The Origin of Life

[Jose]

The abiogenesis story nonetheless follows the same rules as the rest of science. We gather information--data, observations, etc--from the world. We then develop models to explain the observations. The rules are that we can't invent things for which there are no data. ... If we stick with facts--hard evidence from geochemistry and from experimental chemistry--we're kinda stuck with current ideas for the origin of life. We may be dissatisfied that we don't have a complete story yet, but that doesn't justify the response that so many people have: throw out everything we know, in favor of magical stories that emerged in a pre-scientific age.

But abiogenesis does exactly that. It invents a mechanism that explains the creation of life to fit with the theory of cosmogenesis even though there is absolutely no data to support it and ignores the masses of data that debunk it. ... Hard evidence from intensive experimentation suggests that life does not originate in this way at all. There is no evidence that biological/living processes can evolve from non-living self replicating molecules and all the data suggests that they do not. By all means believe it if you must but it isn't science.

The above exchange illustrates the basic issue. The Origin-of-Life researchers have lots of data and lots of ideas, but no absolute proof of a particular mechanism by which life certainly arose from plain old chemistry. The anti-evolution folks insist that the physical origin of life (as opposed to special creation) is hogwash, a flight of fancy for which there are no facts. They use this to claim that evolution is impossible, although "evolution" is what life does after it exists, not before.

Questions for Debate

1. Are there data and ideas? Are they valid? What is the current status of Origin-of-Life research?
2. What, if anything, has been debunked?
3. Is it valid to pretend that a chemical origin of life is impossible until it's been re-constructed in the lab, with a complete description of every step? We don't require this level of certainty for medical research; why require it for this?

__________________
Use a small broom for the corners.

[Sleepy]

the rather obvious fact that it might only take on successful self replication to initiate the entire chain of life. In reality it is infinitely more likely that the process got off to innumerable false starts but this is irrelevant.

The fact that such systems have not been shown to be unlimited even by designed molecules in the lab is a fine example of how a low degree of skepticism over naturalism is required to believe it happened. Current examples of self replication systems do not have unlimited potential in their processes without significant addition of information. These significant additions may or may not have naturalistic answers but whilst it is rediculous to suggest that we should just lay it all at the hands of a God and not investigate it, it is equally arrogant to suggest that God cannot be the explanation because that is not science and persue an answer that is infinitely more unlikely. Hence we have currently proved nothing

I am pointing out that this is a leap of faith, being that as in your own words, a natural explanation is such that

In reality it is infinitely more likely that the process got off to innumerable false starts

Logically though this would present a dilemma about the complexity of this explanatory necessity (intelligent being)

I will open a thread on this for you in the philosophy section. I'll title it complexity of God and causation.

But I'm still very much open to reason - I might even go so far as saying that I'd be elated if you could show me why it is unreasonable to have this principle operating in this particular area. That could only add to all the other fascinations I already have about the cosmos.

Your own admission of extremely high improbability, use of the terms infinite and innumberable false starts in your own language should be warning signs and should open you up to the possibility that your reasoning is unreasonable. This is why I believe you may be influenced by naturalistic belief because you count this as irrelevant. Appologies if this is misplaced but you can hardly suggest I have no reason to think this when you yourself consider it 'really' more likely that the process got off to innumberable false starts. I draw this conclusion here by the mention that this huge amount of hypothetical false starts is waved away by the assumption that it probably happened despite the lack of current evidence. If this is not the case then your own logic dictates it probably did not happen. If you think it probably did not happen, how does one artificial poor example in 1996 and a principle that may or may not have applied given the lack of a model prove convincing?

[QED]

the rather obvious fact that it might only take on successful self replication to initiate the entire chain of life. In reality it is infinitely more likely that the process got off to innumerable false starts but this is irrelevant.

The fact that such systems have not been shown to be unlimited even by designed molecules in the lab is a fine example of how a low degree of skepticism over naturalism is required to believe it happened.

I don't see how our technical inabilities can tell us much about what nature might be capable of doing. That's why I'm so much more interested in what we can achieve.

I am pointing out that this is a leap of faith, being that as in your own words, a natural explanation is such that

In reality it is infinitely more likely that the process got off to innumerable false starts

Logically though this would present a dilemma about the complexity of this explanatory necessity (intelligent being)

I will open a thread on this for you in the philosophy section. I'll title it complexity of God and causation.

Again you don't seem to quite get the full context of what I am saying. It is infinitely more likely that the process got off to a false start than it is that the first chemical reaction on Earth happened to be one that resulted in self-replication. The emphasis was supposed to be on the fact that this doesn't matter, evolution only needs a tiny foot-hold to get it entirely off the ground.

Your own admission of extremely high improbability, use of the terms infinite and innumberable false starts in your own language should be warning signs and should open you up to the possibility that your reasoning is unreasonable.

No. These words may be familiar to you in the context of the incredulity that leads some to supernatural conclusions but you are forgetting how natural selection is a tool for climbing mount improbable!

This is why I believe you may be influenced by naturalistic belief because you count this as irrelevant.

I count it as irrelevant because I understand a mechanism by which highly improbable outcomes can be arrived at.

Appologies if this is misplaced but you can hardly suggest I have no reason to think this when you yourself consider it 'really' more likely that the process got off to innumberable false starts. I draw this conclusion here by the mention that this huge amount of hypothetical false starts is waved away by the assumption that it probably happened despite the lack of current evidence.

The waving away is achieved by considering the vast state space opened up by gigatons of elements held far from thermal equilibrium for hundreds of millions of years -- allied to the fact that the "right stuff" need only happen, at most, once.

If this is not the case then your own logic dictates it probably did not happen. If you think it probably did not happen, how does one artificial poor example in 1996 and a principle that may or may not have applied given the lack of a model prove convincing?

What I have presented is a tiny snapshot of an active and ongoing field. It should only take one example of evolved hardware (from a trustworthy source) to show that design solutions can be generated autonomously. If it is important for you to believe that this is an isolated, poor, example then I'd advise you not to go looking for more up-to-date activity in this field. The principle remains a potent source of apparent design in any system that regenerates slightly imperfect copies of a product description - selected by fitness to some criteria or other. Turbine blades, timetables, flight control systems, electronic circuits - all these things and many more have already been evolved by industry, universities and Government depts. Anything that can be assembled to a plan subject to random variation and that can subsequently be selected for in some way can be evolved. If this has no relevance to the evolution of life -- I'll eat my hat

[achilles12604]

You were quite correct. Even if it was possible for mutations to build RNA and even DNA molecules, (an so far this is a theory, but for the record I have no objections) this would have certainly taken much longer than 150 million years. And mind you that we are not talking about a couple once celled organisms at 150 million years. We are talking about the whole earth covered in algea. This is really fast. Especailly since there are so many combinations that the RNA and DNA could combine into which would have created nothing.

Try 999 million years to go from the first life to a one celled creature we would call a bacterium.(with the R/DNA your talking about). For most of the first part of that period R/DNA probably did not exist. All other life came in the last 800 million years.

Grumpy -

999 million years?

Not according to every science site I have found.

Here are a few.

http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com/tl1.html

http://hometown.aol.com/tritonsky/page2.html

http://www.xenotechresearch.com/marsm.htm

http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/~kor ... img10.html

http://www.physics.queensu.ca/~phys214/ ... eline.html



With all of these, from the time the earths crust was able to sustain life and the oceans stopped boiling killing all life that had possible begun, you have about 150 million years until life had totally covered the globe. And the life that covered the globe had the DNA complexity that I put forth in my last post.



These are facts Grumpy. I don't present them simply because they happen to agree with me. They are leading scientific opinions.

[achilles12604]

QED-


You are so embroiled with the mincing of words with Sleepy that you have not yet examined the numbers I have put forth.

For example the rate of mutation between generations being .002.

The short time frame of 150 million years for the entire DNA sequence I mentioned to be put together in correct order without any positive attraction between any specific acid compounds.

The fact that when DNA or RNA replicates, it does so exactly.

IE when a cell under goes division, the DNA splits right down the middle and then the exact same chemical that just left, fills in on both sides creating identical DNA and thus a new cell.

I am curious. Are there scientific studies that have proven that basic chromozomes change during division? Not theories mind you, but anything conclusive? Without this, macroevolution all the way back to Grumpies suggestion of one RNA moleule becomeing more complex with time is out the window.

ANY time I have every been told about molecular reproduction, it always ends up with the exact same thing as was present before. I am not an expert however and so rather than presenting an arguement just yet, I am wondering if anyone has any facts to alter or advance what I am currently aware of.

[Sleepy]

I'll eat my hat

Would you like to meal-deal or super size that?

[Jose]

QED-

You are so embroiled with the mincing of words with Sleepy that you have not yet examined the numbers I have put forth.

For example the rate of mutation between generations being .002.

*sigh* OK...0.002 what in what time frame? For mammals, it's 0.2 base changes per million bases per year. That comes out to about 264 mutations per person per generation.

The short time frame of 150 million years for the entire DNA sequence I mentioned to be put together in correct order without any positive attraction between any specific acid compounds.

This is meaningless, frankly. 150 million years is a long time. Think how many posts Grumpy could create in that time, if you want a sense of how long it is. It's short relative to the age of the universe, but a time span is uninformative without something more for comparison. How many chemical reactions happen per second on the entire earth? We don't have the numbers to evaluate your 150 million years.

The fact that when DNA or RNA replicates, it does so exactly.

...except that it does not. There are mutations. In addition, there are mutations that occur outside of the S-phase when DNA is replicating. (I won't comment on the RNA replication...that's only relevant now for weird viruses).

IE when a cell under goes division, the DNA splits right down the middle and then the exact same chemical that just left, fills in on both sides creating identical DNA and thus a new cell.

Well, the polymerase tries to create an identical DNA molecule, but its success is limited by the error rate. The error rates have been measured. They are far from zero. Mutations Happen.

I am curious. Are there scientific studies that have proven that basic chromozomes change during division? Not theories mind you, but anything conclusive? Without this, macroevolution all the way back to Grumpies suggestion of one RNA moleule becomeing more complex with time is out the window.

If, when you say "basic chromosomes," you mean the sequence of DNA molecules, then yes--there are bazillion such studies. The science of genetics is based on this principle. There's no point in arguing about whether mutations occur. They do.

ANY time I have every been told about molecular reproduction, it always ends up with the exact same thing as was present before. I am not an expert however and so rather than presenting an arguement just yet, I am wondering if anyone has any facts to alter or advance what I am currently aware of.

You have been told oversimplifications. That's how things are taught. Teach the basic idea first, then come back later and add in the complexities. You probably didn't get to the part about multiple DNA polymerases, and the different proofreading functions of each of them, or the fact that the damage-repair polymerase is far more error-prone than the S-phase replication polymerase. There's a lot more detail than gets into the average biology class. The indisputable fact is that replication is not perfect. There are lots of mistakes.

...and that's now. The first things, with lousy replication systems, must have been far more subject to mutation.

-------------

Having said all this, I'd like to suggest that we look back at the OP. The idea is to look at what is known, and what has actually been suggested. What we think based on our own views of common sense is irrelevant. I may think that 150 million years is "long enough," and achilles may think that it's "too short," but without any data our gut-level feelings about it don't count.

Similarly, it doesn't matter how complicated the DNA sequence is for a present-day bacterium. Every present-day bacterium has a family history of several billion years of evolution during which time it could acquire all those thousands of bases. We aren't talking about today's bacteria. We aren't talking about today's "simple organisms." We're talking about the FIRST living things, which simply were not what we have now. As I think about this, I find it puzzling that so many people make the argument that current life is too complicated to have arisen from ordinary chemistry. They seem to make the assumption that the earliest quasi-life was current life. That's like saying the very first human ever to walk the globe was George Bush. It doesn't make sense. Why is it such a popular way of thinking?

[Sleepy]

3. Is it valid to pretend that a chemical origin of life is impossible until it's been re-constructed in the lab, with a complete description of every step?

Honestly I am not sure this is a fairly worded question given...

Is it valid to pretend that a chemical origin of life is impossible...

OK firstly this is me being picky (a vice i know) but I like good questions and this I believe is not a good question, here is why.

This word 'pretend' can be used in the case of to 'take it upon yourself to hold' but even then is often in the context of 'cannot pretend', it is usually used in the context of a falsehood or illusion. Are you really implying by your question that people falsely hold that the chemical origin of life is impossible? If so your question assumes the answer as it considers this opinion invalid whilst it asks if it is valid. Hence it is not a good question.

The use of language here already plays the question into the hands of physicalist thought. A bias I am sure you did not intend, but equally I am sure you can see why I feel the question is not as well put as it could be.

The question also fails to see the reverse implication. It would be equally valid to ask this question

4. Is it valid to pretend that a chemical origin of life is possible until it's been re-constructed in the lab...?

These questions are based in the balance of the interpretation of the word possible. As you have seen me say time and time again. It will not take much evidence to convince you of something you already believe. Your question ends up putting two philosophies at odds with each other based on each ones view of the possibility and plausability of the evidence. Naturalism verses Design and of course the two will interpret the data differently and see different possibilities and plausabilities based on their a priori assumptions of what is likely.

Jose you rightly suggest and I commend you.

What we think based on our own views of common sense is irrelevant.

But your question 3 brings into sharp debate those two views as I have shown, on the basis of each one's common sense by asking to evaluate the possibility. You will end up with each side exchanging 'it is possible', 'no its not', 'yes it is', 'no its not...'

When a question fails to bring up the expected answers in debate, perhaps a better question is needed...

4. On what basis are you so confident that early replication systems existed on earth?

[Jose]

Thank you, Sleepy. We're more on the right track.

Let's pretend, just for laughs, that I didn't use the word pretend. Let's replace it with "conclude," which is what the anti-chemical-origin folks have done. They have concluded that a mere chemical origin is impossible. Is this valid?

I used the word "pretend" because it's not science to form a firm conclusion when the issue is unproven.

You suggest that we scientists do this all the time, and that the abiogenesis issue is one instance thereof. The trouble is, this is a misunderstanding of science. Science never claims Truth. Some scientists may do so, but in doing so, they go beyond the methods of science. Religious folk tend not to see this, because it is the very nature of religion to claim Truth in the absence of evidence. Once one is used to having things presented as Truth, it's apparently hard to take scientific conclusions as tentative.

But back to pretending. Is it valid to pretend something is possible until it's proven to be impossible? Yes. Until it's proven impossible, no one knows whether it's possible. This is quite different from pretending something is impossible when there is no proof one way or another. Claiming impossibility is claiming infallible knowledge--and in the absence of proof, that claim can only be pretense.

As you rightly say, the common sense bit leads to a continuous exchange of "it's possible" "no it isn't" "yes it is"...ad naseum. That's why we need to look at what is known.

When a question fails to bring up the expected answers in debate, perhaps a better question is needed...

Fair enough.

4. On what basis are you so confident that early replication systems existed on earth?

All we do is walk backward to simpler life forms. Life is a replication system. Early life would be an early replication system. The evidence is unambiguous that current life is more complex than early life, especially Precambrian life. The earliest things would be simpler than the later things--again consistent with fossil data. Geochemical evidence is that there were "things we don't understand" that led to geochemical signatures that plain old chemistry doesn't do, and that current life doesn't do. These look like signatures of early life that was chemically different from what eventually out-competed it. The data, in other words, point to various kinds of chemistry in self-organizing systems, with eventually one kind of chemistry becoming common. This isn't what you'd expect of an intelligent designer, unless, perhaps, he wasn't so intelligent after all.

[Rob]

I used the word "pretend" because it's not science to form a firm conclusion when the issue is unproven.

I appreciate your honesty Jose. I would not use the word "pretend" myself, because it is too loaded with implicit meanings which imply intentions other than an honest examination of the facts in a search for truth. Why not just use the words of some of the world's most renowned scientists in the field of the study of the origin of life?

They use words such as "idle speculation," or "imagination, if not blind faith."

Or, for example, with regards to your allusion to "geochemical evidence" the phrase "which is by no means certain" as in "If the oxygen in those ancient BIFs is of biological origin, which is by no means certain, then oxygenic photosynthesis must have been in place at that time. " (Sapp 2005: 66-67). Or "as yet, no data to support" as in "There are, as yet, no data to support that BIF precipitation was linked directly to microbial activity." (Klein 2005). Or "raise serious doubts" as in "a number of data are presented that raise serious doubts on the cynobacterial origin of the traces and, even, on their biological origin." (de Duve 2002: 214)

All these phrases are used by actual scientists in the field of study about the origin of life, Autopoietic Systems and the Order of Life, which certainly given their credentials in the field are worth some consideration in this discussion.

Emergence
Prior Probabilities Have No Probative Force
Scientism and Scientific Fallacies and Role of Philosophy
Evolutionary Developmental Biology
Essence of Darwinism and Basis of Modern Orthodoxy
Dogma of the Modern Synthesis: Panselectionism and Neo-Darwinism

[FinalEnigma]

im not a scientist or anything, and dont really know a whole lot about biology, so if anything i say now or in the future is way off base please correct me, im sure you all know a lot more than me about such things.

i have an observation though. you all keep reiterating that everything has to line up perfectly within a specific period of time, or to use the card anagoly that the shuffle has to come out ace-king within 30 minutes without outside help now, attributing a timeline where this must happen on earth is perfectly valid, but only if you discount that sentient life could have occured on other planets before it did on earth. im not saying its neccesarily likely, but to be openminded and realistic about this we have to agree that alien intervention is a theoretical possibility. I know society has taught us to scoff at the merest mention of aliens but it is theoretically possible, and if we assume that we werent a random occurence, but rather a deliberate alien creation it would eliminate the objection of life happening in multiple locations that people sometimes bring up

now please dont discount me just because i mentioned aliens, i'm just bringing up the possibility, not saying its neccesarily probable. but it just bugged me that everyone was seeming to assume that life had to occur on earth without outside intervention. couldnt it just as easily have occured on another planet where the timescale between the planet's being able to support life and the eventual state of life coverage of the planet was not restricted to 150 million years?. admittedly this just pushes the issue back a step, but many of the objections i am reading seem to be based on the location of the origional occurence of life to the level of intelligent beings to be on earth. the proportions of elements could easily have happened the right way on another planet that we just dont have specific knowledge of at this time.


though i may be interpereting the issue incorrectly as to the time reference the issue of rate of mutation doesnt really seem to be much of an issue even given a .002(which i assume to be basically .2%) mutation between generations(assuming you are referring to organisms rather than cells) given the life span of beings such as bacteria which can be as short as 15 minutes(i googled it) the number of generations that could occur in 150 million years is 5256000000000, which, given a .002 rate of mutation per generation gives, at my best estimate(an estimate because i cant remember the appropriate formula right now), a probability of 10512000000 mutations occuring. thats a whole lot of mutation. (or in case the 150 million years was regarding something other than the mutations would come out to 70.08 mutations per year)


another observation, the issue of proving that something is not possible or does not exist seems to be a difficult one, particularly as with the concept of god, as it would be impossible to prove he didnt exist when if he did, he could just hide from you.



Anyway, just some things i noted, if all this i just wrote is completely valueless and totally off base, well, sorry, just smack me a time or two and send me back to college...i never did get those science classes in.