formed that had the magical talent of copying itself. This magic
molecule had two long chains of nucleotides twisted around one
another. When the chains separated, each attracted nucleotides to
itself and constructed a copy of its earlier partner. Two giant
molecules then existed in place of one. Reproduction had taken
place. This replication process occurred over and over again. Soon
offspring of the original parent molecule dominated the waters of the
young earth. They were the earliest forms of life." (Shapiro R.,
"Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Origin of Life",
Summit Books: New York, 1986, pp18-20. Emphasis mine)
Just in case there is any doubt, Shapiro gives it again as the
"account" of "those scientists most concerned with
origin-of-life research":
"These triumphs of technology testify to the power of the scientific
approach. They lead us to expect that science can also tell us how
life first began. Those scientists most concerned with
origin-of-life research have in fact provided such an account for us.
It tells of an early earth covered with roaring volcanoes, where
thunder and lightning storms flash in an atmosphere of strange gases.
Many chemicals are formed, which dissolve in the seas to create a
mixture called the prebiotic soup. This pregnant broth contains most
of the ingredients necessary for life. ONE DAY, BY CHANCE, it gives
birth to a chemical with the marvelous power to reproduce itself. It
does so, filling the broth with its descendants, and Darwinian
evolution begins. This picture has remained in place for a
generation. We learn it in high school science classes and encounter
it again in museums and the media. Popular articles and press
releases inform us that yet another piece in the nearly completed
picture has fallen into place." (Shapiro R., "Origins: A Skeptic's
Guide to the Origin of Life", Summit Books: New York, 1986, p31.
Emphasis mine).
While Shapiro does indicate that this chance explanation is becoming
less popular, he does indicate that only ten years ago it was still
the majority view among OOL scientists. Indeed, Shapiro himself,
still seems to hope for that stroke of luck, when all else has
failed:
"Early experiments would most likely produce numerous ignoble
failures, and test the patience of the investigators. But perhaps
one day, a mixture would not grind to a halt or turn to tar. Cycles
of chemical reactions would be set up which would persist and slowly
gain in complexity. Even if they damped out after some time, we
would have learned from the experience. A revised attempt could then
be made. One day, with the right mixture and conditions, the process
might not end. The chemical system would slowly organize itself and
continue to evolve. Initially, it might not contain the chemicals
important to our biochemistry. These substances might appear later,
or not at all. Either way, the result would be a vital one. By
intensive study of such an evolving system, we would learn how matter
can organize itself, even if the direction taken is different from
the one that occurred on this planet. Once the principle was
understood, the particular variation that leads to our own
biochemistry could be sought, with a greater chance of success."
(Shapiro R., "Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Origin of Life",
Summit Books: New York, 1986, p302)
I conclude that while *officially* OOL may have abandoned "chance",
it may still be there, lurking beneath the surface, and resurfacing
every now and then. Certainly there appears to be no basis to
Brian's claim that a "chance" had been abandoned by OOL researchers
"thirty years ago".
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------