Reflectorites
On Tue, 03 Oct 2000 11:06:16 -0700, Tedd Hadley wrote:
[continued]
TH>we're
>talking about the ubiquitity of life and the fact that bacteria
>have had billions of years to "learn" how to break down amino
>acids.
We are also talking about the *origin* of "life".
>SJ>But what *Tedd* claims "doesn't follow logically". Why should
>>"*all* evidence" be eliminated?
TH>There is no elimination of evidence here that I can see.
Tedd claimed that the evidence for the prebiotic soup had been
eliminated. For example, here is his own words just above:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
TH>Doesn't follow, given 1) we don't have rocks older than 3.85
>bya to check (to my knowledge), 2) life forms would likely
>consume or contaminate any such prebiotic soup.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This is saying that evidence of the prebiotic soup has been eliminated
by: 1) geological processes; and 2) "life forms".
>SJ>The living world is full of `living fossils' that have hardly
>>changed in the fossil record. There are fundamental biochemical
>>processes that are conserved across the whole of biology.
TH>Yes, that's true. How does it relate to what we're talking
>about, though?
It means that Tedd is overstating the lack of evidence and therefore how
hard the problem of simulating the origin of life is. These "fundamental
biochemical processes" are important clues about how life arose.
>>TH>2) the number of configurations of environments and chemicals
>>>is still astronomical.
>SJ>Again what *Tedd* claims "doesn't follow logically". The "number
>>of configurations of environments and chemicals" *on the early
>>Earth* is *not* "astronomical". It is *large* but it is not
>>"astronomical".
TH>I'm sticking to "astronomical". There are literally billions
>of molecules known, each of which may play a subtle part in
>possible origins of life.
Not really. There are only 20 amino acids and 4-5 nucleic acids. And they
are comprised of only a handful of chemical elements.
Tedd is overstating the problem. I bet no origin of life researcher has ever
told his granting agency that "the number of configurations of
environments and chemicals is ... astronomical" and "There are literally
billions of molecules known, each of which may play a subtle part in
possible origins of life"! If he really believed that, he would not be (or
remain) in the origin of life field.
Most (if not all) origin of life researchers work on the assumption that the
origin of life must, in the final analysis, be a simple process, since
unintelligent natural processes found it in the relatively short time-frame
and adverse conditions on the early Earth. If the origin of life turns out to
be a highly complex and improbable process that looks contrived, then it
will be good evidence for *design*:
"For instance, suppose that we finally discover that life can arise
spontaneously but only under exactly one set of conditions. One
must begin with 4003.6 gallons of eight specific, absolutely pure
chemicals, exactly proportioned down to the molecule. The mixture
must then be sealed into a large, light green Tupperware container
with one sterile copy of "Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club
Band." Do that, and life develops spontaneously by natural means
(catalyzed by the precise surface characteristics of "Sgt. Pepper").
Its development, subsequent reproductions and characteristics are
completely according to normal natural laws. And life in this case
was not directly specially created. But those initial conditions
involve interjection of deliberate intent and design with a
vengeance." (Ratzsch D., "Design, Chance & Theistic Evolution,"
in Dembski W.A., ed., "Mere Creation," 1998, p.291)
>SJ>Any large problem can be broken down into manageable components
>>and tested, and those that fail can be eliminated. And any
>>limited successes can be zeroed in on. With the accumulated
>>knowledge how molecules work and with the simulating power of
>>supercomputers, they should be able to do it, "*If* the origin
>>of life was fully naturalistic."
TH>Yes. I figure another 10-20 years should give us a pretty
>good idea.
They have been saying that for the last 40+ years. Here is a quote from
Simpson, who in 1960 (i.e. 40 years ago) said that "a highly distinguished
international panel of experts" *all* "considered the experimental
production of life in the laboratory imminent" and in fact "one maintained
that this has already been done":
"At a recent meeting in Chicago, a highly distinguished international
panel of experts was polled. All considered the experimental
production of life in the laboratory imminent, and one maintained
that this has already been done-his opinion was not based on a
disagreement about the facts but on a definition as to just where, in
a continuous sequence, life can be said to begin." (Simpson G.G.,
"The World into Which Darwin Led Us," Science, Vol. 131, No.
3405, 1 April 1960, pp.966-974, p.969)
[...]
>SJ>In fact that is what they have been doing these last
>>40+ years. The problem is that *none* of the possibilities
>>work. Which is good evidence that the origin of life on the
>>early Earth was *not* fully naturalistic.
TH>No, that's currently just an argument from ignorance.
>We've had more than 40 years to cure cancer and we haven't
>done it.
I know several people who have been cured of cancer. One is my own
nephew, who had leukaemia as a child in the 1970s and was given only 3
months to live. However, following much prayer for his healing, after being
given up for dead, they tried a new treatment of massive doses of radiation
which would have killed an adult and he survived.
The problem with curing cancer, I understand, is not that they don't know
how to do it, but cancer spreads and if they don't get it early enough, the
body cannot take the massive curative measures (i.e. chemotherapy,
radiotherapy and surgery) necessary to cure it.
[...]
>>>SJ>I regard Tedd's dragging in of the common cold as just a
>>>red-herring. There is little or no connection between curing
>>>the common cold and demonstrating an abiotic origin of life.
>>TH>The only connection I wish to stress is that they both seem
>>to be simple problems which turn out to be difficult to solve.
>>>No red-herring.
>SJ>And as I pointed out they *are* "simple problems which turn out"
>>*not* "to be difficult to solve" just that they are not *worth*
>>solving. They already *can* "solve" influenza (which is the same
>>family of virii), because that is *worth* solving.
TH>False. They can't solve the influenza problem currently (you
>claim they've developed the perfect flu vaccine now?)
No one claims there has to be "the perfect flu vaccine". If there are many
strains of influenza virii, then all that is required is many effective flu
vaccines. Which is what they do have.
Tedd is confusing knowing enough about a problem to know what the
solution is and that, in the nature of the case, there can be no one perfect
solution, with not knowing enough about the problem to know what the
solution is.
I maintain that they know enough about *both* the problems of influenza
and the origin of life, to know what the solution is. In the case of influenza
they have implemented that knowledge to develop cost-effective vaccines.
But in the case of the origin of life, for philosophical reasons they don't like
the solution, i..e. design, so they are stuck in a loop endlessly trying non-
design law and chance solutions.
TH>much like
>they can't cure cancer, AIDS, or any of a variety of virus or
>bacteria induced diseases. The problem is more complicated than
>it appeared to be 50 years ago.
See previously on "cancer".
"AIDS" is a special case. There are many eminent researchers who claim
that the real problem is they are barking up the wrong tree. But it is
always possible that they are know that the cause of AIDS is HIV and
that it is simply incurable. Knowing the problem perfectly can be
knowing there is *no* solution.
But I regard these all as red-herrings. If Tedd wants to change the
subject to "cancer, AIDS, or any of a variety of virus or bacteria
induced diseases" then I don't.
>>TH>Heh, post something up to date, not 12 years out of date!
>SJ>This is another ploy that Darwinists use. They always assume
>>that the passage of time resolves their problems automatically,
>>so that all they have to do is ignore a problem long enough and
>>they can declare out "out of date":
TH>No, I'm not declaring the problem out of date, I'm declaring
>your summary of the problem out of date. 12 years out of
>date to be exact.
Tedd can declare it all he likes. I regard it as a "ploy", unless he can come
up with why my "summary of the problem" is *wrong*. Being "out of
date" has nothing to do with it.
TH>[Davies:
>>SJ>Having spent a year or two researching the field
>>I am now of the opinion that there remains a huge gulf in
>>>our understanding. To be sure, we have a good idea of the
>>>where and the when of life's origin, but we are a very long
>>>way from comprehending the how. This gulf in understanding
>>>is not merely ignorance about certain technical details,
>>>it is a major conceptual lacuna. I am not suggesting that
>>>life's origin was a supernatural event, only that we are
>>>missing something very fundamental about the whole business.]
TH>I agree with that. I recently posted a research URL here that
>goes along that lines -- proposing lipid molecules as a potential
>origin for early replicators -- i.e. a radically new approach
>to origins of life. Whether that particular approach will pan
>out remains to be seen.
I would be surprised if an "approach" involving "lipid molecules as a
potential origin for early replicators" is even new, let alone "radically new".
Thaxton, et al, cite a 1980 approach by Stillwell involving "lipid vesicles",
which were in turn proposed as early as 1958:
"Historically, the two best-known protocell models are the
coacervates of Oparin and the proteinoid microspheres of Fox.
Lately, Folsome's microstructures and Stillwell's lipid vesicles have
also received considerable attention. ... 3. Lipid vesicles (Goldacre,
1958; Hargreaves and Deamer, 1978). (Thaxton C.B., Bradley
W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing
Current Theories," [1984], 1992, p.170)
In any event, it is clearly not what *Davies* means by a "radically new"
approach to origins of life. Davies in fact mentions "lipids" but he points
out that what needs to be explained is not "lipids" or amino acids or nucleic
acids but *all* of these components coming into existence *simultaneously* to
form a self-replicating *system*:
"So far I have just been talking about making proteins by linking
amino acids into peptides. But proteins are only a small part of the
intricate fabric of life. There are lipids and nucleic acids and
ribosomes, and so on. And here we hit yet another snag. It is
possible that scientists, using complicated and delicate laboratory
procedures, may be able to synthesize piecemeal the basic
ingredients of life. What is far less likely is that the same set of
procedures would yield all the required pieces at the same time.
Thus, not only is there a mystery about the self-assembly of large,
delicate and very specifically structured molecules from an
incoherent melee of bits, there is also the problem of producing,
simultaneously, a collection of many different types of molecules.
Let me spell out what is involved here. I have already emphasized
that the complex molecules found in living organisms are not
themselves alive. A molecule is a molecule is a molecule; it is
neither living nor dead. Life is a phenomenon associated with a
whole society of specialized molecules, millions of them,
cooperating in surprising and novel ways. No single molecule
carries the spark of life, no chain of atoms alone constitutes an
organism. Even DNA, the biological supermolecule, is not alive.
Pluck the DNA from a living cell and it would be stranded, unable
to carry out its familiar role. Only within the context of a highly
specific molecular milieu will a given molecule play its role in life.
To function properly, DNA must be part of a large team, with each
molecule executing its assigned task alongside the others in a
cooperative manner.
Acknowledging the interdependability of the component molecules
within a living organism immediately presents us with a stark
philosophical puzzle. If everything needs everything else, how did
the community of molecules ever arise in the first place? As most
large molecules needed for life are produced only by living
organisms, and are not found outside the cell, how did they come to
exist originally, without the help of a meddling scientist? Could we
seriously expect a Miller-Urey type of soup to make them all at
once, given the hit-andmiss nature of its chemistry?
You might get the impression from what I have written that not
only is the origin of life virtually impossible, but that life itself is
impossible. If fragile biomolecules are continually being attacked
and disintegrated, surely our own bodies would rapidly degenerate
into chemical mayhem spelling certain death? Fortunately for us,
our cells contain sophisticated chemical repair and construction
mechanisms, handy sources of chemical energy to drive processes
uphill, and enzymes with special properties that can smoothly
assemble complex molecules from fragments. Also, proteins fold
into protective balls that prevent water from attacking their delicate
chemical bonds. As fast as the second law tries to drag us downhill,
this cooperating army of specialized molecules tugs the other way.
So long as we remain open systems, exchanging energy and entropy
with our environment, the degenerative consequences of the second
law can be avoided. But the primordial soup lacked these
convenient cohorts of cooperating chemicals. No molecular repair
gangs stood ready to take on the second law. The soup had to win
the battle alone, against odds that are not just heavy, but mind-
numbingly huge. it so what is the answer? Is life a miracle after all?"
(Davies P.C.W., "The Fifth Miracle," 1998, pp.61-63)
>SJ>The only problem is that they assume it has to be "new"
>>*naturalistic* "idea s"!
TH>Yup, there's so many of them to test.
Not really. Its just the same old thing recycled endlessly.
[...]
>>TH>Don't forget that the availability of research grants severely
>>>constrains this approach.
>SJ>Especially when trying the same old naturalistic "approach" has
>>failed!
TH>True, 1) it's a hard problem with no immediate solution on the
>horizon, and 2) research grants seem to be a little skewed
>towards endeavors that will eventually turn a profit for industry.
It would not be such "a hard problem with no immediate solution on the
horizon" if they thought even for a moment that it might not have been
fully materialistic and naturalistic, but intelligently directed.
>SJ>Virtually all the "public funding" on OoL these days in in NASA's
>>budget and that's why it has this "alien-life form" spin. It is
>>even starting to be criticised by other scientists:
TH>[New Scientists Editorial:
>SJ>NASA needs to broaden its aims and find other ways to capture
>>the imagination. If it doesn't, it risks getting lost in space. ]
TH>Yeah, let's hope twice bitten, twice shy.
If NASA gives up on the origin of life, then that might be the end of
materialistic-naturalistic OoL research. Then the ID movement (or a future
ID science) might take it up?
[...]
>SJ>The point about "abiogenesis" being "a threat to religious
>>belief" began with materialistic-naturalistic science assuming
>>it was simple and that would validate their whole
>>materialistic-naturalistic program.
TH>Nah, science is skewed towards naturalistic processes because
>those are the ones that work. If supernatural process worked
>as well, science would consider those as well.
Tedd is IMHO kidding himself if he really believes this. Materialist-
naturalists would keep on trying "naturalistic processes" and rejecting
"supernatural process" on philosophical grounds, whether they "worked"
or not.
Larson and Witham have showed that 95% of the NAS are either atheists
or agnostics and to think that as individuals they ever would consider
as a possibility something that threatens their basic metaphysical
framework, not to mention their cultural power, is at best simply
naive.
[...]
>SJ>Yet they cannot escape now. If the origin of life requires
>>intelligent input , then the whole materialistic-naturalistic
>>program would collapse:
TH>Nah, it just moves the natural origin of life to another part
>of the universe.
Tedd should read what I said again.
TH>[On abiogenetic research]
>>TH>Exactly. There is a great deal of material there that you
>>can't simply dismiss out of hand because you don't know enough
>>>about early Earth conditions to rule it out.
>SJ>I don't "dismiss out of hand" or "rule ...out" *anything* - I
>>am not a Darwinist!
>>
>>If Tedd wants to claim something, then let him do so and post
>>his *evidence* so *everyone* on this List can see it.
TH>I've already made my claim and supported it. There is a
>great deal of material out there that you can't simply dismiss
>out of hand
I repeat, I don't "dismiss out of hand" anything. It is the *materialist-
naturalists* who are continuing to "dismiss out of hand" the very possibility
of intelligent agency in the origin of life, and refuse to even consider it.
TH>because you (the generic sense of "you") don't know
>enough about early Earth conditions to rule it out. Thus,
>you can't claim we know too much about abiogenesis.
Again, I don't "rule...out" anything. It is the *materialist-naturalists* who
"rule...out" intelligent agency in the origin of life, and refuse to even
consider it.
>>TH>We do *not* know too much about abiogenesis, we know too
>>little and that is amply demonstrated by the variety of approaches
>>>being attempted, suggested and often rejected.
>SJ>Tedd would need to support this claim from the scientific
>>literature otherwise it sounds too much like something he just
>>made up or has accepted uncritically from an unreliable source.
TH>You really think there *aren't* a variety of approaches to
>abiogenesis being attempted, suggested and often rejected?
It is not a question of what I "think". It is up to Tedd to "support this claim
from the scientific literature."
>SJ>I am not claiming that Tedd does not really believe this, but
>>there is no claim that I am aware of in the OoL literature that
>>"we know too little" "about abiogenesis".
TH>It's obvious we know too little. Anytime you have two theories
>to explain one phenomenon, we know too little. Look at the
>history of science for gosh sakes.
It is not "obvious" at all that "we know too little." What seems "obvious"
to IDers is that they know too much now to know how the origin of life
could happen fully materialistically and naturalistically but they keep on
stuck in that rut because the alternative, intelligent agency is literally
unthinkable.
>SJ>Indeed in a recent book co-authored by a Professor of Biochemistry
>>(Weber) claims that because of what we know about the molecular
>>level, "it is now overwhelmingly likely that life...will be
>>produced and replicated under laboratory conditions within a
>>fairly short time":
TH>5-10 years, perhaps? That seems a tad optimistic to me mainly
>because such predictions in any area of human-oriented science
>seem to fail. Whatever designed humans, be it evolution or an
>intelligent force, did it in a very counter-intuitive manner.
I do not see it as *very* "counter-intuitive". What is unfolding
seems pretty much what I expected.
>SJ>The *real* problem is not that OoL researchers don't know enough,
>>but that they know *too much* and on naturalistic philosophical
>>grounds refuse to acknowledge what is staring them in the face!
>>That is, the origin of life was not fully naturalistic but required
>>the input of intelligence.
TH>No, I disagree. The number of environments combined with
>potential chemical interactions is astronomical. Now we're
>discovering that critical compounds may come from space: comets,
>meterorites, etc., and that only adds to the search space.
Tedd is of course entitled to his personal opinion. But to date he has not
posted any quote from OoL researchers that "The number of environments
combined with potential chemical interactions is astronomical."
We will have to agree to disagree on this point.
TH>What other area of science seeks to elucidate one particular
>molecular reaction that might or might not have taken place 4
>billion year ago? Talk about a needle in a hay stack.
That is assuming it was "one particular molecular reaction". If there was
only "one particular molecular reaction" possible (otherwise what is Tedd's
point?) then that sounds to me like the origin of life was indistinguishable
from a miracle!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not
designed, but rather evolved." (Crick F.H.C., "What Mad Pursuit: A
Personal View of Scientific Discovery," [1988], Penguin: London, 1990,
reprint, p.138)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 15 2000 - 17:18:35 EDT