Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Abiogenesis Challenge

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Over on a recent thread, we witnessed some flailing about with respect to abiogenesis (see comments 374-376). Thoroughly confused about critical distinctions, such as the difference between deterministic forces and contingent possibilities, some seem to think that the fact that “nature forms stars and planets” means that nature can do just about anything. No need to ask any hard questions, kids! Just close your eyes and imagine the possibilities.

This is what so much of the materialistic abiogenesis creation story amounts to.

I have posted essentially this challenge before, but for Zachriel and anyone else who thinks materialistic abiogenesis is anything more than a laughable made-up story, here it is again:

—–

For purposes of this challenge, I’m willing to grant you all the amino acids you want. I’ll even give them all to you in a non-racemic mixture. You want them all left-handed? No problem. I’ll also grant you the exact relative mixture of the specific amino acids you want (what percentage do you want of glycine, alanine, arginine, etc.?). I’ll further give you just the right concentration to encourage optimum reaction. I’m also willing to give you the most benign and hospitable environment you can possibly imagine for your fledgling structures to form (take your pick of the popular ideas: volcanic vents, hydrothermal pools, mud globules, tide pools, deep sea hydrothermal vents, comets, dust clouds in space . . . whichever environment you want). I’ll even throw in whatever type of energy source you want in true Goldilocks fashion: just the right amount to facilitate the chemical reactions; not too much to destroy the nascent formations. I’ll further spot you that all these critical conditions occur in the same location spatially. And at the same time temporally. Shoot, as a massive bonus I’ll even step in to prevent contaminating cross reactions. I’ll also miraculously make your fledgling chemical structures immune from their natural rate of breakdown.

Every single one of the foregoing items represents a huge challenge to the formation of life, but I’m willing to grant them all for the present exercise.

Now, with all these concessions, go ahead, what is your theory about how life formed?

—–

Note:

I also reiterate my open invitation for Zachriel, AVS, billmaz and anyone else to do a guest post laying out their strongest evidence for abiogenesis. There have been no takers yet, but the invitation remains open.

Comments
Alicia Cartelli:
Nope Mungy, and I’m still waiting for that enzyme name!
I think what you meant to say is that you're ignoring it.Mung
November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT
Nope Mungy, and I'm still waiting for that enzyme name!Alicia Cartelli
November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT
Zachriel: Hanczyc & Szostak, Replicating vesicles as models of primitive cell growth and division, Chemical Biology 2004. Map. Territory.Mung
November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT
Alicia Cartelli:
Oh virgy, I’ve never been mistaken here at UD, don’t worry.
LoL! And evidently you never will be. Even if you don't know what an enzyme is.Mung
November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT
Oh virgy, I've never been mistaken here at UD, don't worry. Sure, forensics is built on filling in the gaps with what is already known. Normal people don't have any problem making convictions despite not knowing every step the killer took, so why is it that you guys have such a problem accepting abiogenesis when we have already demonstrated that many of the reactions needed can occur in early earth models?Alicia Cartelli
November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT
The direction is particular, determined by the environment.
The direction is determined by the surviving reproducers. That is influenced by the environment. A slight change in behavior can easily offset minor physical disadvantages, like moth coloration. And if the different varieties of coloration did not arise via happenstance/ accidental genetic change, it isn't natural selection.Virgil Cain
November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT
Alicia sez:
We’ve already demonstrated that many things you guys used to think were impossible are, in fact, quite possible, virgy.
You have aid that before and were mistaken then, too. Repeating that claim isn't going to make it so. By your logic archaeology and forensics are just gap arguments. As if the more we know about geological processes Stonehenge will no longer require a designer. Nature tends towards the line of least resistance. Spiegelman's monster is what can be expected of simple molecular replicators. The simpler the better.Virgil Cain
November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT
EA, see why I build on Orgel and Wicken with a dash of Hoyle and Thaxton et al, noting Dembski that in the biological world specificity pivots on function, and speak of functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information. Shannon's metric is best understood as information-carrying capacity on avg per symbol. KFkairosfocus
November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT
We've already demonstrated that many things you guys used to think were impossible are, in fact, quite possible, virgy. You guys just stay in the gaps and I'll laugh as they get smaller and smaller around you.Alicia Cartelli
November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT
Zach: natural selection can drive the population in either direction, towards less complexity or towards more complexity
Translation: "natural selection" is in fact "natural elimination" and can only eliminate stuff; for instance complex stuff and not so complex stuff. When it eliminates complex stuff and ignores the not so complex stuff then we evolutionists say that it "drives the population towards less complexity" — and vice versa. Note that "natural selection elimination" is not a creative force but a strictly destructive force which only removes information.Box
November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT
Eric Anderson: What makes you think coloration of a moth is produced by Shannon information? There is more Shannon information in a heterogeneous population than in a homogeneous population. Natural selection generally reduces variety, so it reduces Shannon information. Eric Anderson: Exactly. No particular directionality. That is not correct. The direction is particular, determined by the environment. In the peppered moth, color is camouflage from predation, and the environment determines which is more advantageous. If the coloration is due to some underlying complexity, it will still be advantageous in the particular environment, and will increase its prevalence. With peppered moths, black coloring became advantageous during early industrialization due to the prevalence of black soot on trees, while white coloring became advantageous after the environmental movement led to cleaner air and less soot.Zachriel
November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT
What makes you think coloration of a moth is produced by Shannon information? Shannon information has nothing to do with what it takes to construct a moth or to color it. -----
natural selection can drive the population in either direction, towards less complexity or towards more complexity
Exactly. No particular directionality. :) I'm glad you've finally come around. Natural selection might drive toward more complexity or toward less; toward larger creatures or smaller; toward this trait or that. The Great Evolutionary Explanation: Stuff Happens.Eric Anderson
November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT
Nature tends towards the less complex and Spiegelman's monster supports that fact with respect to replicators.Virgil Cain
November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT
Eric Anderson: Shannon so-called “information” is not what we are interested in for purposes of building a living organism. Jack Jones said selection for color in peppered moths was "a loss of information." He presumably wasn't referring to complexity. But, even if there were a difference in complexity between white and black moths, natural selection can drive the population in either direction, towards less complexity or towards more complexity.Zachriel
November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT
Zachriel @187:
Natural selection generally reduces Shannon information, while sources of variation such as mutation increase it.
This demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding. Shannon so-called "information" is not what we are interested in for purposes of building a living organism.Eric Anderson
November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
Unless there’s an energy gradient.
EA:
You seem to be mindlessly throwing out talking points. Please explain . . .And one-liners don’t cut it. Either provide some substance or just admit you don’t know.
Zach responds:
Your claim is that abiotic processes wind down.
As I’ve said before, my best bet is that Zach is really only pretending to play for the other side. He is actually a YEC fundamentalist agent provocateur shilling as a Darwinist. The only problem is that he continually ignores my advice to dial it back. Zach, again, you are laying it on too thick. You are getting to the point where your act is no longer believable.Barry Arrington
November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
Eric Anderson: Please explain how you think an energy gradient counters the point I made or how it provides any kind of avenue for a molecule to keep self-replicating long term. Your claim is that abiotic processes wind down. Eric Anderson: Indeed, when we do observe a cascading abiotic process it simply runs headlong downhill until the physical medium is used up or until some equilibrium state is reached and the process stalls. An abiotic system may or may not wind down, It depends on whether there is a continuous energy gradient. A river is an abiotic process that doesn't wind down for as long as the sun shines and evaporates water and causes the wind to carry the water back to the headwaters. Turns out that life is the same in that respect. Cut off the energy supply, and the system winds down. Eric Anderson: Doesn’t even scratch the surface. A replicating vesicle is a far cry from a living organism, but is certainly more than a scratch. A replicating membrane is considered a requirement of any final abiogenetic theory.Zachriel
November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
Jack Jones: As my quote @148 of Stephanie Keep who was an assistant to Gould shows. The leaps are the kind of leaps that take thousands of generations, per Eldredge. We'll move to the other thread.Zachriel
November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
Zachriel @183:
Unless there’s an energy gradient.
You seem to be mindlessly throwing out talking points. Please explain how you think an energy gradient counters the point I made or how it provides any kind of avenue for a molecule to keep self-replicating long term. And one-liners don't cut it. Either provide some substance or just admit you don't know. ----- As to the Szostak paper you cited, yes we have looked at his work before on the allegedly "replicating" vesicles. Doesn't impress at all in terms of what is required for OOL. Doesn't even scratch the surface. Simply underscores how pathetic and anemic purely natural processes are. Please stop mindlessly referring to Szostak's lab as though they have some kind of answer in hand. I have offered you several chances before to provide your explanation and understanding of a reasonable path to abiogenesis. You are welcome to do so. You are also welcome to repose blind faith in some unidentified distant discovery that will overturn what we currently know about chemistry and biology and show that abiogenesis is feasible. You are welcome to your creation myth, but don't expect others to be impressed by what essentially amounts to, "Well, we're working on it."Eric Anderson
November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
"That is incorrect, as already explained @126, @131, @144, @146." That is incorrect. As my quote @148 of Stephanie Keep who was an assistant to Gould shows. BTW....If you wanna carry on this discussion then you have to go to the relevant thread as I posted here by mistake in the previous post.Jack Jones
November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
Jack Jones: Darwin rejected change in leaps. Punctuated Equilibrium is about change in leaps. That is incorrect, as already explained @126, @131, @144, @146.Zachriel
November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
Darwin's idea of "Evolution by natural selection" which was shown to be an empty idea with the peppered moth discussion as (the death of the light moths does not explain how moths came to be and provides no means for the black moths to evolve towards something that is no longer a moth over time). rejected change by leaps, Punctuated equilibrium which is a model about evolution in leaps is thus incompatible with Darwin. "As natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favourable variations, it can produce no great or sudden modification; it can act only by very short and slow steps. Hence the canon of `Natura non facit saltum,' which every fresh addition to our knowledge tends to make more strictly correct, is on this theory simply intelligible.” Charles Darwin, origin of species chapter 14." Darwin rejected change in leaps. Punctuated Equilibrium is about change in leaps. Thus the two are incompatible ideas.Jack Jones
November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT
Earth to Alicia Cartelli- You miss the point, entirely, again. Even given everything that you think is required to get life from non-life via purely physicochemical processes, you couldn't get a living organism. You don't have anything in your Felix the Cat bag of a nearly infinite number of reactant/condition combinations that can pull it off. cheers, Virgil CainVirgil Cain
November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
EA, in your original post you “give” me all these things and ask how life arose. My point was that you don’t need to “give” me most of these things either because we have already shown how these molecules can arise from an early earth environment or because the earliest forms of life did not necessarily distinguish between different forms of these molecules, nor do things need to be as precise as you make them out to be. There are many ways to influence a chemical reaction and the early earth environment provides us with a nearly infinite number of reactant/condition combinations.Alicia Cartelli
November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
Jack Jones: How is increasing the amount of already existing black moths a mechanism for moths to give rise to a new type of life over time? It doesn't, as already answered @97, @122, @131, @144, @152, @157. However, we'd be happy to discuss the mechanisms of evolution that give rise to adaptation over the history of life. First, let us establish that history, which is characterized by largely incremental change and branching descent for many taxa. Second, let us agree to standard definitions of evolution and natural selection for the purposes of discussion. Then, we will show how these mechanisms explain particular instances of adaptive evolution.Zachriel
November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
"be happy to, once we have established a few facts (incremental change and branching descent) and basic terminology (evolution and natural selection)" You're not happy too but you are happy to play games, I have asked you one thing consistently over and over again and nothing you have posted has had any relevance. How is increasing the amount of already existing black moths a mechanism for moths to give rise to something that is no longer a moth over time?Jack Jones
November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
InVivoVeritas @166: Thank you for the detailed and thoughtful comment. This is very helpful for people to start thinking through how much is being claimed by naturalistic abiogenesis. Although by analogy, it is easy to see that the natural forces just won't cut it in the case of a macro structure or a macro machine that we have regular every-day experience with. A large part of the problem with OOL is that we are dealing with parts and interactions that are outside of our normal, every-day experience. The average person just does not have a good grasp of atoms and molecules, what they do, how they interact, and so on. Thus, when the "experts" claim that particles can come together by chance to form a living organism, the average person tends to say, "Well, sounds a bit strange, but OK. You're the expert after all. I guess maybe it could happen." In contrast, if the abiogenesis proponent were talking about a house or a car coming together by chance the average person would quickly see through the bluff and laugh the so-called expert out of the room. Much of what is proposed in OOL, and in evolution generally, is believable precisely because it is so vague and general in description. This leads me back to one of my key maxims about the debate over evolution, which can be generally stated thusly: The explanatory power of evolutionary theory is inversely proportional to the specificity of the discussion.Eric Anderson
November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
Alicia Cartelli @153: You demonstrate an incredibly limited and naive understanding of the challenges for OOL. A flippant "Oh, that's easy" attitude on issues that serious researchers in the field recognize as problematic. Yet even so, you still fall squarely within my challenge. For purposes of discussion I have already granted every one of the things you falsely claim are easily overcome. Great, now we have the concessions in place. So go for it: With all those concessions in place, what is your theory about how life formed?Eric Anderson
November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
Dionosio @119:
It could be approached in two phases: 1. How could we do it, using all the knowledge and the latest cutting-edge technology available today. 2. How could the solution to 1 occur without any intelligent assistance. We have to get phase 1 resolved before we can move on to phase 2.
This is a useful approach and is, to some extent, the way we have to approach it. Indeed, if we look back to the great Miller-Urey experiment that kicked off a firestorm of excitement, we see precisely this approach. Using the lab and all the skill and intelligence they could bring to bear they were able to generate some amino acids, which was indeed exciting at the time. But subsequently trying to translate even that meager result into your #2 above, has turned out to be frustratingly problematic. One way the challenge I outlined in the OP could be fruitfully approached would be to take each concession I have made and turn it into a lab-controlled parameter. For example, start with a mixture of only left-handed amino acids -- we eliminate the homochiralty problem by fiat. Then put into the mixture just the right proportional mix of the various amino acids. And so on. It should be possible in practice to control in the lab, if not all, then at least most of the concessions I have made. So my theoretical inquiry "what is your theory about how life formed?" can be turned into a practical lab-based inquuiry: "What happens even when all these parameters are intelligently controlled and guided in the right direction?" Let's see if we can even start to get off the ground toward OOL with all of these parameters carefully controlled. If so, great. Then the next step is to see how we can start transitioning that lab result to the real world without intelligent control of the many parameters. But if not, then that should tell us something very foundational about the underpinnings of the abiogenesis theory.Eric Anderson
November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
Zachriel:
Be happy to, once we have established a few facts (incremental change and branching descent) and basic terminology (evolution and natural selection).
We have already established that you don't care about facts.Virgil Cain
November 19, 2015
November
11
Nov
19
19
2015
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 11

Leave a Reply