Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!burl!we13!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: The Probability of Life from Non-life
Message-ID: <1582@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 29-Jan-84 14:55:09 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.1582
Posted: Sun Jan 29 14:55:09 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 1-Feb-84 01:28:44 EST
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus
Lines: 375


	  From  "Origins Research" Vol. 1, No. 3   Sept.-Dec. 1978
	  Used by permission.  Paul Dubuc.

		     THE PROBABILITY OF LIFE FROM NON-LIFE

				 By Terry Brown

	       Terry  Brown completed two years of undergraduate study
	  at the University of	California, Riverside and received his
	  B.A. degree in biology from the University of California  at
	  San  Diego.	 He  is currently [at the time of publication]
	  working toward a  Masters  degree  in  Public Health at Loma
	  Linda University.
	       The following was written for a Human Physiology  class
	  during Summer, 1978.


	       In  this  paper some of the basic facts of biochemistry
	  which  pertain  to  the  supposed  mechanistic  formation of
	  prebiotic  proteins  on  the	*early	earth*	are  examined.
	  Problems with the required primitive environment are briefly
	  mentioned including 1) a reducing atmosphere, 2) ultraviolet
	  radiation, and 3) underwater, steam and ice theories.    The
	  exclusive presence of L form amino acids in living organisms
	  is discussed.  Finally the probability of life evolving from
	  non-life  is	shown to be hoplessly small, even after making
	  fourteen non-trivial concessions.
	       When considering the  theory  of  evolution most people
	  think of the progression of fish to reptile  or  primate  to
	  man,	but  there  are  many  serious	objections  at an even
	  earlier    stage--the     biochemical     transition	  from
	  non-biological  matter  to  the   first   living   organism.
	  Evolutionists   generally  postulate	that  in  a  primitive
	  atmosphere,  over  billions	of   years,  natural  elements
	  combined to form amino acids which in turn  joined  to  form
	  proteins.    These  proteins	along with sugars, phosphates,
	  organic bases for  nucleic  acids,  lipids for membranes and
	  other special-purpose organic molecules combined to form the
	  first living cell that had the capacity for  metabolism  and
	  reproduction.

			   Reducing Atmosphere Needed

	       It   is	interesting  to  note  that  two  very	common
	  substances interfere with the  formation  of amino acids and
	  peptide bonds, the bond linking amino acid units together to
	  form peptides (protein).  Oxygen (O2) inhibits the formation
	  of   amino   acids   while   liquid	water	 (H2O)	  acts
	  stereochemically to block the formation of the peptide bonds
	  between  amino  acids.[1]    With  these well known chemical
	  facts in mind, it is not  surprising to notice that such men
	  as Stanley Miller (at UCSD, and Nobel Prize winner  for  his
	  work on abiotic formation of amino acids) postulate that the
	  atmosphere  of the primitive earth contained no free oxygen.
	  Such an atmosphere is called	a *reducing atmosphere*.  This
	  is a tremendously significant assumption  for  evolutionists
	  to  make, and there is of course no conclusive geological or
	  meteorological evidence for this idea.
	       The assumption  of  a  reducing	atmosphere presents an
	  overwhelming problem	for  the  molecules-to-man  theorists.
	  Without free oxygen (O2) there is no known way to form ozone
	  (O3),   and	without   ozone,   the	tremendously  powerful
	  ultraviolet (UV)  radiation  from  the  sun would completely
	  sterilize the surface of the earth.  Not only would  growing
	  polymers  of	biochemically active compounds be destroyed by
	  this UV  radiation,  but  certainly  any  life  forms on the
	  surface would be destroyed in rapid fashion.
	       Recognizing the lack  of  protection  from  ultraviolet
	  rays	on  the  surface, some scientists have postulated that
	  the first  macromolecules  of  life  were formed underwater.
	  This, of course, takes care of the UV problem, but  we  have
	  to remember that liquid water prevents the overlap of atomic
	  orbitals  needed  for  the  pepticle	bond  to form.	To get
	  around  this	problem,   some   scientists  have  postulated
	  formation of proteins on ice or in steam clouds.    This  is
	  admittedly a clever approach to getting rid of liquid water,
	  but  leads  to  two inescapable problems.  First is the fact
	  that heat in excess of 100 deg. C destroys (denatures) every
	  known protein by ripping  apart  the	peptide bond.  So much
	  for the formation of long polymers  of  amino  acid  chains.
	  With	the  *ice theory*  one  must  recognize  that chemical
	  reactions are slowed	tremendously  at low temperatures, and
	  it can be shown that below 0 deg. C peptide bonds cannot  be
	  formed  without  the presence of catalysts known as enzymes.
	  Note that all enzymes  are  proteins.    Where did the first
	  enzymes come from?

			      D vs. L Amino Acids

	       There is another extremely significant fact of  organic
	  chemistry  that I would like to note at this point.  This is
	  the problem of *handedness*  and optical activity of organic
	  molecules with an asymetric carbon atom  (amino  acids,  for
	  example).    These  molecules can exist in either the D or L
	  conformation,   mirror   images   of	 each	other,	called
	  stereoisomers, and  they  are  chemically  indistinguishable
	  from	one  another  except  for  their  ability  to  reflect
	  polarized  light.    Whenever amino acids are synthesized in
	  the laboratory, the yield is	almost exactly a 50-50 mixture
	  of the D and L forms.  This is a very  significant  finding,
	  and  there  is  not  one reputable chemist in the world that
	  will deny this basic	observation.	But, here's the rub --
	  excluding a few  insignificant  exceptions,  it  seems  that
	  every  amino	acid in every protein in every living organism
	  on earth is in the L	configuration.	This is pretty amazing
	  when you consider  the  fact	that  there  are  no  chemical
	  differences  in  the	D  and L form other than their crystal
	  structure.
	       In  the	experiments   done   by   Miller  and  others,
	  simulating supposed primeval	earth  atmospheric  conditions
	  (conditions	 chosen   for	their	innate	 tendency   to
	  thermodynamically favor the  formation  of amino acids), the
	  amino acids formed were always a racemic mixture  (D	and  L
	  forms  in  equal  amounts).	In addition, there is always a
	  special trap employed to  remove these products because they
	  would be destroyed if they remained in  the  reaction  media
	  for  only  a	short  time.   The conditions leading to their
	  formation also lead to  their  destruction.	 Now it can be
	  seen that two problems occur at this point.  First  what  is
	  the  proposed  mechanism  by	which these newly formed amino
	  acids are removed  from  the	reaction  system?  In Miller's
	  experiment there was an extremely  sophisticated  artificial
	  chemical trap  which  removed  these amino acids immediately
	  upon their formation.   Secondly,  as was noted earlier, and
	  as has been observed in all laboratory  syntheses  of  amino
	  acids  and  polypeptides, the amino acids formed are racemic
	  mixtures of  the  two  isomers.    But  all living organisms
	  happen to come into existence with only the L form of  amino
	  acids  in its protein molecules?  Many scientists have tried
	  to explain this, but	as  of	yet  there is *no satisfactory
	  answer*.  As will be shown soon, the probabilities  involved
	  in  the selection of either all D or all L amino acids under
	  natural conditions are embarrassingly miniscule.


	       Up  to	this   point   we   have  encountered  several
	  insurmountable  problems   for   the	 chance,   mechanistic
	  formation  of  some of the macromolecules upon which life is
	  dependent.  There is the  necessity of excluding free oxygen
	  from the reaction system, with the resultant lack  of  ozone
	  to  preserve	the  products  of  the elaborate biochemicals.
	  Next,  the  problems	 of   excluding  liquid  water,  which
	  interestingly enough has not been found anywhere else in the
	  known universe (it either exists frozen with CO2 as on Mars,
	  or in vapor form in the vacuum of space).    Then  there  is
	  this	bothersome  problem with *handedness*, all amino acids
	  occurring in living tissues exist in the L form, while in the
	  non-living state they are  formed in racemic mixtures (equal
	  D and L).  It is on this last observation that  the  science
	  of probability enters the picture.  Please note that we have
	  not even mentioned the genetic code which is responsible for
	  the  sequencing  and	manufacture  of  proteins, which takes
	  place in a complex series  of chemical reactions which would
	  be utterly  impossible  without  the	assistance  of	highly
	  ordered proteins called enzymes.

		       The Complexity of Living Organisms

	       How complex are living organisms, even the smallest and
	  simplest  ones?    Dr. Harold J. Morowitz of Yale University
	  has done extensive research  for the National Aeronautic and
	  Space Administration	(NASA)	to  discover  the  theoretical
	  limits  for  the  simplest  free-living  thing  which  could
	  duplicate  itself.   Stated more technically, he was looking
	  for	the    minimal	  biological	entity	  capable   of
	  self-replication in an autonomous fashion.	He  took  into
	  consideration the minimum operating equipment needed and the
	  space  it would require, also giving attention to electrical
	  properties and the  hazards  of  thermal  motion.   From his
	  studies  comes  the  conclusion  that  the   smallest   such
	  theoretical  entity  would  require  239  or more individual
	  protein molecules.[2]
	       This  is  not  very  much  smaller  (simpler)  that the
	  smallest actually known autonomous living organism, which is
	  the miniscule, bacteria-like Mycoplasma hominis H39.	It has
	  around 600 different kinds of  proteins.[3]	 From  present
	  scientific  knowledge,  there  is  no reason to believe that
	  anything smaller  ever  existed.    Using  data  provided by
	  Morowitz, it can be  calculated  that  the  average  protein
	  molecule  in	the  theoretical minimal living organism would
	  contain around 445 amino acid units.
	       Let's look at the  probability  of one of these protein
	  chains being all L conformation.    There  are  20  commonly
	  occurring amino  acids,  19  of  which  are optically active
	  (glycine is not, as it  has  no  asymetric carbon atom).  In
	  many bacteria glycine makes up just over 8  percent  of  the
	  total  amino	acid molecules, so in this theoretical protein
	  we estimate that there will  be 35 glycine residues, leaving
	  410 "spots" for the other 19 types of amino  acids.	 Since
	  these amino acids are presumed to have been formed naturally
	  in  the  primitive  environment, they would have occurred in
	  statistically equal amounts of L  and  D forms.  Now ... the
	  probability of all the amino acids being L in  this  protein
	  molecule  is	1  in  2^410  (or  1  in  10^123).  This is an
	  extraordinarily  small  probability,	but  even  if  such  a
	  molecule did occur, there would need to be at least 238 more
	  molecules similar to it to  have  a complete cell.  The odds
	  of this happening (all 239 chains of 410 amino acid  length)
	  are  only 1 in 10^29345.  To get an idea of the magnitude of
	  this exponential  number,  it  is  estimated	that there are
	  10^78 atoms in the entire universe.

			 The Probability of Abiogenesis

	       If one wants to	be  completely	overwhelmed  with  the
	  improbability of chance formation of life, he should look at
	  a  theoretical  experiment  done  by	James  Coppedge of the
	  Center  for  Probability  Research  in  Biology,  located in
	  Northridge,  California.[4]	   Recognizing	 the   extreme
	  improbability of chance arranging ordered molecules, he does
	  a  series  of  calculations based on Morowitz' simplest life
	  form.  In  this  experiment  he  gives  chance  a chance, by
	  making  fourteen  concessions,  [see	end  of  article]  all
	  fourteen of which are highly extreme, and are offered in the
	  conviction  that  "if  chance  fails  under   such   extreme
	  conditions,  it  should  indicate clearly that perhaps it is
	  unreasonable to rely on it at  all  in the quest for the way
	  life began".
	       Now,  without  detailing  his  calculations,  the  odds
	  against one minimum set of proteins happening in the	entire
	  history  of  the  earth  are 10^119701 to 1.	This figure is
	  hopelessly large,  and  exceeds  our	ability  to  imagine a
	  number so large (and a chance so small).  Coppedge gives  an
	  imaginary  illustration  to  get  a  palpable  sense	of the
	  enormous dimensions of these	numbers.[5]   He calls it "the
	  case of the traveling amoeba".
	       Imagine an indestructible amoeba, and a most  tenacious
	  one, whose task it is to carry all the atoms of the universe
	  across  an  imaginary string which is 30 billion light years
	  long (the diameter of the  universe).   It moves at the rate
	  of one inch per year, and there are  10^28  inches  in  this
	  length  of  string.	It therefore takes 2x10^28 years for a
	  round trip, and the amoeba  only  carries one atom at a time
	  across this long trail and then dumps it, only to return for
	  more atoms.  The time it would  take	to  carry  the	entire
	  universe  across  would  be  the  time  for  one  round trip
	  multiplied by the number  of	atoms in the universe (10^78).
	  This gives us 10^107 years, give or take a millenium.
	       But Coppedge points out that his calculations  revealed
	  that	it  would  take chance 10^171 years to form one usable
	  protein of average length.  If  we divide that by the length
	  of time it takes to move one universe  by  slow  amoeba,  we
	  arrive  at the astounding conclusion that:  The amoeba could
	  haul 10^64 universes across the entire diameter of the known
	  universe during the expected time it would take for only one
	  protein to form  by  chance,	under  those  14 conditions so
	  favorable to chance!
	       Imagine this--even if the amoeba had  moved  had  moved
	  *only  one  inch*  during  the  15  billion  years  that the
	  universe is supposed to have existed, it would still be able
	  to carry  6x10^53  universes	across	the  string  while one
	  protein is forming.  Sooner  or  later  our  minds  come  to
	  accept  the  idea that it is not worth waiting for chance to
	  manufacture  a  protein,  let  alone	to  come  up  with the
	  DNA-RNA-ribosome system for self replication.  Well, most of
	  our minds come to accept  this  idea.    But	consider  this
	  remarkable statement by Harvard professor George Wald:

		    The  important  point  is that since the origin of
	       life  belongs   in   the   category   of  at-least-once
	       phenomena, time is on its side.	However improbable  we
	       regard  this event,... given enough time it will almost
	       certainly happen at least  once...  Time is in fact the
	       hero of plot.  Given  so  much time,  the  'impossible'
	       becomes	 possible,  the  possible  probable,  and  the
	       probable virtually certain.  One has only to wait: time
	       itself performs miracles.[6]

	       But it is clear	to  the unbiased, intelligent observer
	  that there is not nearly enough time	available  to  perform
	  such a miracle.

				   Conclusion

	       In  concluding  this section I would add that the whole
	  problem  of  abiogenesis  --	that  is,  life  from formerly
	  non-living chemicals -- devolves upon the  method  by  which
	  the  first self-replicating system evolved.  The insuperable
	  barrier, however, is that  DNA  can  only be replicated with
	  the specific help of	certain  protein  molecules  (enzymes)
	  which  in  turn  can	only  be  produced  by the command and
	  direction of DNA.  Each depends on the other an both must be
	  present for replication to take place.
	       Freeman J. Dyson, of the Institute of Advanced Studies,
	  wrote in 1971:

		    Nature has been kinder to us that we had any right
	       to expect.    As  we  look  out	into  the universe and
	       identify the many accidents of  physics	and  astronomy
	       that  have  worked  together  to our benefit, it almost
	       seems as if the universe  must in some sense known that
	       we were coming.

	       Professor Dyson goes on to assert:

		    I believe the universe is  friendly.    I  see  no
	       reason  to  suppose  that  the  cosmic  accidents  that
	       provided  so  abundantly for our welfare here on earth,
	       will no do the same for	us wherever in the universe we
	       choose to go... I hope that with  this  article	I  may
	       have  persuaded a few people... to look to the sky with
	       hopeful eyes.

	       This stops just short of  the  most logical step of all
	  -- to look to  the  sky  not	with  hope  that  the  *cosmic
	  accidents*  will  be	friendly, but in gratitude, trust, and
	  obedience to the creator who logically must be back of these
	  events that have provided for our welfare.


				****************
	       The fourteen assumptions (or concessions) giving chance
	  numerous advantages which would not have actually existed at
	  the time  of	the  presumed  evolution  of  the first living
	  thing:

	       1. Assume that the  primitive  atmosphere  was  as  the
	  evolutionists claim.
	       2.  Suppose  that all 20 amino acids did form naturally
	  and in the right  proportions,  by the action of ultraviolet
	  rays, lightning, and heat.
	       3. Presume that the amino acids were formed only in the
	  L configuration.
	       4. In the calculations which follow, assume the average
	  length of protein is 400 amino acids.
	       5. Postulate that all the atoms on earth have been used
	  to form amino acids.
	       6. Consider all the formed amino acids are  grouped  in
	  sets.
	       7.  Let these groupings be magically protected from the
	  destructive effect of UV  rays, especially the damaging ones
	  at 2600 Angstroms wavelength.
	       8. Concede that all the amino acids would automatically
	  unite, without the need for the 7 kcal  of  bond  energy  or
	  enzyme catalysis, etc.
	       9.  Allow  one  substitution in each chain, even at the
	  "active sites", with no ill effects.
	       10.  Assume  a	rate   of   chain   formation  at  the
	  fantastically    rapid    rate    of	  one-third    of    a
	  ten-million-billionth  second  per  chain   formation   (150
	  thousand  trillion  times  the  rate	of  reaction in living
	  things, based on E. coli protein formation rates).
	       11. Every unusable chain is instantaneously dismantled,
	  its component amino acids being  used again in the reaction,
	  which occurs at a rate of 10^24 per year per set.
	       12. If a  usable sequence is obtained, the action  will
	  stop	and  this  protein preserved for use in the 239 chains
	  needed.
	       13. If the 239 chains are made, they will be assumed to
	  be able to merge into one group, ready to work together in a
	  living system (no geographical separation).
	       14. Assume the universe to  be 15 billion years old and
	  the earth 5 billion.
			       ******************

				   References

	       1.   Lehninger,	 Albert   L.   _Biochemistry_,	 Worth
	  Publishers, New York, 1970, pp. 774, 777.
	       2. Morowitz, H.J. _Energy Flow in  Biology_,  New  York
	  Academic Press, 1968, p. 84.
	       3.  Hans  R.  Bode  and	Harold	J. Morowitz, "Size and
	  Structure of the Mycoplasma  Hominis H39 Chromosome", in the
	  _Journal of Molecular Biology_, Vol. 23, 1967, page 98.
	       4.  James  F.   Coppedge,   _Evolution:	 Possible   or
	  Impossible?_, Zondervan, 1973, pages 105-115.
	       5. ibid., pages 119, 120.
	       6.     Henry    Morris,	  _Scientific	 Creationism_,
	  Creation-Life  Publishers,  San  Diego,  page  66,  quote of
	  George Wald, "The Origin  of  Life",	in  _The  Physics  and
	  Chemistry of Life_, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1955, page
	  12.
	       7.  Freeman  J.	Dyson,	"Energy  in  the Universe", in
	  _Scientific American_, vol. 224, Sept. 1971, page 59.