Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Friday, May 7 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1434
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 13:05:25 GMT
From: "David J. Tyler" <D.Tyler@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize
On Wed, 5 May, Kevin O'Brien wrote to Moorad:
> In science you do not have to take anything on faith. If Fox simply claimed
> that life could be synthesized in the lab, but provided no evidence to back
> up his claim, I wouldn't believe him either. The reason why I believe him is
> because he can back up his claims with scientific evidence that demonstrates
> he really has synthesized life in the lab. I don't have to have faith when I
> can read his papers, and the papers support his claims.
Also, in science, we have to be prepared to let our research be
scrutinised by our peers. It does matter what researchers in the
same field think. This is what this thread was about: is there a
widely held view in the abiogenesis research community that the
essential problems have been solved?
I have picked up my copy of Robert Schapiro's book "Origins" (first
published 1986). He devotes considerable space to Fox's work.
"For the past quarter of a century, Professor Fox has been the most
noted advocate of the proteins-first position on the origin of
life....
"Sidney Fox has not merely served as a rallying point for the
proteins-first group, but has advocated the particular system of
proteinoid microspheres, first demonstratd in his laboratory in the
late 1950s, as _the_ solution to the origin-of-life problem.
Needless to say, this position has made him a center of
controversy....(191-192)
"Why did he arouse these responses? Perhaps because he felt that he
had largely solved the origin-of-life problem. Fox referred to
another scientist who had published an extensive theory which
outlined the important questions yet to be considered: "How is he
going to feel after he finds out that we've answered these
questions?" "(192)
Thus far, Shapiro has confirmed the point that Kevin has been making:
that Fox and some of his protein-first co-researchers do genuinely
believe they have cracked the major problems. But then Schapiro goes
on to make the same point regarding the need ti look at the research
outcomes - but comes to the opposite conclusion to Kevin.
"The Skeptic must intrude at this point in our narrative. He points
out that whatever the interpersonal feelings that may be involved,
the value of the system must ultimately be determined by the
experiments themselves. So we must turn to the details...."(193)
Then follows several pages of analysis, and Shapiro explains why the
proteinoid microspheres do not (yet) deliver satisfactory answers to
the big questions of abiogenesis.
I then turned to John Casti's book "Paradigms lost" (first published
1989). He has a lengthy chapter on the abiogenesis issue. His
summary of positions taken on earth-based abiogenesis is on page 140.
Eigen, Orgel have proposed random replicators, hypercycles
Gilbert, Cech have proposed self-catalytic RNA
Oparin has proposed coacervates
Fox has proposed proteinoids
Dyson, Shapiro, Margulis have proposed a double origin, parasites
Cairns-Smith has proposed clay
Each of these models receives discussion and analysis. One paragraph:
"It's clear that both the Oparin and the Fox scenarios are hopelessly
deficient when it comes to the problem of providing a genetic
mechanism whereby hereditary information can be passed along to
future generations of cells, opening up the possibility for natural
selection to come into play. So just as the naked genies suffer from
an Achilles' left heel of no proteins to catalyze reactions that
would allow development of a large genetic information store, the
proteinists suffer from the complementary right heel of no
replication machinery.....(99).
Casti comes down in favour of Cairns-Smith - because he has suffered
less criticism than the others!
The goal of this post is to point out that Fox's work has not been
ignored by his peers, but rather it has been closely scrutinised.
And the verdict has been: Fox does not have the experimental
foundation to justify his claim to have solved the "origin of life"
problem.
Best regards,
David J. Tyler.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 08:17:50 EDT
From: Biochmborg@aol.com
Subject: Re: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize
In a message dated 5/5/99 11:31:16 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
entheta@eskimo.com writes:
> Kevin: Fox used the following characteristics to define life: cellularity,
> metabolism, reproduction, and response to external stimuli.
>
> Not bad. But in order to settle the issue, others will have to agree with
> you and Fox. They can also move their goalposts. Personally I believe that
> Fox's protocells are certainly make good candidates.
I cannot speak for our creationist "friends", but this is the definition you
will find in the dictionary and most biology textbooks. Even Fox's
scientific critics agree that these are basic characteristics of life; they
simply want to add other characteristics that are based on features that even
they admit did not appear until later in the history of the origin of life on
earth. In other words, they would agree that Fox's protocells are at least
partially alive (they have "protolife") compaired to modern cells. Fox is
simply arguing that his four characteristics are the most basic, fundamental
features that any protocell must have to even be proto-alive, and that the
other features some critics prefer are merely more advanced examples of the
simpler systems and structures his protocells already possess.
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 08:16:25 -0700
From: "Arthur V. Chadwick" <chadwicka@swau.edu>
Subject: Re: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize
At 11:14 PM 5/5/99 EDT, Kevin wrote:
>Which is exactly why it is irrelevant whether the topic has been discussed
in
>the popular press or not. Fox's work has been published in Science and
>Nature and in the top peer-reviewed journals, and it has been successfully
>repeated by others. In fact, high school students are repeating his
results!
> As such, by your own criteria, you must accept that Fox's claim to have
>synthesized life in the lab to be valid. However, you will probably just
>ignore this like you ignore everything else you cannot dispute.
References, Please.
Art
http://geology.swau.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 08:17:05 -0700
From: "Arthur V. Chadwick" <chadwicka@swau.edu>
Subject: Re: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize
At 11:13 PM 5/5/99 EDT, Kevin wrote:
>Fox used the following characteristics to define life: cellularity,
>metabolism, reproduction, and response to external stimuli. Since the
>protocells he synthesized in the lab possess all these characteristics, they
>are alive. Since, despite his admission that he is no expert on cellular
>biology, Moorad is so adamant that Fox's protocells are not alive, I was
>trying to ascertain whether he had any evidence they they really did not
>possess one or more of these characteristics, or if he knew of another
>characteristic that life must have but which protocells did not possess.
>Instead he started talking about death. I really don't see how that is
>supposed to disqualify protocells from being alive.
References, Please.
Art
http://geology.swau.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 15:28:09 -0400
From: Moorad Alexanian <alexanian@uncwil.edu>
Subject: Re: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize
God is not a material entity. Moorad
- -----Original Message-----
From: Ami Chopine <amka@vcode.com>
To: asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>; evolution@calvin.edu
<evolution@calvin.edu>
Date: Thursday, May 06, 1999 1:40 AM
Subject: Re: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize
>Is God alive?
>
>
>>
>> Death is an essential feature of something that is alive. If it does not
>> die, then it was not a material entity that was previously alive. Moorad
>>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 15:39:30 -0400
From: Moorad Alexanian <alexanian@uncwil.edu>
Subject: Re: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize
I am in the middle of much work and cannot dedicate the time to learn and
discuss the interesting issue that we are discussing. I did look at the site
you mentioned and I found the following:
"Life," in this contest is defined as follows: "--- any system which can
independently do all four of the following:"
1. "Delineate itself from its environment through the production and
maintenance of a membrane equivalent, most probably a rudimentary or
quasi-active-transport membrane necessary for selective absorption of
nutrients, excretion of wastes, and overcoming osmotic and toxic gradients,
2. Capture, transduce, store, and call up energy for utilization (work),
3. Actively replicate, not just passively polymerize or crystallize, and
4. Write, store, and pass along seemingly conceptual information that 'gives
orders' for what is to be manufactured in the future, and to actually bring
to pass those processes and "factory products" out of linguistic-like coded
(codon) messages('recipes') into physical biochemical, biological, and
thermodynamic reality."
Are the protocells of Fox alive according to the above definition?
Moorad
- -----Original Message-----
From: Biochmborg@aol.com <Biochmborg@aol.com>
To: alexanian@uncwil.edu <alexanian@uncwil.edu>; chadwicka@swau.edu
<chadwicka@swau.edu>; evolution@calvin.edu <evolution@calvin.edu>
Cc: asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 11:26 PM
Subject: Re: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize
>In a message dated 5/5/99 1:47:52 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
>alexanian@uncwil.edu writes:
>
>> Much of what we know is what we assume by faith from others who know.
>>
>
>In science you do not have to take anything on faith. If Fox simply
claimed
>that life could be synthesized in the lab, but provided no evidence to back
>up his claim, I wouldn't believe him either. The reason why I believe him
is
>because he can back up his claims with scientific evidence that
demonstrates
>he really has synthesized life in the lab. I don't have to have faith when
I
>can read his papers, and the papers support his claims.
>
>>
>> We
>> cannot be experts in everything. That I am no expert in biology does not
>> preclude me from learning from experts....
>>
>
>The problem is that you began by implying that you were enough of an expert
>to be able to dogmatically proclaim that life has not been created in the
>lab, but when I challenged you to provide some support for your claim you
>suddenly claimed you were no expert to avoid having to answer my challenge.
>You can't have it both ways, Moorad. If you are well-read enough to be
able
>to determine that life has not been synthesized in the lab, then you are
>certainly well-read enough to be able to explain why. If, however, you do
>not know or understand why life could not have been synthesized in the lab,
>how can you be so dogmatic that it has not? Simply because it hasn't been
>discussed in the popular press? That's a pretty thin argument to put your
>faith on.
>
>>
>> ...and not merely the proponents, that
>> life has been indeed synthesized in the lab.
>>
>
>Do those opponents present any evidence to back up their claim, or do you
>simply have faith that they are right because they say what you want to
>believe?
>
>>
>> There surely must be a
>> Scientific American type of magazine that discusses such a remarkable
feat.
>> You certainly are not an expert in physics but do know full well of all
the
>> fundamental, breakthroughs in physics. I can see the headlines in the
New
>> York Times: "LIFE CREATED IN A TEST-TUBE!."
>>
>
>What difference does it make whether such an article, or headline, exists?
>As a scientist, you should be persuaded by evidence, not appeals to a mass
>audience. As long as the evidence does exist, what difference does it make
>that it is in the scientific publications and not the popular press? Are
you
>saying the evidence is more believable in the popular press than in the
>scientific literature? More truthful? More accurate? All your rhetoric
>simply tells me is that you are looking for some justification for your
>refusal to read the evidence in favor of Fox's claims. Otherwise it would
>make no difference to you one way or the other.
>
>>
>> I do not believe that life is unusual, but its ubiquitous presence does
not
>> mean that people can readily go to be lab, thinker with chemicals and
bring
>> life into being!
>>
>
>Of course not, but since that is exactly what did happen, then there must
be
>some basic properties to life that can arise spontaneously from the known
>physiochemical laws. Go to the website I posted about and read the
evidence
>for yourself. If then afterwards you are still not convinced, tell my why
>and back up your claim with solid biological arguments, not metaphysical
>mumbo-jumbo about death. Or admit that you do not understand enough
biology
>to judge the evidence and your absolutist claim is based on your personal
>beliefs rather than science.
>
>>
>> It is easy to toss phrases like "life is simply a matter
>> of chemistry and organization," but to my ears that sounds as unfounded,
>> haughty claims--if not a nonsensical statement. Or else the terms
>> involved, "life" and "organization," are so defined as to make that
phrase
>a
>> vacuous tautology.
>>
>
>If you understood biology as well as you claim, you would understand what I
>meant. The fact that you did not indicates that you are not as
knowledgeable
>as you would like to believe, or would like others to believe. You can
>correct that, however; go to <www.siu.edu/~protocell/> and read the
symposium
>given by Fox. Then look up and read the articles cited at the website.
Then
>you will understand how the phrase is correct.
>
>Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 19:54:50 -0700
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize
How do you know ?
- ----------
From: Moorad Alexanian[SMTP:alexanian@uncwil.edu]
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 1999 12:28 PM
To: Ami Chopine; asa@calvin.edu; evolution@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize
God is not a material entity. Moorad
- -----Original Message-----
From: Ami Chopine <amka@vcode.com>
To: asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>; evolution@calvin.edu
<evolution@calvin.edu>
Date: Thursday, May 06, 1999 1:40 AM
Subject: Re: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize
>Is God alive?
>
>
>>
>> Death is an essential feature of something that is alive. If it does not
>> die, then it was not a material entity that was previously alive. Moorad
>>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 23:58:24 EDT
From: Biochmborg@aol.com
Subject: Re: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize
In a message dated 5/6/99 1:47:03 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
alexanian@uncwil.edu writes:
> I am in the middle of much work and cannot dedicate the time to learn and
> discuss the interesting issue that we are discussing. I did look at the
site
> you mentioned and I found the following:
>
> "Life," in this contest is defined as follows: "--- any system which can
> independently do all four of the following:"
>
> 1. "Delineate itself from its environment through the production and
> maintenance of a membrane equivalent, most probably a rudimentary or
> quasi-active-transport membrane necessary for selective absorption of
> nutrients, excretion of wastes, and overcoming osmotic and toxic gradients,
>
> 2. Capture, transduce, store, and call up energy for utilization (work),
>
> 3. Actively replicate, not just passively polymerize or crystallize, and
>
> 4. Write, store, and pass along seemingly conceptual information that
'gives
> orders' for what is to be manufactured in the future, and to actually bring
> to pass those processes and "factory products" out of linguistic-like coded
> (codon) messages ('recipes') into physical biochemical, biological, and
> thermodynamic reality."
>
> Are the protocells of Fox alive according to the above definition?
>
Dr. Aristotel Pappelis and Dr. Donald Ugent seem to believe so. Item 1 is
simply a description of cellularity, tem 2 of metabolism and item 3 of
reproduction, which are three of the four criteria Fox used (and which his
protocells demonstrate). Fox's fourth criterion was response to external
stimuli. The organizers of the webpage Pappelis and Ugent were writing about
didn't use that criterion. Instead they describe what sounds like a
combination of anabolism (that part of metabolism responsible for synthesis)
and transcription/translation. Fox's protocells can synthesize both peptides
and polynucleotides, but whether they fit the description of item 4 depends
upon how you interpret it. Not even Fox has claimed that his protocells had
a proto-transcription/translation system, but they didn't need one either.
His protocells can absorb proteinoids directly from the environment; they
don't need to make their own. It is therefore possible that item 4 may for
some part describe more advanced features that did not appear until later in
the history of the origin of life. Their absence would not disqualify a
protocell from being alive if the protocell didn't need them to live.
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 21:14:12 -0700
From: "Ami Chopine" <amka@vcode.com>
Subject: Re: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize
Is it possible that while the protein protocells may be alive, they are not
the way life began on earth? IOW, they are not the common ancestor of all
life. If this is so, then we haven't truly achieved the goal of repeating by
experimentation what happened at the dawn of life.
Also, why must we pick one scenario over another? Why not a combination of
say, random replicators, clay, and protenoids?
It is therefore possible that item 4 [information] may for
> some part describe more advanced features that did not appear until later
in
> the history of the origin of life. Their absence would not disqualify a
> protocell from being alive if the protocell didn't need them to live.
>
> Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 01:31:01 EDT
From: Biochmborg@aol.com
Subject: Re: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize
In a message dated 5/6/99 6:08:14 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
D.Tyler@mmu.ac.uk writes:
> Also, in science, we have to be prepared to let our research be
> scrutinised by our peers. It does matter what researchers in the
> same field think. This is what this thread was about: is there a
> widely held view in the abiogenesis research community that the
> essential problems have been solved?
>
[snip]
>
> The goal of this post is to point out that Fox's work has not been
> ignored by his peers, but rather it has been closely scrutinised.
> And the verdict has been: Fox does not have the experimental
> foundation to justify his claim to have solved the "origin of life"
> problem.
>
I would hardly call the opinion of two scientists (who may or may not have
the experience and expertise to evaluate abiotic research) a "verdict", nor
would I imply as you do that their opinion constitutes the consensus of the
biological community, when during this same time period a dozen or more
researchers who also reviewed Fox's work and came to the exact opposite
conclusion of your two scientists were themselves publishing research reports
that further verified Fox's claim. Also, considering that their books are
over a decade out of date, I would argue that their opinions are no longer
significant. I would be interested to see a summary of Shapiro's reasons for
concluding that Fox's proteinoids have no bearing on the origin of life, but
Casti's book was rendered obsolete the year it was pubished. Fox and his
colleagues had by then been able to demonstrate how protocells could evolve
abiotically, and had shown that protocells could also replicate peptides and
polynucleotides without a genetic system. Either Casti was unaware of that
research or he ignored it, but his opinion is solidly refuted by protocell
research.
Also, considering that this thread is discussing whether life has been
synthesized in the lab, you seem to be implying that anyone who succeeds must
therefore understand how life originated on earth. The problem is that the
two concepts could have little to do with each other. Even Fox has admitted
that. In other words, just because someone succeeds in creating life in the
lab does not mean that we would therefore automatically know exactly how life
originated. At best, the laboratory abiotic synthesis of life would be proof
of concept, demonstrating that the historical abiotic origin of life on earth
is theoretically possible, but it would not necessarily tell us how it
originated. So the question is not what Shapiro and Casti think of Fox's
claim to have figured out how life originated on earth, but whether they
believe his protocells are alive.
And as I have explained before (which you ignored), the fundamental questions
have been answered. What we do not yet know is the most likely mechanism and
the most likely series of events. The people you quote to try to prove that
abiogenesis is some huge mystery are arguing over mechanism and the
historical series of events, not the fundamental questions. I would be
willing to bet that neither Shapiro nor Casti doubt that abiogenesis actually
occurred. And in fact I would also be willing to bet that their own ideas of
how it happened share the same basic assumptions and principles, being as
they are based on the commonly accepted answers to the fundamental questions.
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 01:31:09 EDT
From: Biochmborg@aol.com
Subject: Re: Life in the Lab -- Fox and the Nobel Prize
In a message dated 5/6/99 4:23:06 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
chadwicka@swau.edu writes:
> References, Please.
I see you are still playing games. I told you where you can find references
(at <www.siu.edu/~protocell/>), including a symposium by Fox describing his
work. I will give more when I post my essay. You in turn ignored my post of
Fox's symposium, you ignored my posts explaining where you could find
references, you refuse to discuss the scientific merits of Fox's work,
prefering to bad-mouth him instead, and you won't provide any substantial
biological argument for why Fox could not have created life in the lab. You
could easily find those references yourself by going to MedLine (your
university library webpage whould have a link to it) and searching for them.
Why should I do your work for you, when you will probably just ignore me even
if I did?
For the benefit of those who, unlike Art, really want to learn about this,
here is a list of references.
In _Science_:
Fox SW, Harada K. 1958. "Thermal copolymerization of amino acids to a
product resembling protein." 128:1214.
Fox SW, Wang C-T. 1968. "Melanocyte-stimulating hormone activity on thermal
properties of amino acids." 160:547-8.
Fox SW, Harada K, Hare pe, Hinsch G, Mueller G. 1970. "Bio-organic
compounds and glassy microparticles in lunar fines and other materials."
167(918):767-70.
Fox SW, Windsor CR. 1970. "Synthesis of amino acids by the heating of
formaldehyd and ammonia." 179(961):984-6.
In _Nature_:
Fox SW. 1964. "Thermal polymerization of amino acids and production of
formed microparticles on lava." 201:336-7.
Fox SW, Krampitz G. 1964. "The catalytic decomposition of glucose in
aqueous solution by thermal proteinoids." 203:1362-4.
Some of the top peer-reviewed journals Fox has been published in:
Annals of the New York Academy of Science
Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysiology
BioSystems
Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology
Journal of Bacteriology
Journal of Molecular Evolution
Naturwissenschaften
Some of the people who have replicated Fox's work:
Aristotel Pappelis
Donald Ugent
Duane L. Rohlfing
K- Harada
Klaus Dose
Paul Melius
Koichiro Matsuno
Peter R. Bahn
R.M. Ottenbrite
Alexander T. Pol
R. Rosen
Etsuo Kokufuta
In short Art, this is real research, being done by a wide variety of people,
who are getting consistent easily reproducible results, and not some deluded
person's fantasy.
Rather than rely on your ignorance, go read the scientific literature, Art.
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #1434
********************************