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!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscc!pmd From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.misc Subject: Re: The Probability of Life from Non-life Message-ID: <1786@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Fri, 17-Feb-84 16:56:11 EST Article-I.D.: cbscc.1786 Posted: Fri Feb 17 16:56:11 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 18-Feb-84 04:44:18 EST References: <1582@cbscc.UUCP>, <118@utastro.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus Lines: 265 I want to sincerely thank Bill Jefferys for taking the time to submit a reasoning response to my submission of Terry Brown's paper, "The Probability of Life from Non-Life". I very much prefer this type of argument to being called stupid or getting a behavioral analysis in the mail. However, as one who has taken a binding oath never to "shut up" :-), I would like to give my response to Bill's article. First I want to make a few technical objections to some of Bill's statements. 1) I don't know what point that Bill is trying to make by saying that Brown's argument is "as old as the hills". That may be true, but it is does not disqualify the argument. Also, Bill stated that evolutionists have repeatedly pointed out the fallacies of this argument. Could you give a reference? 2) I don't think the assertion that Brown is setting up a "straw man" is correct. When biology textbooks attempt to give us an explanation of the origin of life, they cite the conditions of the early earth that Brown has in his paper, and Stanley Miller's experiments as a starting point. Brown explains the problems with some of the abiogenesis scenarios (I have read others). The calculations performed by James Coppedge were an attempt to determine the feasibility of sponteaneous generation occurring under the evolutionists conditions. Contrary to Bill's statement, the assumptions made by Coppedge are not imputed to evolutionists, nor are they purported to be necessary for sponteanous generation to occurr. Most of them were made simply to make abiogenesis MORE probable for the purposes of his calculations. Yet the calculated probability is still miniscule. 3) Brown does not detail the probability calculations. He cites the book "Evolution: Possible or Impossible" by James Coppedge, Zondervan, 1973. This book is apparently out of print, and I have noticed that public librarys are not inclined to stock creationist books. With that out of the way I would like to give my comments on Bill's discussion of the 14 "assumptions" made by Coppedge (not Brown) in his calculations. Those following this discussion should refer to Bill's article for a listing of them, since they are only referred to by number here. >> Brown claims that none of these conditions would have existed at the >> time of the emergence of life, but as an astronomer, I know that the truth >> of point 14 has been firmly established by an overwhelming mass of evidence >> from many different disciplines. Also, despite Brown's attempt to depict >> point 1 as a major concession to evolutionary theory, it is in fact well >> established by now on both astronomical and physical grounds (and not on >> grounds of its necessity for abiogenesis), that the early Earth must have >> had a reducing atmosphere, as the giant planets do today. This may be a valid point, but Brown's assertion that the conditions would not have existed is not an important part of his argument. The point is that, though he may think them debatable, they are taken as true anyway for the purposes of the calculations made. Also I would like to ask you again for references concerning the proof that the earth *must* have had a reducing atmosphere (no O2) on grounds independent of abiogenesis. Can we simply infer that because Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune have reducing atmospheres, then Earth must have had one also? >> As to point 2, I certainly do assume that amino acids would have formed >> naturally, and the experiments of Miller and others clearly demonstrate >> this possibility. Brown pointed out that it did not really lend support for abiogenesis. Miller's apparatus used a trap to remove the amino acids from the reaction media. That media is more adept a destroying the amino acids than forming them. >> I do not assume that the proportions of amino acids initially >> produced have to be the same as in the final proteins. No, but I think it makes the calculations easier and more favorable to abiogenesis. >> I am not sure about point 7. Some shielding may have been needed >> at some time; on the other hand the use of the term "magically" seems to >> me to be gratuitous. It implies that natural means did not exist >> to accomplish this end, and I challenge Brown or anyone else to prove that. Brown discussed some of the natural means of shielding and separation from liquid water that have been proposed by theorists and the problems with them. Why is the burden on Brown to prove that no means of sheilding existed? How is he supposed to "prove" that? Anyway, the calculations assume that sheilding did exist. >> As for points 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, they are simply >> silly and not needed to explain the origin of life. I am offended that >> Brown would presume to attribute such claptrap to evolutionists, but >> I realize that this is only part of his debating technique. As will be >> seen below, these points are the heart of his preposterous model for >> the origin of life. Again, the assumptions were not attributed to evolutionists but were made to test the probability of abiogenesis occurring. I think that without some of them the calculations would be impossible to make in the first place. The probability of abiogenesis without them should me much smaller. That is the whole point. >> Now how does he propose to form life? His model (which he falsely >> attributes to evolutionists) is that we decide on a particular "minimal" >> configuration consisting of 239 proteins each consisting of 400 amino >> acids. He then proposes that we (in essence) put the amino acids we >> have formed naturally into a box, shake them up, and see if we have formed >> *that particular combination*. If not, we have failed and have to start >> over again. If we have, we succeed and stop the experiment. He then >> remarks (and I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the calculation) >> that the probability of this happening is exceedingly remote. However, >> "garbage in, garbage out" - the whole calculation is, in my view, meaningless >> and irrelevant. The configuration for the simplest self replicating organism was obtained from a NASA researcher (H.J. Morowitz from Yale, probably not a creationist -- see the reference cited in Brown's article). I think this was determined to give scientists an idea of the least they would be able to expect when looking for life on other planets. Why didn't they consider a virus? I think because viruses depend on living cells for their reproduction. They steal some of the cell's own genetic material. I don't think any *particular combination* was specified in the calculations. Any *useable* amino acid chain was considered a success and preserved for the formation of the simplest cell, which would require 239 different kinds of proteins. The emphasis is not on a particular set of proteins but on how many different kinds are required for the cell. The point is that we cannot have a self replicating organism made up of only a few different kinds of protein molecules. The figure of 239 was derived independantly from any known living organism and it was noted that the figure comes close to the number of proteins making up the simplest known single-cell organism. >> The second fallacy in the model is in requiring the successful assembly >> of all this material in one fell swoop. Brown does not consider the >> possibility of any life precursors, that is, smaller units with perhaps >> limited powers of self-replication that might have existed under the >> conditions of the primitive Earth. Can he prove that such things did not >> exist? I don't think so, since our knowledge of molecular biology >> is still primitive. Moreover, I believe that any reasonable theory >> of abiogenesis would have to make use of this idea. Again, why is the burden of proof laid on creationists? They have to prove that any conceivable mechanism (life precursors) did not exist. This is like requiring the atheist to prove the non-existence of God before his beliefs could be considered tenable. It doesn't matter that such proposed life precursors (e.g. coacervate droplets and proteinoid microspheres) have not proven adaquate. Creation is still not considered a valid possibility for the origin of life. Scientist still feel quite justified in ruling out divine creation as a possibility. In the "two- faced" approach to the issue, many scientists will assert that the concept of a creator is beyond science, that science cannot address the possibility. Yet many of them will promote their unsubstantiated views of the origin of life as superior to the creation view, saying, in effect, that creation is not true. Creationists are often belittled because they believe in a Creator and search for scientific evidence to support that belief. This is supposed to show their inherent narrow mindedness and a great hinderance to their meaningful contribution to science. I see buried in this attitude the assumption that atheistic presuppositions are inherently superior and more objective than theistic ones. One who studies origins with the idea that a creator is responsible is being narrow minded while one who studies it under the conviction that there is no God behind it all is not. I don't get it. Has God been proven not to exist so as to make those who believe in his existence foolish and narrow minded? Why is scientific research to support non-theistic conclustions justified and research to support theistic conclusions mocked? >> Brown emphasizes the fact that each amino acid has its stereoisomer >> counterpart. He challenges evolution theory to explain why only the L >> forms exist in life today. One possible answer was mentioned already on >> the net - namely that the first life form or life precursor to have reached >> the point where it could self-replicate using the "soup" of L and D amino >> acids that existed at the time would have quickly taken over and left >> progeny that were like it. Other mechanisms might have operated, for >> example catalysis (by either inorganic or organic catalysts) might well >> have been important and have favored either the production or the linking >> of one type of amino acid. I don't think Brown made any such challenge. Only the observation that all existing life contains the L form. He remarked that this fact was interesting since there isn't really that much difference between the stereoisomers. Again, the calculations made only take L amino acids into account. Also, where do you get the idea that the if the first life precursor had all L amino acids it would have "taken over", preventing others (maybe using D types) from continuing? This seems to make the assumption that abiogensis could have only happened once, or maybe more than once but with only the L type acids. Is this a sound assumption to make? >> Creationists want you to think that any incompleteness or controversy >> in evolution theory is evidence for creationism. This is a false premise. Your right, that is a false premise. It is also a false premise that nothing is evidence for creationism. For myself, I don't presume to prove creation by disproving evolution. Only to open the door for a competing explaination of origins. >> Viewed in this way, Brown's claim to have disproven evolution is not >> different from the claim of early aerodynamicists to have proven >> that bees cannot fly. The bees, of course, having never heard of >> aerodynamics, went on flying anyway. Our old Earth hasn't heard >> of Brown's proof either, and so it went out and created life anyway. >> Despite all the carping of the creationists, this fact is securely >> established by the overwhelming mass of diverse and independent >> evidence available to science today. This is very interesting. Throughout your whole article you have claimed not to be trying to prove abiogenesis, but here in the last two sentences you state that it is a fact. You say that there is much evidence to support it but you feel no obligation to present any of it, only ad hoc explanations. Then you challenge creationists to disprove those. >> I think that creationists are simply unaware of the strength, >> quantity and diversity of evidence that flatly contradicts >> their stand. Certainly when I read criticisms of evolution >> by major creationist authors, I am impressed by the shallowness >> of their presentation of the *science*. Perhaps this is because >> their preconceived creationist bias makes it difficult for them to >> read the literature objectively. Their belief they can destroy what >> has been built up during centuries of research by some of the most >> talented, creative and intelligent of human minds, by nitpicking at >> details and attempting to argue evolution out of existence >> (as exemplified by Brown's article), is in my view pathetic. >> This is really too bad, because they are missing out on one of the >> most exciting adventures ever undertaken by our species. In any >> case, their efforts are doomed to failure. I am not sure that what creationists believe goes against all of the "centuries of research". I would just like to mention what I think to be one of the best creationist critiques of evolution in case you or others are interested. It is "Evolution: Nature and Scripture in Conflict?", by Dr. Pattle P. T. Pun (PhD Biology), Zondervan, 1982. Dr. Pun is an advocate of what is called "progressive creation". He rejects the "young earth" arguments of "fiat creationists" like Dr. Henry Morris as both unscientific and unbiblical. He also shows an appreciation for the evidence supporting evolution. I would also like to say that the argument against abiogenesis is not an attempt to "argue evolution out of existence". I see no reason to interpret it that way. As Byron Howes has already pointed out it is only and argument against chemical evolution, not neo-Darwinism. I don't think that fact makes it a non-issue or a "straw man" argument, however. Science does not give us any alternative but to believe that abiogenesis has occurred (Creationist disbelief is regarded as unscientific) even though there is not much empirical support for the phenomenon. For the time being, I find more reason not to believe in abiogenesis than to believe in it. I would not go as far as to say that attempts to prove it are "doomed to failure". I am no prophet. Well, I think this must be my last major contribution to this discussion. As I said before, the extra time I want to devote to my little daughter takes precedence. I would still appreciate responses to the things I have said here. I know better that to think that I have the last word on anything. Also, I hear rumors that cbscc may be taken off the net. If that happens it's good-bye for good, I guess. Mail will still work I suppose. Paul Dubuc ... cbosgd!cbscc!pmd