Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Abiogenesis Challenge

Categories
Chemistry
Origin Of Life
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
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
@96 Mike "It does not provide a testable and falsifiable mechanism for the existence of any survivors in the first place." I have made that vary point to somebody that I know, that it does not explain the existence of the survivors but these people will go around in circles like a Dog chasing it's own tail.Jack Jones
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PST
mike1962: Branching descent is an effect, not a mechanism to be verified or falsified. Of course it's a mechanism. Do you accept branching descent applies to many taxa? mike1962: Incremental effects recorded in the fossil record are just that: effects. Evolution by natural selection implies incremental change. This important observation helps us make sense of the mechanisms involved. Do you accept that the historical record largely shows incremental change? mike1962: Which boils down to “whatever survives in its environment.” No. If it survives do to reasons other than heritable traits that provide a differential reproductive advantage, then it is not natural selection. Jack Jones: The peppered moth story is an example of differential reproduction, It does not explain the origin of moths or provide a mechanism for how moths could evolve towards becoming a new type of living thing over time. That is correct. It is merely a simple example of natural selection working on existing variation.Zachriel
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PST
Jack Jones: Exactly Mike, These people seem excited about the trite observation that “survivors survive” It does not take much to fill their cup "Survivors survive" aka "natural selection" is true for every single thing that exists in the universe, and is therefore useless with regards to any explanatory power of putative mechanisms. It does not enhance the explanatory power of any verifiable or falsifiable mechanism beyond the mechanism itself.mike1962
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PST
Virgil @40: Well and succinctly said.Eric Anderson
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PST
brian douglas @36:
Joe/Jack/virgil/Frankie/whoever, evolution just proposes the mechanism, not a step by step account of how it occurred. Much in the same way that I can propose the mechanisms involved in the production of a car without knowing the step by step process that is actually used.
You are partially right, so let me see if we can bridge the gap. You are absolutely correct that you can propose general mechanisms involved in car production without knowing every detail of the process. And, you can know with reasonable certainty that a car (or similar object) was designed, without knowing the precise manufacturing process involved. We do this all the time. After all, there are many ways an intelligent designer can build a functional machine. And while we can perhaps catch some glimpses of the process by reverse engineering a machine, we cannot necessarily tell with complete certainty the entire process used to bring the machine about. The reason for this is intimately related to and is precisely because an intelligent designer has the ability to choose between contingent possibilities. Thus, an intelligent designer can choose not only what to build, but can also, within fairly broad parameters, choose when and how to build it. Indeed, there is an entire section of patent law devoted to the improvement of methods and processes, and companies collectively spend billions on efforts to improve manufacturing processes. From solely examining a machine we may not know whether it was created through process A, or B or C. And this is precisely because it is a designed machine produced by an agent that has the ability to choose among several contingent possible modes of construction. Let's now contrast this with the mechanistic approach. The blind forces of chemistry and physics have no ability to choose between different manufacturing processes. They have no ability to decide when or how they operate. They will blindly follow whatever interactions come their way and will (either inevitably or at least stochastically) produce whatever those laws dictate. We know that a designed system can come about through various means, depending on the decision of the designer. In contrast, it makes no sense to say that a purely mechanistic process -- one that blindly follows the deterministic and stochastic processes of chemistry and physics -- it makes no sense to say we know a mechanistic process brought a machine about, but that we don't know what the process was. In the mechanistic context -- in sharp contrast to the designed context -- the mechanistic process is the issue at hand, it is where the rubber must meet the road. And the absence of a well-understood materialistic process for producing the machine, means that we don't have a materialistic explanation. Thus, you have made a category mistake with your example. Your example of not being able to provide a complete description of the process for manufacture of a car is a good example, but you have it exactly backwards. Your example holds, for a designed system, not for a naturally-occurring one. If you want to provide a mechanistic example, you would essentially be saying that "undesigned machine X came about through a purely material process, but I don't know what that process is." Such an approach is nonsense. Thus, you are left to steal examples from the other side of the aisle -- designed systems where we know the process can be contingent. If we are going to claim a mechanistic process, then we at least need to have enough of a detailed understanding of the process to see if such a mechanistic process actually has any chance of producing the machine in the real world. A mechanistic theory is only as good as the mechanism proposed. Otherwise, we are just making up stories. Thus, regarding the origin of life, we cannot say life came about through purely mechanistic processes, but that we don't know what those processes are. If materialists are being minimally intellectually honest, the most they can say is that they don't know whether life could arise through purely natural processes. And if they want to be truly intellectually honest, they will need to admit to and grapple with the many problems of naturalistic abiogenesis, just some of which I listed in the OP. And they would also acknowledge that, in sharp contrast to purely material processes, intelligent beings are known to have the capacity to create, and are regularly observed creating, complex functional machines in three-dimensional space. ----- Having said all that, let me provide yet one more concession -- or perhaps better said, let me clarify my concessions from the OP: I am not demanding that abiogenesis proponents tell us exactly how life did arise on the early Earth. After all the naturalistic proposals inevitably include lots of chance and potentially unrepeatable strokes of cosmic luck. Fine. So be it. I'm not demanding that we be told the definitive answer to how life actually arose. All I am asking for is a rational, coherent proposal with reasonable detail. I would be impressed with something that has the potential of being a reasonably likely naturalistic path to the origin of life. Something that is not based on vague assertions and that is completely lacking in detail. Something that doesn't ignore the many critical issues that numerous researchers have detailed. Something that doesn't assume the existence of entities and processes that have never before been observed. Something beyond a laughable made-up story.Eric Anderson
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PST
@90 Mike "EDIT: We know that things that survive in their environment, survive in their environment. We know that things that can reproduce can produce things where some survive in their environment and some don’t. These are effects, not mechanisms to be verified or falsified. Please get down to the putative verifiable and falsifiable mechanisms responsible for the fossil record" Exactly Mike, These people seem excited about the trite observation that "survivors survive" It does not take much to fill their cup. hahahaJack Jones
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PST
Eric Anderson Does OOL mean Out Of Luck? :)Dionisio
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PST
Zach "The term “natural selection” was chosen as a metaphor, but is a term of art referring to differential reproductive potential due to heritable variations." The peppered moth story is an example of differential reproduction, It does not explain the origin of moths or provide a mechanism for how moths could evolve towards becoming a new type of living thing over time.Jack Jones
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PST
Zächriellen The historical record shows branching descent. Branching descent is an effect, not a mechanism to be verified or falsified. Whatever the mechanism is, the historical record shows that it works incrementally. Incremental effects recorded in the fossil record are just that: effects. They are not a mechanism that can be verified or falsified. Selective fitness refers to traits that provide a heritable reproductive advantage. Some traits are not heritable. Some traits don’t provide a reproductive advantage. Some organisms survive by happenstance. Which boils down to “whatever survives in its environment.” "Whatever survives in its environment" is an effect to be explained by a mechanism, not a mechanism to be verified or falsified. differential reproductive potential due to heritable variations. Which is another way of saying, "whatever survives in its environment." It is an effect, not a mechanism to be verified or falsified. Evolution by natural selection is a mechanism. No it isn't. EDIT: We know that things that survive in their environment, survive in their environment. We know that things that can reproduce can produce things where some survive in their environment and some don't. These are effects, not mechanisms to be verified or falsified. Please get down to the putative verifiable and falsifiable mechanisms responsible for the things that survived in the fossil record.mike1962
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PST
Eric Anderson
I’ll also miraculously make your fledgling chemical structures immune from their natural rate of breakdown.
Indeed you're very generous, but if on top of that you also want to be considered PC, you may want to remove a word that is not PC in the above quoted sentence, which was copied from your OP. :)Dionisio
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PST
mike1962: Given that “gradual transitions” are “evolution” Gradual transitions can be called evolution, but we're referring to evolution by natural selection. Jack Jones: Natural selection is a metaphor The term "natural selection" was chosen as a metaphor, but is a term of art referring to differential reproductive potential due to heritable variations.Zachriel
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PST
"Natural selection is a directly observable phenomenon." Natural selection is a metaphor, Darwin admitted that it is a false term. You can make an exception for the use of the term for predator-prey relationships, the environment that is lived in however cannot select, it is a personification fallacy. Fallacious thinking does not cease to become Fallacious thinking just because it has become popular, Butterfly and Moth collectors may be trained in story telling but they are not necessarily trained in logic. Predators that kill off prey did not create that which did not die. Not dying did not create that which lives.Jack Jones
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PST
mike1962: Take, for example, the conjecture that something like a chimp brain evolved, without any intelligent intervention, into a human brain. Zächriellen: We have evidence of a gradual transition, consistent with evolution. Given that "gradual transitions" are "evolution", that's not saying anything at all. Now, do you have a testable, falsifiable mechanism that can account for a chimp-like brain evolving into human brains without intelligent intervention?mike1962
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PST
Jack Jones: Natural selection is a fallacy of personifying nature. Natural selection is a directly observable phenomenon. mike1962: It is not a mechanism to be verified or falsified. The historical record shows branching descent. mike1962: Gradual transitions in the fossil record are an effect, not a mechanism to be verified or falsified. Whatever the mechanism is, the historical record shows that it works incrementally. mike1962: “Natural selection” is merely a tautological tag for “whatever survives in its environment.” Selective fitness refers to traits that provide a heritable reproductive advantage. Some traits are not heritable. Some traits don't provide a reproductive advantage. Some organisms survive by happenstance. mike1962: You provided no putative mechanism. Evolution by natural selection is a mechanism.Zachriel
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PST
mike1962: What is your putative mechanism(s) for what is seen in the fossil record and how can it/they be verified or falsified? Zächriellen: Evolution by natural selection. We just provided how it can be verified Well, let's see. You said... One way is to look at the historical record captured in the fossil succession. The historical record is the thing to be explained. It is not a mechanism to be verified or falsified. Another is to carefully observe natural selection directly. For example? We have evidence of a gradual transition, consistent with evolution. Gradual transitions in the fossil record are an effect, not a mechanism to be verified or falsified. We can observe natural selection in everything from guppies to finches. See previous paragraph. We can also observe the effects of mutation in bacteria. So what is your proposed mechanism? That mutations in bacteria are responsible for the gradual transitions found in the fossil record? Please clarify. For historical cases of adaptive evolution, the sequence of events can be determined from common descent. Events, adaptations and appearances of common descent recorded in the fossil record are effects, not mechanisms to be verified or falsified. To show natural selection requires finding examples of a sequence that includes incremental, selectable steps. Incremental steps in the fossil record are effects, not mechanisms to be verified or falsified. "Natural selection" is merely a tautological tag for "whatever survives in its environment." It is not a mechanism to be verified or falsified. Evolution by natural selection. We just provided how it can be verified. No you didn't. You provided no putative mechanism. Merely citations of effects that require a mechanism, yet to be described.mike1962
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PST
Zach@82 "Evolution by natural selection. We just provided how it can be verified. " Natural selection is a fallacy of personifying nature. The environment does not select. It is why there is no agreed definition of Natural selection and you even had Coyne contradicting himself, Darwin came up with a metaphor and tried to project that out into the world as a law of nature which is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. That's why there has been confusion among evolutionists when it comes to that term and contradictory definitions. I agree with Peter Corning on an exceptional use of the term "natural selection when it comes to predator prey relationships, like birds eating the light colored moths but the death of the light colored moths did not create moths in the first place. It provides no means for moths to become something else over time. Not dying did not create that which already existed. What needs is explaining is how one type of organism can give rise to a new type over time, There is no agreement for a mechanism for that. The weeding out of that which already exists did not create that which did not die.Jack Jones
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PST
Barry Arrington: Well, OK then. Stay ignorant then. Good luck with that! mike1962: What is your putative mechanism(s) for what is seen in the fossil record and how can it/they be verified or falsified? Evolution by natural selection. We just provided how it can be verified. We can observe natural selection in everything from guppies to finches. We can also observe the effects of mutation in bacteria. For historical cases of adaptive evolution, the sequence of events can be determined from common descent. To show natural selection requires finding examples of a sequence that includes incremental, selectable steps.Zachriel
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PST
KF,
That there is now a pretense of unfalsifiability . . .
Well, yes and no. They claim ID is unfalsifiable only when they are not claiming it has in fact been falsified. Being a materialist means never having to stick to one story as to why your opponent's theory fails.Barry Arrington
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PST
Hi Eric, Yes, both of the sites I linked to are mine. They are just two weeks old now. I wrote about them here on UD on Oct 31st. I'd like to have that conversation. Can you contact me at info (at) biosemiosis ((dot)) org? I look forward to it.Upright BiPed
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PST
Zächriellen: We can observe natural selection in everything from guppies to finches. We can also observe the effects of mutation in bacteria. For historical cases of adaptive evolution, the sequence of events can be determined from common descent. To show natural selection requires finding examples of a sequence that includes incremental, selectable steps. What is your putative mechanism(s) for what is seen in the fossil record and how can it/they be verified or falsified? Once you figure that out, please feel free to give Brian some assistance with respect to this question and OOL, which is the topic at hand.mike1962
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PST
Barry Arrington: Before I follow you link, can you tell me whether Szostak’s lab has solved any of the basic problems facing a materialist OOL account? Zach: No.
Well, OK then. Thanks for saving me from wasting my time.Barry Arrington
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PST
mike1962: What I am asking for is a way to verify or falsify whatever your putative process or mechanism is. We can observe natural selection in everything from guppies to finches. We can also observe the effects of mutation in bacteria. For historical cases of adaptive evolution, the sequence of events can be determined from common descent. To show natural selection requires finding examples of a sequence that includes incremental, selectable steps.Zachriel
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PST
Zächriele: One way is to look at the historical record captured in the fossil succession. Another is to carefully observe natural selection directly. Please provide an example that is germane to the discussion of verifying or falsifying putative mechanisms. We have evidence of a gradual transition, consistent with evolution. A gradual transition is an effect, not a mechanism to be verified or falsified.mike1962
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PST
Brian Douglas: Yes, by dismantling the car and reassembling it, you could posit a step by step process for assembling the car. But could you conclude that your process was the exact same one used to first construct it? No. Nobody is asking for "the exact same one used to first construct it." What I am asking for is a way to verify or falsify whatever your putative process or mechanism is. If it's not verifiable or falsifiable, then we're not talking science. Much in the same way that we know the DNA sequence required for a specific protein, we could probably posit a series of mutations that could result in the needed sequence. You say "we could probably." Very well, then. Do that, by golly. That's the sort of thing we're asking for. Let's see if it verifiable or falsifiable. If not, you're not yet talking about anything scientific. Mere speculations do not a scientific theory make. But that would be pointless as there is no way that we could conclude that it actually arose in that fashion. Nobody is asking for that. See above. With regard to OOL, I have already stated that I have no idea how it came about, and that an intelligent agent is a valid inference. As is a natural one. I won't speak to the ID question here, but a "natural agent" is not presently a valid inference for OOL. Valid inferences are "the act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true." All you have presently is a mere conjecture with mostly gaping holes and precious little evidence. That's not the same thing as an inference.mike1962
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PST
Zachriel @33:
There are a number of speculations about abiogenesis, but none of them form a complete theory. We might start with what we do know, that the Earth is billions of years old, and life began within millions of years after it cooled enough for liquid water to form.
It would be more accurate to say none of them form anything more than a laughable made up story, but OK, I understand your point. I'm happy to stipulate that the Earth is billions of years old and that life began within millions of years after it cooled enough (the short timeframe making, we might note, the materialistic luck-of-the-draw abiogenesis story all the more unlikely). Let's start with a few other things we also know. No material mechanism has ever been demonstrated that can generate complex specified information. In contrast, intelligent beings regularly generate such information. Every abiogenesis hypothesis to date suffers from gaping problems beyond the critical information question (to wit, the various concessions I made in the OP). The oft-cited "self-replicating molecule" has never been observed, nor has anyone ever provided even a grounded theoretical model of how such a thing could exist or operate. Any materialistic scenario runs into huge combinatorial problems that far exceed the resources of the known universe. And on and on. Are you willing to start with those things that we know? Or is it just the billions of years some people seem to be impressed with. Yes, I am willing to start with everything we know. Not just some selective tidbits here and there, coupled with lots of half-baked speculations.Eric Anderson
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PST
UB @32: Good points, as usual. BTW, are you involved with the website you linked to? If so, I'd be interested in hearing a bit more about it if you don't mind sharing.Eric Anderson
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PST
Barry Arrington: Before I follow you link, can you tell me whether Szostak’s lab has solved any of the basic problems facing a materialist OOL account? If yes, I must have missed the headlines and Nobel Prizes that surely followed. No. Szostak won his Nobel for work with telomeres. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2009/szostak-facts.html Szostak's Lab has done interesting work on vesicle replication and RNA selection. Upright BiPed: I am using the word in the sense of our universal observation of living cells. They are heterogeneous entities that reproduce themselves by the translation of prescriptive memory. There's nothing wrong with coining a term, but it's not something one can just look up. That's the reason for the question. Upright BiPed: A heterogeneous self-replicating system that reproduces itself by the translation of prescriptive memory, must be able to describe itself into that memory. In RNA World, prescriptive memory is the RNA, which not only is the memory, but also can act as an enzyme. The only thing missing then is the translation mechanism. It's possible that translation could evolve through exaptation. RNA charged with amino acids would provide additional functional options, as well as greater stability. Charged RNA could evolve into a peptide ligase, then self-charging proto-tRNAs that worked just to deliver amino acids to the ligase, and finally, specialization for the growing number of different amino acids. mike1962: How do we empirically verify or falsify that the proposed mechanism can generate what occurred? One way is to look at the historical record captured in the fossil succession. Another is to carefully observe natural selection directly. mike1962: Take, for example, the conjecture that something like a chimp brain evolved, without any intelligent intervention, into a human brain. We have evidence of a gradual transition, consistent with evolution. http://ncse.com/files/images/Fossil_homs_cranial_capacity_vs_time_0.img_assist_custom.pngZachriel
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PST
UB, of course, all objectors to the design inference of consequence know that were they able to show credible creation of functionally specific complex organisation and associated information by undirected blind chance and mechanical necessity, the inference to design on FSCO/I as empirically reliable sign would collapse. So would ID as a scientific movement. That there is now a pretence of unfalsifiability is a mark of just how badly many attempts over the years to falsify have failed. The dismissal of the design inference by so many largely turns on ideological commitment and consequent twisted redefinition of science. KFkairosfocus
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PST
Unless someone has any idea for testing the idea of an intelligent cause to OOL.
A Valid Test.Upright BiPed
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PST
Brian
Much in the same way that we know the DNA sequence required for a specific protein, we could probably posit a series of mutations that could result in the needed sequence. But that would be pointless as there is no way that we could conclude that it actually arose in that fashion.
Wow. I have never seen an evolutionist go this far before. Attempting to actually demonstrate how their mechanism accounted for the observation is "pointless." You just gotta have faith. Well OK brian. But do me a favor. Never poke fun at other* religious fundamentalists. _________ *Note that I did not use the word "those."Barry Arrington
November 17, 2015
November
11
Nov
17
17
2015
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PST
1 … 6 7 8 9 10 11