On Tue, 20 Jul 1999 00:02:20 EDT, Biochmborg@aol.com wrote:
[...]
Thanks to Kevin for his response.
Note: I have put "MB>" where the quote was of Mike Behe's review of
Davies' book, "The Fourth Miracle", in order to distinguish Behe's words
from mine.
>MB>Well, we all have our preferences about the way things should be. A
>>professional scientist, however, is supposed to put aside personal biases
>>as much as possible and let the facts speak for themselves.
KO>It is interesting that Behe should write this. When he published an
>editorial in the Daily Telegraph in which he said that the inevitable result
>of any origin-of-life experiment was goo and not living cells, I wrote to
>him and described the research involving proteinoid microsphere
protocells.
But before I can comment on the above, I would appreciate it if Kevin
could post Behe's "editorial in the Daily Telegraph" (which I am not aware
of), as well as details, with references of this "research involving proteinoid
microsphere protocells".
KO>Having thus demonstrated that at least some origin-of-life experiments
>result in living cells instead of goo, I asked Behe if he would retract his
>statement. Naturally he refused, but he never once challenged the validity
>of the research itself.
Without seeing the article, I would assume that what Behe meant by "
origin-of-life experiment" resulting in "goo" was the *Miller-Urey* type of
origin-of-life experiment.
KO>Indeed, he gave every impression of not only knowing about the
research.
This seems unlikely that Behe did not know about "research involving
proteinoid microsphere protocells" because Behe actually *wrote* about
Fox's proteinoids in "Darwin's Black Box":
"For example, a scientist named Sidney Fox proposed that perhaps some
amino acids got washed up from the primordial ocean onto a very hot
surface, such as the rim of an active volcano. There, the story goes, they
would be heated above the boiling point of water; with the water gone, the
amino acids could join together. Unfortunately, other workers had earlier
shown that heating dry amino acids gives a smelly, dark brown tar, but no
detectable proteins. Fox, however, demonstrated that if an extra-large
portion of one of three different amino acids is added to a mix of purified
amino acids and heated in a laboratory oven, then the amino acids do join.
But even then they do not join to give proteins the structure they form is
chemically different. So Fox and collaborators called the structures
"proteinoids," then went on to show that the proteinoids had some
interesting properties, including modest catalytic abilities, that were
reminiscent of real proteins.
The scientific community has remained deeply skeptical of these
experiments. As with our imaginary baker, a heavy odor of investigator
involvement hangs over proteinoids. The special circumstance needed to
make them-hot, dry conditions (putatively representing rare spots such as
volcano rims) with exact amounts of already-purified amino acids
weighed out in advance casts dark shadows over the relevance of the
experiments. Worse, because proteinoids are not really proteins, the
considerable problem of producing authentic proteins remains. In his
book reviewing the difficulties of origin-of-life theories, Robert Shapiro
notes that work on proteinoids has produced a startling unanimity of
opinion:
`The proteinoid theory] has attracted a number of vehement critics,
ranging from chemist Stanley Miller...to Creationist Duane Gish. On
perhaps no other point in origin-of-life theory could we find such harmony
between evolutionists and Creationists as in opposing the relevance of the
experiments of Sidney Fox.' (Shapiro R., "Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to
the Creation of Life on Earth", Summit Books: New York, p192)
Other researchers have proposed some other ways whereby amino acids
might join to give proteins. All suffer more or less from the problems that
plague proteinoids, and none has attracted much support from the
scientific community."
(Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to
Evolution", 1996, pp169-170)
KO>(thereby demonstrating that he had willfully lied when he
>wrote his statement), but also accepting it as valid.
This does not follow. In the context Behe might have been thinking of the
dominant paradigm of the Miller-Urey type of experiment, regarding Fox's
proteinoids as unrealistic and implausible. And of course, Behe could
simply have been mistaken.
Indeed, I find it most interesting that evolutionists seem to have a need to
prove that non-evolutionists are not only intellectually wrong (ie. made a
mistake), but that they are *morally* wrong (ie. "lied"). This suggests to
me that deep down evolutionists feel insecure about their theory and feel
the need to eliminate their doubts by eliminating its critics. Thus Dawkins
feels the need to attribute wickedness and even insanity to such
`unbelievers':
"It is absolutely sate to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to
believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked,
but I'd rather not consider that)." (Dawkins R., "Put Your Money on
Evolution," Review of Johanson D. & Edey M.A,, "Blueprints: Solving the
Mystery of Evolution," New York Times, April 9, 1989, sec. 7, p34)
Indeed, it is this very "over-the-top" reaction by evolutionists to critics
that got me interested in this debate in the first place. It also was what got
Mike Behe interested also:
"The briefing about University of California, Berkeley, law professor Phillip
E. Johnson's book Darwin on Trial (News & comment, 26 July, p. 379) is a
good illustration of the failure of the scientific community to follow its own
advice about the perennial evolution controversy. Instead of simply
addressing the skeptical arguments advanced in the book, the article relies
on ad hominem remarks. It is pointed out that Johnson's religious views
predispose him against naked materialism (although in his book he states
that he finds nothing a priori incredible in God's using Darwinistic
evolution to produce life), and a science educator is trotted out to opine
that Johnson misunderstands the scientific process. Johnson is also found
guilty by association because Creationists like his book....all of this is name
calling and quite beside the point. In his book Johnson appears to be an
interested, open-minded, and very intelligent layman who sees large
conclusions drawn from little evidence, notices anomalies in current
evolutionary explanations, and will draw his own conclusions, thank you,
about the validity of Darwin's theory. A man like that deserves to be argued
with, not condescended to...when questions about the theory arise in public
forums, the scientific community would do much better in the long run to
patiently list supporting facts and frankly admit where positive evidence is
lacking, rather than paternalistically maintaining that an understanding of
the theory of evolution is reserved for the priesthood of professional
scientists. (Behe M.J., "Understanding Evolution", Letters, Science, 30
August 1991)
If evolution was just another scientific theory, I would expect evolutionists
to: 1) *welcome* criticism; 2) be friendly to critics; and 3) admit openly
where there are problems with the theory. That they don't is evidence that
evolution functions as a *religion* in the lives of its adherents:
"When The Facts of Life was published, I expected it to arouse
controversy, because it reports on scientific research that is itself
controversial, and because it deals with Darwinism - always a touchy
subject with the biology establishment. I didn't expect science to welcome
an inquisitive reporter, but I did expect the controversy to be conducted at
a rational level; that people would rightly demand to inspect my evidence
more closely and question me one tbe correctness of this or that fact. To
my horror, I found that instead of challenging me, orthodox scientists
simply set about seeing me off 'their' property. Richard Dawkins, a reader
in zoology at Oxford University, wrote his review for the New Statesman
'lest the paper commission someone else who would treat it as a serious
scientific treatise'. Dawkins devoted two thirds of his review to attacking
my hardback publishers, Fourth Estate, for their irresponsibility in daring to
accept a book critising Darwinism, and the remainder to assassinating my
character in the sort of terms quoted above. Dawkins is employed at one of
Britain's most distinguished universities and is responsible for the education
of future generations of students. Yet this is not the language of a
responsible scientist and teacher. It is the language of a religious
fundamentalist whose faith has been profaned. (Milton R., "The Facts of
Life: Shattering the Myth of Darwinism", Corgi, preface, 1993)
KO>Instead he tried to claim that the research was irrelevent (but when I
>challenged him to explain how it was irrelevent, he broke off the
>discussion).
Again, until I see the article, and Kevin and Behe's correspondence, we
only have Kevin's side of the argument. But if Behe was referring in the
context to the "goo" from a Miller-Urey type experiment, then it is easy to
see why Behe would think that Fox's "proteinoid microspheres" were
"irrelevant"!
Indeed, Shapiro, in his statement quoted by Behe above effectively says
that Fox's proteinoids are irrelevant.
Berlinski cites some of the literature against Fox's proteinoid hypothesis
and notes that Fox " ...has not persuaded the biological community of its
strength" and that "criticisms of it are overwhelming":
"There is no widely accepted, remotely plausible scenario for the
emergence of life on earth. The proteinoid hypothesis of Sidney Fox and
his colleagues (S.W. Fox, "Molecular Evolution to the First Cells," Pure
and Applied Chemistry 34, 1973) has not persuaded the biological
community of its strength. Criticisms of it are overwhelming (W. Day,
Genesis on Planet Earth; K, Dose, "Ordering Processes and the Evolution
of the First Enzymes," in Protein Structure and Evolution, eds. J.L.Fox, Z.
Deyl, A. Blazy, 1976; C.E. Folsome, "Synthetic Organic Microstructures
and the Origin of Cellular Life," Die Naturwissenschaften 7, 1976; C.
Ponnamperuma, "Cosmochemistry and the Origin of Life," in
Cosmochemistry and the Origin of Life, ed. C. Ponnamperuma, 1983; and
so forth). " (Berlinski D., "Denying Darwin: David Berlinski and Critics",
Commentary, September 1996.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/9609/letters.html)
Indeed, Davies, in his "Fifth Miracle", which Behe was reviewing, rejects
Fox's proteinoids:
"One possible escape route from the strictures of the second law is to
depart from thermodynamic equilibrium conditions. The American
biochemist Sidney Fox has investigated what happens when a mixture of
amino acids is strongly heated. By driving out the water as steam, the
linkage of amino acids into peptide chains becomes much more likely. The
thermal energy flow generates the necessary entropy to comply with the
second law. Fox has produced some quite long polypeptides, which he
terms "proteinoids', using this method. Unfortunately, the resemblance
between Fox's proteinoids and real proteins is rather superficial. For
example, real proteins are made exclusively of left-handed amino acids (see
p. 42), whereas proteinoids are an equal mixture of left and right.
There is a more fundamental reason why the random self-assembly of
proteins seems a non-starter. This has to do not with the formation of the
chemical bonds as such, but with the particular order in which the amino
acids link together. Proteins do not consist of any old peptide chains; they
are very specific amino acid sequences that have specialized chemical
properties needed for life. However, the number of alternative
permutations available to a mixture of amino acids is super-astronomical. A
small protein may typically contain 100 amino acids of 20 varieties. There
are about 10^130 (which is 1 followed by a 130 zeros) different
arrangements of the amino acids in a molecule of this length. Hitting the
right one by accident would be no mean feat. Getting a useful
configuration of amino acids from the squillions of useless combinations on
offer can be thought of as a mammoth information retrieval problem, like
trying to track down a site on the internet without a search engine."
(Davies P.F.C., "The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin of Life,"
1998, p60).
KO>So in point of fact, Behe doesn't follow the law he would impose on
>others: rather than letting the facts speak for themselves, he prefers to
>follow his own personal biases.
Without seeing the article and Kevin and Behe's private email, we have
only Kevin's word for this. And Kevin has already revealed his own
"personal biases" by calling Behe a liar.
But even without seeing the actual article and email, it is perfectly
understandable why Behe's declined to privately debate with Kevin, since
Behe is no doubt a busy person and hasn't got the time to debate privately
with everyone who knows his email address.
[...]
>MB>The fact is, from all we know of physics and
>>chemistry, one undirected origin of life already looks impossible.
KO>As I note above, Behe knows that this "fact" is false, yet he pretends
>otherwise because of his personal biases.
And as *I* note above, Kevin's own obvious "personal biases" colour his
perception of Behe's motives.
I personally share Behe's assessment that "from all we know of physics and
chemistry, one undirected origin of life already looks impossible". The way
origin-of-life theorists speak today of the difficulties, shows that to them
the origin-of-life "looks impossible", even if they don't actually admit that it
*is* "impossible". For example, Francis Crick said that "the origin life
appears...to be almost a miracle":
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could
only state that in some sense, the origin life appears at the moment to be
almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to
have been satisfied to get it going." (Crick F., "Life Itself: Its Origin and
Nature", 1981, p88)
[...]
>MB>Some of the unresolved questions that Davies rediscovers include
>>the following: Amino acids can be made under prebiotic conditions,
>>but a whole lot of interfering chemicals get made too, so how does
>>one separate the wheat from the chaff?
KO>Again, since Behe knows the relevant research, he also knows that
>this is no problem. Experiments have been done in which mixtures of
>amino acids, including non-proteinaceous amino acids, have been
>copolymerized in the presence of a wide variety of other chemical and
>physical material, yet proteinoids with catalytic activity still form. In other
>words, those "interfering" chemicals in fact do not significantly interfere
>with the formation of thermal proteins.
First, Behe is referring to what Davies said in his book, and Kevin would
have to argue that Davies was wrong too. And since Davies is not even a
theist, let alone a Christian or a creationist, Kevin's "personal biases"
argument would wear even thinner in Davies' case.
But second, Kevin is talking about two different things. The Miller-Urey
experiments start with gases and produce amino acids (plus "goo"). The
"Experiments...in which mixtures of amino acids" are polymerised, *start*
with pure amino acids:
"Thermal syntheses of polypeptides fail, however...the geological
conditions indicated are too unreasonable to be taken seriously. As
Folsome has commented "The central question [concerning Fox's
proteinoids] is where did all those pure, dry, concentrated, and optically
active amino acids come from in the real, abiological world?" (Folsome
C.E., "The Origin of Life", 1979, p87, in Thaxton C.B., Bradley W.L. &
Olsen R.L., "The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories",
1992, pp155-156)
>MB>RNA would be a possible candidate to begin life, but since RNA is a
>>whole lot harder to make than proteins, where would it have come
>>from? The genetic code mediates between the two languages of life -
>>proteins and nucleic acids - but how do mindless processes set up
>>"codes" and "languages"?
KB>Again, since Behe knows the relevant research, he also knows the
>answer to this: molecular self-organization. Thermal proteins have
>nonrandom sequences, indicating that amino acids can use their own
>internal structural and chemical information to selectively polymerize.
>And there is some recent (this decade) research which suggests that RNA
>can be formed in the same way.
This seems just `hand-waving'. I would appreciate Kevin providing details
and references from the scientific literature to this "answer" to the origin of
the "genetic code", namely "how do mindless processes set up `codes' and
`languages'?: 1) this "molecular self-organization" where " amino acids can
use their own internal structural and chemical information to selectively
polymerize"; and 2) the "recent...research which suggests that RNA can be
formed in the same way."
>MB>Like everyone else, Davies has no answers to these problems, so he
>>passes on to the reader whatever speculation has been floated. He
>>recounts the suggestion by Carl Woese that the code assignments and
>>the translation mechanism evolved together: "Initially there was only a
>>rough - and - ready code, and the translation process was very sloppy."
>>More likely that the thinking is very sloppy. Evolving code assignments
>>together with the translation apparatus is like pulling oneself up by one's
>>bootstraps, instead of all at once, a little bit on the right side then a little
>>on the left.
KB>Again, Behe knows that this is not true. Proteinoid microsphere
>protocells are able to synthesize polynucleotides using polypeptides as
>templates, as well as synthesize polypeptides directly from polynucleotide
>templates without the need for ribosomes or tRNAs.
I would appreciate Kevin posting the details, with references from the
scientific literature, to this research.
KB>It has also been experimentally
>shown that amino acids preferentially bind to specific triplit combinations
>of nucleotides; ie, most amino acids can recognize and bind to their
codons.
I would appreciate Kevin posting the details, with references from the
scientific literature, to this research too.
>MB>Davies also cites a recent paper that compares the genetic code to
>>energy levels of atomic nuclei, but only to concede that the
>>"correspondences may be purely coincidental." He even trots out
>>Sidney Fox's proteinoids and Cairns - Smith's clay crystal life - ideas
>>that are fifteen to twenty - five years old and have led nowhere.
KB>Behe implies here that the original work by Fox in the Sixties is all that
>has been done, and that researchers have ignored his work. In point of
>fact, proteinoid microsphere protocell research has been a highly active field
>for the past four decades, and there are still at least two dozen scientists
>world-wide who continue the work today. .
Well, that doesn't seem like much if "proteinoid microsphere protocells"
can do all the things that Kevin claims for them!
KB>Among other things, they now know
>that protocells can create and maintain electrical fields, that they can
>utilize light to create ATP, and that they can use that ATP to make
>polynucleotides. They also are discovering industrial and biomedical uses
>for protocells.
Again, I would appreciate Kevin posting details, with references from the
scientific literature, to this research.
>MB>Using language reminiscent of William A. Dembski (see "Science
and
>>Design," FT, October 1998) he writes that "Living organisms are
>>mysterious not for their complexity per se, but for their tightly
>>specified complexity....In short, how did meaningful information emerge
>>spontaneously from incoherent junk?"
KB>Molecular self-organization. Biomolecules, whether simple precursors
or
>macromolecules, possess specific structural and chemical information that
>permits them to selectively self-assemble into biologically useful
structures.
Sounds like more `hand-waving' to me. I would appreciate Kevin
explaining *exactly how* "did meaningful information emerge
spontaneously from incoherent junk?"
And also I would appreciate Kevin providing the references from the
scientific literature to these experiments.
>MB>As a matter of principle Davies balks at the obvious hypothesis of
>>specific design. "Science takes as its starting point the assumption that
>>life wasn't made by a god or supernatural being: it happened unaided
>>and spontaneously, as a natural process." The notion of God pushing
>>molecules around strikes him as distasteful. But it would pass muster
>>with science, he thinks, for God (or whoever it is - Davies doesn't like
>>the word "God") to make "biofriendly laws" at the beginning and then
>>butt out, allowing life to develop on its own. So from his perspective
>>the key is to find a natural law or laws that would produce life.
KB>These laws are already known to exist; even researchers who don't
like proteinoid microspheres know about them and use them for their own
>scenarios.
I would appreciate Kevin stating what these natural "laws" that "are
already known to exist" are that can "allow life to develop on its own."
And I would also appreciate references from the scientific literature to
support this claim.
>MB>This limitation leads Davies into contradictions. He explicitly says
>>that laws cannot contain the recipe for life because laws are "information
>>- poor" while life is "information - rich."
>>
>>Can [specified complexity] be the guaranteed product of a deterministic,
>>mechanical, law - like process, like a primordial soup left to the mercy
>>of familiar laws of physics and chemistry? No, it couldn't. No known law
>>of nature could achieve this.
KB>In point of fact, experimental research that refutes this claim has been
>around for four decades; Davies either wasn't aware of it or he didn't
>understand it, so he ignored it.
I would appreciate Kevin giving details, with references from the scientific
literature, to this "experimental research that... has been around for four
decades" which can produce "specified complexity" as "the guaranteed
product of a deterministic, mechanical, law - like process" from "a
primordial soup left to the mercy of familiar laws of physics and
chemistry".
>MB>Nonetheless, boxed in by his presuppositions, he proposes that there
>>may be a new type of "law," an information - generating law for which
>>we have no evidence. He thinks the law might be something along the
>>lines of Stuart Kauffman's complexity theory, where systems can self -
>>organize. Davies acknowledges that Kauffman's ideas have met with
>>considerable skepticism and have little evidence to support them.
KB>That may be true of Kauffman's specific theory, but the basic idea that
>systems can self-organize was first proposed by Oparin in the Twenties, is
>generally accepted as the theoretical basis for modern abiogenesis and has
>been experimentally verified for at least six decades, beginning with
>Alfonso Herrera's sulfobes and Oparin's coacervate droplets.
This sounds like more `hand-waving'. I would appreciate Kevin giving
details and references from the scientific literature to these other theories,
apart from "Kauffman's specific theory" which are "generally accepted as
the theoretical basis for modern abiogenesis" and have "been
experimentally verified for at least six decades..."
>MB>He also insightfully points out that with Kauffman's ideas there is "a
>>deeper problem of a conceptual nature." "Life is actually not an
>>example of self - organization. Life is in fact specified i.e., genetically
>>directed - organization."
KB>**Modern** life is genetically-directed, but that does not mean that
>Life itself must be genetically-directed. In fact, it has been experimentally
>verified that life can be created without genetics, and that genetics is a
>later evolutionary development. So in fact life is self-organizing.
I would appreciate Kevin providing details and references from the
scientific literature to where "it has been experimentally verified that life
can be created without genetics, and that genetics is a later evolutionary
development."
[...]
>MB>The bottom line is that life's origin and meaning remain as elusive as
>>ever, at least within the (semi -) naturalistic framework of Paul Davies.
>>Yet his struggle to write a book that sticks to a general-law framework,
>>even while marveling at life's extravagant information content, makes
>>The Fifth Miracle a valuable and cautionary example of blinkered
>>thought in action.
KB>And much the same can be said about Behe's review.
Only when Kevin substantiates all his assertions with details and references
from the scientific literature, can he make this claim stick. At the moment
all we have is Kevin's `hand-waving' assertions.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Our hypothetical nucleic acid synthesis system is therefore analogous to
the scaffolding used in the construction of a building. After the building has
been erected the scaffolding is removed, leaving no physical evidence that
it was ever there. *Most of the statements in this section must therefore be
taken as educated guesses.* Without having witnessed the event, it seems
unlikely that we shall ever be certain of how life arose" (Voet D. & Voet
J.G., "Biochemistry", John Wiley and Sons: New York NY, 1995, p23, in
Ashton J.F., ed., "In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in
Creation", New Holland: Sydney NSW, Australia, 1999, p165. (emphasis
in original).
--------------------------------------------------------------------