Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is origin of life a fluke, physics… or just not a science question at present?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
stromatolites/C. Eeckhout

From Ian O’Neill at LiveScience:

Understanding the origin of life is arguably one of the most compelling quests for humanity. This quest has inevitably moved beyond the puzzle of life on Earth to whether there’s life elsewhere in the universe. Is life on Earth a fluke? Or is life as natural as the universal laws of physics?

Jeremy England, a biophysicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is trying to answer these profound questions. In 2013, he formulated a hypothesis that physics may spontaneously trigger chemicals to organize themselves in ways that seed “life-like” qualities.

Now, new research by England and a colleague suggests that physics may naturally produce self-replicating chemical reactions, one of the first steps toward creating life from inanimate substances.

Aw, not this again. Jeremy England is the Hollywood summer pix idea of what a successful origin of life scientist should be. Assuming that his subject even is a science topic. In that case, in the ongoing war between it just happened and it had to happen, any blip is news.

Under certain initial conditions, he found that these chemicals may optimize the energy applied to the system by self-organizing and undergoing intense reactions to self-replicate. The chemicals fine-tuned themselves naturally. These reactions generate heat that obeys the second law of thermodynamics; entropy will always increase in the system and the chemicals would self-organize and exhibit the life-like behavior of self-replication. More.

About that, our physics color commentator Rob Sheldon noted earlier,

What Prigogine said (and many [including England] have repeated), is that for systems that have energy flow through them—think of a pot of water boiling on the stove—the system finds a structure that moves the most amount of heat and entropy the fastest. In the case of the pot, it is convection cells that form spontaneously.

Is this order?

Of a sort–the sort that maximizes disorder. It’s called the Maximum Entropy Production Principle. The “structure” that has England all excited, spontaneously forms to make things disorganized really fast. It’s what designs tornadoes, hurricanes, and mushroom clouds. This is not particularly useful for life, despite many hopeful scientists.

It is, however, useful for science stories at the tag end of the summer.

info, information, tips, icon, support Also, to say that life somehow organizes or self-organizes is to miss the point. Snowflakes organize into complex patterns too and they don’t seek to avoid the shovel that smashes them. What differentiates life forms is their constant effort to remain in a high state of organization. Perhaps that effort is a driving force behind evolution. But it is treated as if it did not exist or is of philosophical interest only. Anyway, it is too much to recognize, especially for an idle summer’s tale. And maybe too much altogether.

Understanding the origin of life requires understanding the origin of information. But origin-of-life scientists keep orbiting the twin poles of Chance and Law, leaving out any plausible demonstration of how high levels of information can be generated. And why not? Their public is content with elegant, slightly dismissive essays in Quanta, Nautilus, or Aeon, ever hopeful about the ever hopeless.

The question looms: Is origin of life a degenerate science research program? Will the idle tales of Jeremy England and his confreres ever give way to serious investigation of the realities?

Note: Devolution sometimes works for life forms such as parasites, but it depends on other life forms retaining and possibly increasing complexity.

See also: Does nature just “naturally” produce life?

Can all the numbers for life’s origin just happen to fall into place?

Rob Sheldon: Sara Walker is criticizing Jeremy England for the wrong reasons

Chemist James Tour calls out Jeremy England’s origin of life claims – in a nice way

Chemist James Tour writes an open letter to his colleagues

Biophysicist [Jeremy England]: Order can arise from nothing! I have evidence! – Rob Sheldon replies

and

What we know and don’t know about the origin of life

Comments
LarTanner: "Would you agree that a full understanding of design in nature includes knowing something of the designer(s) and the process(es) they use?" Yes. But the design inference can be affirmed even if we know nothing of the designer and of the methods of design implementation. Of course, after a design inference has been accepted as best explanation, then the questions about the designer and implementation methods become perfectly legitimate scientific problems. "To me, it seems unnecessarily limited to confine ID to the question of whether design has been detected." I have never confined ID to that. But it is important to remember that the questions about the designer are not necessary to the design inference. "In fact, I don’t think you actually can say definitively that design has been detected unless you also say something about the designer and design process." This is wrong. The design inference is independent. It can safely be done even if we know nothing of the designer or of how the design was implemented. That can easily be shown. "As I say, it’s an obvious question. I don’t know why ID shies away from it." I have never shied away from it. Indeed, I have discussed many times what can be reasonably be hypothesized about the nature of the designer, and about the ways of implementation. For example, I have proposed many times that one of the main ways to implement design in biology could be by guided transposon activity, which is consistent with many facts we have. And I have debated many times that the implementation can probably take place by some mind-matter interface at quantum level, exactly as it probably happens in the human brain. The simple fact is that, while we have tons of data that allow a design inference for biological information, we have still only scarce data to understand the nature of the designer(s) and the methods of design implementation. But they certainly remain legitimate scientific questions. The intentional error of darwinists is to state that we cannot infer design unless we know who the designer is or how the design was implemented: that is completely false.gpuccio
August 31, 2017
August
08
Aug
31
31
2017
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
LarTanner: "At the very least, would this not count as an imaginary, if not reasonable pathway for an evolutionary process? " No. Reconstructing the natural history of proteins is in no way an explanatory pathway of how the information in those proteins arose. This is the false idea that darwinists have tried to nurture: that having a supposed history explains the origin of information. But that is not the case. The model of RV + NS requires a deconstruction of the information into steps that are simple enough to be in the range of what a natural random system can achieve, and that are, each of them, naturally selectable. Such a pathway has never been shown for any complex protein, least of all for aminoacyl tRNA synthetases. I believe in common descent, and more specifically in protein descent by design. The relationship between proteins is a reality for which a lot of evidence exists. On the contrary, there is absolutely no evidence for the origin of functional information in proteins by any pathway that does not include design, that is the input of new original functional information by some conscious intelligent agent. The specific point with aminoacyl tRNA synthetases, moreover, is that those 20 proteins are necessary for translation: indeed, they are, with their complex aminoacid structure, the depository of the genetic code. Therefore, it is a clear case of chicken and egg paradox: no 20 proteins, no translation. No translation, no proteins from nucleotide sequences. Therefore, no genetic information, no evolution. Nothing at all. Now, think: how was the sequence in the 20 proteins originally determined? We are speaking if thousands of AAs, a sum total of information vastly beyond any probabilistic power of the universe. And yet, without that information, in one form or another, no translation can be observed on our planet. No translation has ever been observed. So, you need 20 complex proteins, each of them with a specific site for one aminoacid and a specific site for the corresponding tRNA: that is where the symbolic coupling takes place. And, of course, you also need the ribosome, and a lot of other components, including all the enzymes necessary for DNA existence, duplication, and so on. But the symbolic coupling is in the 20 proteins. Without those proteins, without the specific sequence information in them, no living cell could have any idea of what aminoacid corresponds to some specific codon. The genetic code would be completely useless, it would practically not exist at all. You asked: “Is the ID position that these syntaxes cannot have arisen naturalistically?” You bet it is! And I have tried to explain why.gpuccio
August 31, 2017
August
08
Aug
31
31
2017
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
ET --
ID is not about the designer(s) nor the process(es). ID is about detecting and understanding design in nature.
Would you agree that a full understanding of design in nature includes knowing something of the designer(s) and the process(es) they use? To me, it seems unnecessarily limited to confine ID to the question of whether design has been detected. In fact, I don't think you actually can say definitively that design has been detected unless you also say something about the designer and design process. As I say, it's an obvious question. I don't know why ID shies away from it.
They “reconstructed” an evolutionary history only because they believe there was one.
Of course. The question will be how well the reconstruction conforms to available data and conforms to new data that becomes known in the future.LarTanner
August 31, 2017
August
08
Aug
31
31
2017
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
LarTanner- ID is not about the designer(s) nor the process(es). ID is about detecting and understanding design in nature. And no, imagination is not evidence. They "reconstructed" an evolutionary history only because they believe there was one.ET
August 31, 2017
August
08
Aug
31
31
2017
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
gpuccio, Thank you for the additional information. Just as a matter of curiosity, I quickly searched and found (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14665676), "On the evolution of structure in aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases." The abstract reads, in part:
We present a structure-based phylogeny of the aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases. By using structural alignments of all of the aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases of known structure in combination with a new measure of structural homology, we have reconstructed the evolutionary history of these proteins. In order to derive unbiased statistics from the structural alignments, we introduce a multidimensional QR factorization which produces a nonredundant set of structures. Since protein structure is more highly conserved than protein sequence, this study has allowed us to glimpse the evolution of protein structure that predates the root of the universal phylogenetic tree. The extensive sequence-based phylogenetic analysis of the tRNA synthetases (Woese et al., Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 64:202-236, 2000) has further enabled us to reconstruct the complete evolutionary profile of these proteins and to make connections between major evolutionary events and the resulting changes in protein shape. We also discuss the effect of functional specificity on protein shape over the complex evolutionary course of the tRNA synthetases.
At the very least, would this not count as an imaginary, if not reasonable pathway for an evolutionary process? I think we could at minimum grant this. I wish I had more technical knowledge to understand the article itself. I suppose the most responsible thing I can say is that it seems to reinforce the idea that aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases have an evolutionary history. If nothing else, there is a real argument here, not "mere belief." And all this raises the obvious question: What is ID's "pathway for the supposed process itself" when it comes to the emergence of aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases? Does ID hypothesize that on a certain day millions of years ago, a group of designers congregated someplace on Earth and got to work building these tiny structures? I don't mean to sound un-serious but am rather genuinely curious as to what ID supposes designers actually did in executing their design work. Could you please shed some light on this?LarTanner
August 31, 2017
August
08
Aug
31
31
2017
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT
LarTanner: "Is the ID position that these syntaxes cannot have arisen naturalistically?" Of course. The whole system is incredibly complex, and is based on an abstract system of symbolic representation, which could never arise in a non designed way. Just as an example, consider that, as UB has pointed out, the component of the system that really "decodes" the information is the set of 20 highly complex proteins, the Aminoacyl-tRNA Synthetases. See, for example, here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22356/ or here: http://pdb101.rcsb.org/motm/16 Please, consider that each of these molecules is very complex, that each is hundreds of AAs long (up to more than 1000), that they work by independent specific sites for the aminoacid and for the corresponding tRNA, and that as far as we know no translation is possible without those molecules, in all living organisms. Of course, darwinists believe that the system arose in some way from simpler systems, by some gradual evolutionary process. They believe it. But it is mere belief, without any support from facts, and without any reasonable, or even imaginary, pathway for the supposed process itself.gpuccio
August 31, 2017
August
08
Aug
31
31
2017
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
LT, I see your post, but I am not free to respond just now. I will circle back later today or this evening.Upright BiPed
August 31, 2017
August
08
Aug
31
31
2017
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed @22, Thanks again. Part of my confusion stemmed from what's probably an inconsequential discrepancy in terms. I would have considered a nucleic sequence to be a code (or an allowable syntax of a code), not a medium. In my understanding, a medium is the material used for making communication perceptible. In writing the medium might encompass ink, orthography, and paper. In speech, sound, air, and inflection might together comprise the medium. Google offers this definition, which pretty much matches what I was thinking: "the intervening substance through which impressions are conveyed to the senses or a force acts on objects at a distance." In any case, I think I now see more clearly your point: these organic codes include instructions for doing 'life-things' (e.g., growth, re-generation); moreover, to be successful, the communication process (encoding, decoding, acting upon the message) requires an operative syntax. Is the ID position that these syntaxes cannot have arisen naturalistically?LarTanner
August 31, 2017
August
08
Aug
31
31
2017
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
DNA has the following: 1. Functional Information 2. Encoder/Packer 3. Error Correction 4. Decoder Consider that these 4 items are basic and necessary. It’s a closed system dependent on all operations to be functioning – and as UB states @ 22, codons only represent amino acids if you have the system in place to interpret the functional relationship of the medium (aaRS). This is a simple example of the more complex...Heartlander
August 30, 2017
August
08
Aug
30
30
2017
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT
LT,
Are you saying these sequences describe the interpretive constraints embedded in some medium?
Yes.
If so, what are the constraints, specifically?
The constraints are the aaRS molecules they describe.
Is “the medium” an individual cell, or what exactly is the medium you mean?
The medium is a nucleic sequence. - - - - - - - There are a great number of resources on the web if you do not understand the basics of genetic translation. Sequences of DNR/RNA serve as a medium of information within a system. aaRS operate within that system to establish the code for interpreting the medium. Proteins (like aaRS) and other various molecules are the products of that interpretation.Upright BiPed
August 30, 2017
August
08
Aug
30
30
2017
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
Upright Biped, Thanks for the response. Are you saying these sequences describe the interpretive constraints embedded in some medium? If so, what are the constraints, specifically? Is "the medium" an individual cell, or what exactly is the medium you mean? Thanks again for shedding light on this.LarTanner
August 30, 2017
August
08
Aug
30
30
2017
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
LT, The nascent gene sequences for the set of aaRS is a real-world example (i.e. the protein constraints that establish the genetic code). A system than cannot provide a description of itself cannot start the cell cycle, and neither can a system that is unable to properly interpret the description.Upright BiPed
August 30, 2017
August
08
Aug
30
30
2017
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT
Upright Biped, What are some examples of "a description of its interpretive constraints embedded in the medium"? I ask because I don't understand the concept and hope some real-life examples will help.LarTanner
August 30, 2017
August
08
Aug
30
30
2017
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
'....just not a science question' - but without the qualification, 'at present.'Axel
August 30, 2017
August
08
Aug
30
30
2017
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
he found that these chemicals may optimize the energy applied to the system by self-organizing and undergoing intense reactions to self-replicate.
Was it translating encoded information? Oh, that’s right – the ability to specify a thing among alternatives by translating a medium of information (and all that unnecessary complexity) comes much later, after it first organizes itself into a system that can specify a system that can translate encoded information. Or, did whatever system it organized itself into not need to specify a system that can translate encoded information? If that’s the case, then where did all that organization and complexity come from? Oh, that’s right – the ability to specify a system that can specify a system that can translate encoded information comes much later ... - - - - - - - - In any case, someone should tell Mr England that Life’s ability to specify something from a medium of information requires a description of its interpretive constraints embedded in the medium. That is what physically establishes the medium of information and allows the constraints to persist over time. A long time ago a couple of fellows named Alan Matheson Turing and John von Neumann described this “threshold of complexity” in a prescriptive self-replicator. Perhaps Jeremy England could convince Turing and von Neumann that the system doesn’t really need a set of state transformations or a medium of information.Upright BiPed
August 30, 2017
August
08
Aug
30
30
2017
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
Dionisio @ 15 Don't apologize for a typo. That's how evolution works! Random mutations in a string of letters can lead to amazing advancements in our complex and sophisticated world.awstar
August 30, 2017
August
08
Aug
30
30
2017
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
Otangelo Grasso I apologize for misspelling your last name in my comment @8. The type ahead auto editor changed the spelling but I didn't notice it until now. If a word is typed anywhere after the first word with capital initial, the autocorrect tool shouldn't change it, but it does.Dionisio
August 30, 2017
August
08
Aug
30
30
2017
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT
@Otangelo Grasso Physical laws which result in physical constraints, where chemical reactions are forced into taking a certain course of action is an often cited possible mechanism for the origin of life. Whoever makes this claim need serious help...If that were true, life would spontaneously arise today many times in the lab and out...J-Mac
August 29, 2017
August
08
Aug
29
29
2017
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT
Otangelo Grasso @ 7: Excellent comment.Truth Will Set You Free
August 29, 2017
August
08
Aug
29
29
2017
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT
@astar "Until a scientist does precisely this with his origin-of-life theory/philosophy and is raised from the dead the third day to vindicate his position, I think I’ll just keep believing the Bible still has the best explanation. Providing an accurate definition of life, that the majority of scientist would agree on would be a good way to start... There is never going to be "until"... The life sustaining energy that makes the inanimate matter animate or alive, is probably hidden someone at the most subatomic levels of quantum mechanics or even beyond that... Dark energy is a good candidate but nobody knows what it is and how to detect it and yet we know it is there...just like life...nobody knows what it is or how to define it and yet it is here...J-Mac
August 29, 2017
August
08
Aug
29
29
2017
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT
“Now, new research by England and a colleague suggests that physics may naturally produce self-replicating chemical reactions, one of the first steps toward creating life from inanimate substances.” I can't imagine telling my project director that the computers and software development team were the first steps toward creating the engineering design program he envisioned and later explained to us so we could develop and implement it. That would have been bad joke. Without his ideas we wouldn't have created anything comparable to what was done. The best computers and the best software development teams together wouldn't have created the successful software product my director designed in his mind long before the first programming code was written. The very first necessary step was his idea. Please, next time let's be more respectful of certain technical and engineering professions, ok?Dionisio
August 29, 2017
August
08
Aug
29
29
2017
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT
"Now, new research by England and a colleague suggests that physics may naturally produce self-replicating chemical reactions, one of the first steps toward creating life from inanimate substances." "one of the first steps toward creating life from inanimate substances"? "one of the first steps"? Ok, How many "first steps" are required toward creating life from inanimate substances? How many steps overall?Dionisio
August 29, 2017
August
08
Aug
29
29
2017
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
Otangelo Grassy, Interesting comment. Thanks.Dionisio
August 29, 2017
August
08
Aug
29
29
2017
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
Physical necessity & Physical laws http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2515-the-possible-mechanisms-to-explain-the-origin-of-life Physical laws which result in physical constraints, where chemical reactions are forced into taking a certain course of action is an often cited possible mechanism for the origin of life. We are moving from chemistry to biology. Henceforward, life, it goes without saying, is independent of its chemical substrate, and its evolution does not follow paths that are predictable solely based on the laws of physics. M. Gargaud · H. Martin · P. López-García T. Montmerle · R. Pascal Young Sun, Early Earth and the Origins of Life, page 95 Laurent Boiteau Prebiotic Chemistry: From Simple Amphiphiles to Protocell Models, page 3: Spontaneous self-assembly occurs when certain compounds associate through noncovalent hydrogen bonds, electrostatic forces, and nonpolar interactions that stabilize orderly arrangements of small and large molecules. The argument that chemical reactions in a primordial soup would not act upon pure chance, and that chemistry is not a matter of "random chance and coincidence , finds its refutation by the fact that the information stored in DNA is not constrained by chemistry. Yockey shows that the rules of any communication system are not derivable from the laws of physics. He continues : “there is nothing in the physicochemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences.” In other words, nothing in nonliving physics or chemistry obeys symbolic instructions. Stephen C. Meyer observed: “There are neither bonds nor bonding affinities—differing in strength or otherwise—that can explain the origin of the base sequencing that constitutes the information in the DNA molecule” (Signature in the Cell, 243). As Paul Davies lamented, “We are still left with the mystery of where biological information comes from.… If the normal laws of physics can’t inject information, and if we are ruling out miracles, then how can life be predetermined and inevitable rather than a freak accident? How is it possible to generate random complexity and specificity together in a lawlike manner? We always come back to that basic paradox” (Fifth Miracle, 258). Werner Gitt summarized it this way: “A necessary requirement for generating meaningful information is the ability to select from alternatives and this requires an intelligent, volitional entity.… Unguided, random processes cannot do this—not in any amount of time because this selection process demands continuous guidance by intelligent beings that have a purpose” (Without Excuse, 50–51). The Genetic Code http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Organic/gencode.html DNA contains a true code. Being a true code means that the code is free and unconstrained; any of the four bases can be placed in any of the positions in the sequence of bases. Their sequence is not determined by the chemical bonding. There are hydrogen bonds between the base pairs and each base is bonded to the sugar phosphate backbone, but there are no bonds along the longitudional axis of DNA. The bases occur in the complementary base pairs A-T and G-C, but along the sequence on one side the bases can occur in any order, like the letters of a language used to compose words and sentences. Since nucleotides can be arranged freely into any informational sequence, physical necessity could not be a driving mechanism. Abiogenesis is the process by which life arises naturally from non-living matter. Scientists speculate that life may have arisen as a result of random chemical processes happening to produce self-replicating molecules. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abiogenesis Paul Davies conceded, “Unfortunately, before Darwinian evolution can start, a certain minimum level of complexity is required. But how was this initial complexity achieved? When pressed, most scientists wring their hands and mutter the incantation ‘Chance.’ So, did chance alone create the first self-replicating molecule?” (Fifth Miracle, 138). If design or physical necessity is discarded, the only remaining possible mechanism for the origin of life is chance/luck.Otangelo Grasso
August 29, 2017
August
08
Aug
29
29
2017
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT
J-Mac @ 3
The way this world works is that if you stick out your head too much, you can get squashed…
Until a scientist does precisely this with his origin-of-life theory/philosophy and is raised from the dead the third day to vindicate his position, I think I'll just keep believing the Bible still has the best explanation.awstar
August 29, 2017
August
08
Aug
29
29
2017
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
J-Mac @ 3: "The way this world works is that if you stick out your head too much, you can get squashed…" Agreed. But the tide is turning in that regard. I am noticing more and more young people openly questioning Darwinian evolution. That will only increase as evidence against the doomed theory continues to mount.Truth Will Set You Free
August 29, 2017
August
08
Aug
29
29
2017
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
As William J Murray set forth discursively but with astonishing precision (since we take the banal and quotidian so much for granted), life, not to speak of ratiocination, is demonstrably (by default) supernatural ; not natural.Axel
August 29, 2017
August
08
Aug
29
29
2017
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
Nobody will admit anything...They have too much to lose... It must be hard to support preconceived ideas when the evidence is pointing against it... The way this world works is that if you stick out your head too much, you can get squashed...J-Mac
August 29, 2017
August
08
Aug
29
29
2017
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
J-Mac @ 1: "If scientific evidence indicates thousands of recent common ancestors, how many times would life had have originated on its own to keep the preconceived theory of abiogenesis alive?" Great question. On one hand, Venter doubts that there is a single common ancestor, i.e. a single abiogenesis event, and on the other hand he thinks there may be thousands of recent common ancestors. Without saying it directly, Venter is leaving the door open for thousands of abiogenesis events. I have no problem with any of this so long as Venter, and his ilk, admit that it is mere speculation unsupported by empirical evidence. That it is philosophy...not science.Truth Will Set You Free
August 29, 2017
August
08
Aug
29
29
2017
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
When an experimental scientist of Craig Venter's caliber doubts common ancestry by publicly stating: "One question is, can we extrapolate back from this data set to describe the most recent common ancestor. I don't necessarily buy that there is a single ancestor. It’s counterintuitive to me. I think we may have thousands of recent common ancestors and they are not necessarily so common." If scientific evidence indicates thousands of recent common ancestors, how many times would life had have originated on it's own to keep the preconceived theory of abiogenesis alive?J-Mac
August 29, 2017
August
08
Aug
29
29
2017
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply