Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Odds That End: Stephen Meyer’s Rebuttal Of The Chance Hypothesis

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The Andes mountains opened up on both sides of us as we drove on one July afternoon along a highway that links Quito, the capital of Ecuador, with the smaller town of Ambato almost three hours further south. The setting sun shone head-on upon two volcanic giants- Tungurahua and Cotopaxi with its snow covered peak just visible through the cordillera. I had traveled along this road many times in previous years and had been repeatedly awe-struck by the sheer beauty of the surrounding land. Today fields extend as far as the eye can see, with the lights of small communities and villages illuminating the mountain slopes.

Volcanoes that periodically eject dangerous lava flows are a rich source of soil nutrients for Ecuadorian farmers. Still, in the eyes of organic chemists such as Claudia Huber and Guenter Wachtershauser there exists a more pressing reason for studying the world’s ‘lava spewers’- one that has everything to do with the unguided manufacture of prebiotic compounds (1). Huber and Wachtershauser’s 2006 Science write-up on the synthesis of amino acids using potassium cyanide and carbon monoxide mixtures was heralded as groundbreaking primarily because of the ‘multiplicity of pathways’ through which biotic components could be made using these simple volcanic compounds (1).

Others have similarly weighed in with their own thoughts on volcanic origins (2-6). In the words of one notable Russian research team “the opportunity to define the pressure and temperature limits of [volcanic] microbiological activity as well as constrain its rate of evolution in a primordial environment is an exciting one, with implications for the origin of life on earth and existence of life elsewhere in the solar system” (3).

Whether it be Darwin’s warm little pond or contemporary speculations over life-seeding environments we see in both a search for continuity from the non-living to the living- a search that was exemplified in Walt Disney’s color and sound extravaganza Fantasia almost seventy years ago. Disney popularized origin of life theories by artistically proclaiming that volcanoes exploding and comets colliding were all that were needed to get life under way. According to such a portrayal the evolution of more complex multi-cellular forms would then naturally follow (7). Disney enthusiasts will no doubt find comfort in the decade-old New York Times prescription for a life-yielding brew:

“Drop a handful of fool’s gold (the mineral iron pyrites) and a sprinkle of nickel into water, stir in a strong whiff of rotten eggs (caused by the gas hydrogen sulfide) and carbon monoxide, heat mixture near the crackle and hiss of a volcano and let simmer for an eon.” (8)

Along a similar thread, journalist Tony Fitzpatrick cavalierly asserted that “conditions favorable for hydrocarbon synthesis also could be favorable for other life ingredients and complex organic polymers, leading…eventually to all sorts of cells and diverse organisms” (9). Of course skeptics of such depictions have their own armory of scientifically-valid reasons for denying that naturalistic earth models could have given us anything more than a geothermal sludge.

Perhaps the most persuasive of these comes from philosopher Stephen Meyer who in his most recent book Signature In The Cell supplied a mathematical treatise on the synthesis of bio-molecules (10). Following in the footsteps of fellow ID advocate William Dembski, Meyer has done us all a great service by showing how the chance assembly of a 150 amino-acid protein (1 in 10exp164) pales in front of the available probabilistic resources of our universe (10exp139 is the maximum number of events that could have occurred since the big bang) (10). In other words, we are stopped dead in our tracks by a probabilistic impasse of the highest order before we have even begun assessing the geological plausibility of competing origin of life scenarios.

The scientific method commits us to finding the best explanation for the phenomena we observe. Drawing from the opinions of NIH biologist Peter Mora, Meyer shows us how the chance hypothesis- that purports to explain how life arose without recourse to design or necessity- has been found wanting particularly in light of the ever-growing picture of the complexity of the cell (10). But the debate-clincher in Meyer’s expose comes from his comprehensive summarization of the bellyaches associated with chemist Stanley Miller’s controversial spark discharge apparatus (10).

Former colleagues of Miller concede that the highly reducing conditions he used in his experiments could not have been the mainstay of prebiotic earth (4). Nevertheless they further posit that localized atmospheric conditions around volcanic plums may have been reducing after all and that these could have given rise to life-seeding compounds (4). In their assessment:

“Even if the overall atmosphere was not reducing, localized prebiotic synthesis could have been effective. Reduced gases and lightning associated with volcanic eruptions in hot spots or island arc-type systems could have been prevalent on the early Earth before extensive continents formed. In these volcanic plumes, HCN, aldehydes, and ketones may have been produced, which, after washing out of the atmosphere, could have become involved in the synthesis of organic molecules. Amino acids formed in volcanic island systems could have accumulated in tidal areas, where they could be polymerized by carbonyl sulfide, a simple volcanic gas that has been shown to form peptides under mild conditions.” (4)

Of course with so many ‘could-haves’ and ‘may-haves’ such a picture leaves us sitting on a vacuous flow of speculation rather than on a substantive bedrock of firm evidence. For seasoned biologist David Deamer the realization of implausibility, at least for a direct volcanic origin, comes from his own direct observations:

“Deamer carried with him a version of the “primordial soup”- a mixture of compounds like those a meteorite could have delivered to the early Earth, including a fatty acid, amino acids, phosphate, glycerol, and the building blocks of nucleic acids. Finding a promising-looking boiling pool on the flanks of an active volcano, he poured the mixture in and then took samples from the pool at various intervals for analysis back in the lab at UCSC. The results were strikingly negative: life did not emerge, no membranes assembled themselves, and no amino acids combined into proteins. Instead, the added chemicals quickly vanished, mostly absorbed by clay particles in the pool. Instead of supporting life, the bubbling pool had snuffed it out before it began.” (6)

Not only has Meyer’s probabilistic analysis supplied us with the odds that end the discussion for ‘chance-philes’, but contemporary extravagations over prebiotic earth have done nothing to bolster their credibility. We are left with little choice but to discard chance as a serious contender in the ‘life origins’ debate.

Literature Cited
1. Claudia Huber and Guenter Wachtersheuser (2006) a-Hydroxy and a-Amino Acids Under Possible Hadean, Volcanic Origin-of-Life Conditions, Science, Vol 314, pp. 630-632

2. A.J Teague, T.M Seward, A.P Gize, T. Hall (2005) The Organic Chemistry of Volcanoes: Case Studies at Cerro Negro, Nicaragua and Oldoinyo Lengai, Tanzania, American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2005, abstract #B23D-04

3.John Eichelberger, Alexey Kiryukhin, and Adam Simon (2009) The Magma-Hydrothermal System at Mutnovsky Volcano, Kamchatka Peninsula, Russia, Scientific Drilling, No. 7, March , 2009, pp. 54-59

4. Adam Johnson, H. James Cleaves, Jason Dworkin, Daniel Glavin, Antonio Lazcano, Jeffrey L. Bada (2008) The Miller Volcanic Spark Discharge Experiment. Science 17 October 2008: Vol. 322, p. 404

5. David Grinspoon (2009) This Volcano Loves You, Denver Museum Of Nature & Science, COMMunity Blogs, See http://community.dmns.org/blogs/planetwaves/archive/2009/03/19/this-volcano-loves-you.aspx

6.Chandra Shekhar (2006) Chemist explores the membranous origins of the first living cell, UC Santa Cruz, Currents Online, See http://currents.ucsc.edu/05-06/04-03/deamer.asp

7.Fantasia, Walt Disney Home Video, Copyright by the Walt Disney Company, 1940

8. Nicholas Wade (1999) Evidence Backs Theory Linking Origins of Life to Volcanoes, New York Times, Friday, April 11, 1997

9.Tony Fitzpatrick (2000) Life’s origins: Researchers find intriguing possibility in volcanic gases, http://record.wustl.edu/archive/2000/04-20-00/articles/origins.html

10. Stephen Meyer (2009) Signature In The Cell: DNA And The Evidence For Intelligent Design, Harper Collins Publishers, New York, pp. 215-228

Comments
Nakashima @39, That's the problem. Zachriel's response was only somewhat informative and he left out the answer to the more important question -- the last one. It seems that he does that to sound like he's providing an answer, yet upon closer inspection no answer has truly been given. Excellent paper. In fact, I've used the calculation in that paper to roughly measure the CSI of the protein Titin. Furthermore, I'm also partial to some type of RNA first abiogenetical scenario.CJYman
December 15, 2009
December
12
Dec
15
15
2009
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT
Mr CJYman, I'm not sure what you are objecting to in Mr Zachriel's response. Mr Mung asked 3 questions and the response was somewhat informative on all three. Here's one of the classic papers on the subject, from almost 20 years ago, now.Nakashima
December 15, 2009
December
12
Dec
15
15
2009
08:27 PM
8
08
27
PM
PDT
@33
If all that exists is material, then all that exists must be explainable by the laws of physics.
Not true! We are well aware that at every level of organisation and complexity new laws emerge that are not readily explained by the laws of the lower level in the hierarchy. Hence, as Anderson points out, each level breaks the 'symmetry' of the laws of the previous. As Anderson points out, this includes the jump from particle physics to many-body physics, let alone straight to DNA. Emergent properties are the basis of the anti-reductionist viewpoint of development biologists in response to the genetic determinism in the evolutionary thought of those such as Dawkins.
There is no physical explanation for why the genetic code is the way it is. It cannot be explained, it is impossible for it to be explained, by reference to physical laws.
Again, not true. There is a physical explanation for why the genetic code is the way it is. Codons are not some abstract language but are literally physically related to the amino acids they "code" for - in the case of DNA via mRNA and tRNA. To refer to DNA as abstract or immaterial information in is misleading. It is tempting to look at DNA as a language - after all we use C, G, A and T/U to represent the bases - this is purely a human abstraction of their physical reality.paulmc
December 15, 2009
December
12
Dec
15
15
2009
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT
Zachriel makes a statement: "Scientists regularly find ribozymes (catalytic RNA) in random sequence libraries." Mung asks a very relevant and important question: "How large is the library, how complex is the ribozyme, and how specific is the does the sequence have to be?" ... and Zachriel provides (as I have seen him do many times before) a non-answer by, in effect, simply re-phrasing his initial statement: "A typical random sequence library of a few quadrillion (10^15) nucleotide or amino acid sequences of length 80-100 will contain a number of catalytically active molecules." Zachriel, do you do this just so you can have the "last word." I seriously want to know.CJYman
December 15, 2009
December
12
Dec
15
15
2009
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT
tgpeeler:
If a materialist is intellectually committed (in my experience they have no real intellectual commitments)
Why should any materialist take you seriously after an insult like that? The rest of your post doesn't make much more sense. Consider this:
Physics addresses the MATERIAL world. But information is IMMATERIAL, even though it is encoded into a physical substrate.
Please give us an example of immaterial information. If it is always encoded into a physical substrate, how do you know there is immaterial information?IrynaB
December 15, 2009
December
12
Dec
15
15
2009
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
Mr tgpeeler, 100^500 = 10^1000, but that is trivial compared to the irrelevance of this kind of argument. Why, indeed, do we do it?Nakashima
December 15, 2009
December
12
Dec
15
15
2009
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT
Zachriel: Life did not always exist on Earth. Mung: Since we don’t have a definition of life, I’m not sure how we know this.
Just because there are equivocal cases doesn't mean that life has no definition. Indeed, the fact that there are plausible intermediates is what is expected if life emerged in steps from a prebiotic existence. For some time after the Earth's formation, it was too hot for life to exist.
Mung: Well, if you ask me, organic molecules are only produced by living systems, so what you have there may look like an organic molecule but may not actually be an organic molecule.
"Organic molecule" has a peculiar definition.
Mung: How large is the library, how complex is the ribozyme, and how specific is the does the sequence have to be?
A typical random sequence library of a few quadrillion (10^15) nucleotide or amino acid sequences of length 80-100 will contain a number of catalytically active molecules.Zachriel
December 15, 2009
December
12
Dec
15
15
2009
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
re. Mung @ 19 "His argument has to do with information content, and is equally applicable to any information-bearing macro-molecule, of which a protein is just used as an example. The information in the proteins had to come from somewhere. Pick any conformation of whatever molecules you want, the problem is the same." Indeed. This is the problem of information. It seems to me that this is the fatal flaw, both from a logical and an empirical point of view, for the materialist enterprise of trying to account for life. If, as Küppers (1990), says, the problem of the origin of life is the problem of the origin of information, and it is, then WHATEVER the proposed explanation, it seems that it is necessary for it to explain what must be explained, that is, information. But here lies the rub. If a materialist is intellectually committed (in my experience they have no real intellectual commitments) to the idea that all that is real is material, that is matter and energy, or the physical world, or the natural world, or the things described by the natural sciences, or whatever the latest version of the nonsense is, THEN, the only explanatory resources they have are the laws of physics. This is entailed by the very definition of materialism or naturalism. If all that exists is material, then all that exists must be explainable by the laws of physics. (Which are themselves immaterial but that's another rant for another time - I'll grant them their insanity on this point for the sake of my argument.) This seems abundantly clear to me. But how to explain information (life) when one's only recourse is to resort to the Standard Model, General Relativity, Quantum Physics, Thermodynamics, String Theory, and so on? The short answer is that physics can never explain information because that's not what physics addresses. Physics addresses the MATERIAL world. But information is IMMATERIAL, even though it is encoded into a physical substrate. This is the logical problem. We have physics, which explains the material world (quite nicely, if incompletely, so far) but that's NOT WHAT NEEDS TO BE EXPLAINED. (Sorry for shouting but I can't help it.) So it looks to me like a category error of Biblical proportions has been made by the materialist. Trying to explain the existence of something they deny exists. (This is a typical gambit, to deny the existence of what clearly exists. Design, for instance. Or the moral law. Now design and the moral law may be denied without self-contradiction but in the case of information, it is pretty hard to deny the existence of it even as you use it to deny it.) So how does one encode information, anyway? With language, of course. And what is a language? Why it's a set of symbols accompanied by a set of rules for the arrangement of those symbols. So the chain is now complete. Life - information - language - symbols and rules. Now when I say that physics must explain life we can see that what physics must really explain are symbols (the representation of one thing for another) and rules (agreed upon conventions for the arrangement of those symbols) so that information can be encoded in a physical substrate. This substrate can be virtually anything physical from elecrical states in switches in a computer REPRESENTED by 1s and 0s to chemical compounds called nucleic acids and amino acids. The argument about whether physics is competent to account for information almost always degenerates into a "yes it can" - "no it can't" scenario that revolves around various probability calculations. I say that this misses the more fundamental point. If one is inclined to make these calculations, then one has already assumed the existence of a set of symbols (DNA/RNA) and a set of rules (genetic code/language). But I think that gives away too much. Before we can even bother with the calculations don't we have to account for the symbols and the rules? This is the real question. So how is it reducible to, or explainable by physics that certain combinations of codons describe and build meaningful, i.e. functional, proteins? There is no physical explanation for why the genetic code is the way it is. It cannot be explained, it is impossible for it to be explained, by reference to physical laws. As Yockey said (2005) "If genetical processes were just complicated biochemistry, the laws of mass action and thermodynamics would govern the placement of amino acids in the protein sequences." But they don't. Oddly enough, in human experience, information is always and easily explained by "mind." Which, of course, is another thing that is routinely denied by materialist philosophers of mind. In their case I suspect it may be true. In any event, the whole neo-Darwinian thing is not even wrong. Darwin purported to explain the existence of physical structures but that is not what needs to be explained. His explanation, 'natural selection,' allegedly did this. With the discovery of genetics in the late 19th and early 20th century the Darwinists realized that they needed to incorporate genetics into the theory and this they did in the latter part of the first half of the twentieth century. The "new and improved" version, called neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory or sometimes the 'modern synthesis' still doesn't even pretend, as far as I can tell, to address the salient issue, information. Ah well, the choir gets it and the others apparently never will so I put this out again with the minimal hope that I will get a rational discussion of this argument instead of the usual 'well what is information, really?' or 'you don't need language for information' (really, and how did you even phrase that question then?) or some other nonsense. I could be surprised. The empirical problem, which is rendered moot by the logical problem, is that no one can create an algorithm based on physical law that can create meaningful information anyway. Yockey, again, says: "The reason that there are principles of biology that cannot be derived from the laws of physics and chemistry lies simply in the fact that the genetic information content of the genome for constructing even the simplest organisms is much larger than the information content of these laws." The choices with physics are two. There is the analog world of general relativity governed by law and there is the digital and probabilistic world of quantum physics (also governed by law but in a different way). So we have two "ways" to create information with physics. We can do it with law or chance. Law is immediately out since contingency is required for the creation of information. I have to be able to choose from among the letters on my keyboard to encode information. If an algorithm based on physical law, say gravity, drives my selection of letters, it will always be the same letter selected. Therefore no information. If governed by chance, say if there were some way to associate the decay of a radioactive element with various times that could then be associated with a symbol set, then we could theoretically use that method to see if we could get information. But the odds are impossible to overcome. If we assume the ASCII character set which is, I believe, 128 characters, less the 33 non-printing control characters, that gives us 94 printable charactes plus a space. Let's call it 100 just to simplify the math. So the odds of getting a 500 character string of meaningful information can be calculated by taking the number of possible strings of meaningful characters divided by the number of possible strings. Let's do the denominator first. There are 100^500 possibilities for the denominator. In scientific notation that is 10^5000. Let's say, to be as generous as possible, that EVERY atom in the observable universe represents a meaningful string of characters. That would be 10^80 meaningful strings. So the calculation is now 10^80 divided by 10^5000 which equals 10^-4920. This number is not even comprehensible by human minds. Yet some people will INSIST that not only is it "possible" but they also insist that it is "scientific" and "intellectually respectable" to necessarily rely on such odds. hee hee. This is not about the intellect, sports fans, its about the rebellion of the will. It's about the denial of God in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Aaah, the futile enterprise of reasoning with people who reject the authority of reason. Why DO we do it???tgpeeler
December 15, 2009
December
12
Dec
15
15
2009
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT
Life did not always exist on Earth.
Since we don't have a definition of life, I'm not sure how we know this. I guess you could always argue that the earth has not always existed, therefore it follows that life has not always existed on earth, but even that would not stand up, because it does not at all follow that life has not always existed on earth for as long as the earth has existed.
Living processes are due to chemical interactions.
I have no idea what this means.
Complex organic molecules can spontaneously assemble under a variety of conditions.
Well, if you ask me, organic molecules are only produced by living systems, so what you have there may look like an organic molecule but may not actually be an organic molecule.
Scientists regularly find ribozymes (catalytic RNA) in random sequence libraries.
How large is the library, how complex is the ribozyme, and how specific is the does the sequence have to be?Mung
December 15, 2009
December
12
Dec
15
15
2009
12:57 AM
12
12
57
AM
PDT
IrynaB -
Monty Python’s black knight couldn’t have said it any better.
You should check out this classic post from a few years back.PaulT
December 14, 2009
December
12
Dec
14
14
2009
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT
jerry: It is nice to see how irrational Nakashima’s faith is.
Of course, that's not an actual argument. Let's try this: - The first life form on Earth may have been a lucky accident, a natural property of carbon and liquid water, a unique circumstance, seeded by comets, or even a Divine Miracle. But this we do know. * Life did not always exist on Earth. * Once life began, it evolved and diversified from a primitive, common ancestral population. * Living processes are due to chemical interactions. * Complex organic molecules can spontaneously assemble under a variety of conditions. Much of the earliest history of life is shrouded by the intervening eons and left few physical clues other than life itself. A variety of testable scientific hypothesis have been proposed for aspects of natural abiogenesis, but no complete and satisfactory theory has been proposed. No positive evidence of telic intervention has ever been discovered.Zachriel
December 14, 2009
December
12
Dec
14
14
2009
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT
"I don’t think so. Knowing that our universe’s physics and chemistry makes life inevitable in certain contexts would energize the search for the parameters that make life inevitable across different choices of parameters. We could easily learn that life is inevitable across many choices of parameters. We’ve already seen this at the level of star formation." It is nice to see how irrational Nakashima's faith is. He knows his star formation comment is meaningless. A telling comment. Interesting phenomena. What would drive such illogical behavior when there isn't any payout for it. I find that that the most extraordinary part of this debate. For the Christian, who sees a reason he is here and a long term goal, faith in something without empirical support is understandable. But an unwavering belief in nothing but randomness without empirical support or logic. What would drive such a thing.jerry
December 14, 2009
December
12
Dec
14
14
2009
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT
lars: But then, every abiogenesis hypothesis that has been developed into any detail is rejected by nearly everyone who’s willing to look at it realistically.
When one argues against a position no one holds, it's called a strawman argument.
lars: Meyer’s numbers claim to represent the probability of *any* functional (AA) protein.
You are correct. He is actually using Axe's flawed 2004 study indicating a ratio of functional proteins of 10^-74 or so. We know it's flawed because we can find functional enzymes in much smaller random sequence libraries. The other numbers, for the probability of the formation of peptide bonds and chirality, depend the circumstance of their formation and can't be relied upon for such an estimate.
lars: In order for intermediate steps to help, they have to first be preserved so that they can be built upon. Meyer points out in his book that the minimal mechanisms for preserving intermediate steps require many, many complex specified proteins to be present in the correct proportions and properly assembled.
That wasn't the claim at issue.Zachriel
December 14, 2009
December
12
Dec
14
14
2009
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
Mung: His argument has to do with information content, and is equally applicable to any information-bearing macro-molecule, of which a protein is just used as an example.
Scientists regularly find ribozymes (catalytic RNA) in random sequence libraries.Zachriel
December 14, 2009
December
12
Dec
14
14
2009
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
Mr Nullasalus, I'd be happy with using CAs, especially ones that support self reproducing forms, as examples of intelligently designed universes. An interesting follow-on question is whether the denizens of any such universe could reason to that conclusion. I'm not sure why this idea does not get more discussion in the ID community.Nakashima
December 14, 2009
December
12
Dec
14
14
2009
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT
I've wanted to go to Quito ever since I read a great biography about Manuela Saenz and Bolivar, The four seasons of Manuela. I recommend it, you'll want to go to Quito, it really gets romanticized.lamarck
December 14, 2009
December
12
Dec
14
14
2009
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT
Nakashima, "That depends on your views. For example, when I run a CA, am I starting and stopping a universe of a particular physics and chemistry?" You tell me. If you are literally 'starting and stopping a universe' every time you run a computer simulation, then the evidence for "intelligently designed" universes becomes shockingly abundant - every simulation counts as one.nullasalus
December 14, 2009
December
12
Dec
14
14
2009
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT
nullasalus:
Jerry’s right. Naturalists fight a losing battle on multiple fronts – in the end, some form of theism/deism is the most reasonable conclusion.
Monty Python's black knight couldn't have said it any better.IrynaB
December 14, 2009
December
12
Dec
14
14
2009
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT
Mr Nullasalus, That depends on your views. For example, when I run a CA, am I starting and stopping a universe of a particular physics and chemistry? I agree that there are limits to computational chemistry, but every experiment with a different atmosphere for the early earth is actually testing the reality of some alternate universe! ;)Nakashima
December 14, 2009
December
12
Dec
14
14
2009
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT
"We could easily learn that life is inevitable across many choices of parameters." Calculations rather than experiments, eh? The presence of any life or mind at all is problematic on naturalistic accounts. Determining the "likelihood" of any parameters likely kicks the question out of science and into metaphysics. Jerry's right. Naturalists fight a losing battle on multiple fronts - in the end, some form of theism/deism is the most reasonable conclusion. Some kind of atheism is always possible in a technical sense. But then, so is solipsism.nullasalus
December 14, 2009
December
12
Dec
14
14
2009
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT
Mr Jerry, But if the research shows that the universe is set up in such a way to produce this form of life then I am afraid this will be an inconvenient finding for Nakashima and all the other Darwinist crew, because such a happenstance will not be too sanguine for the no God crowd. I don't think so. Knowing that our universe's physics and chemistry makes life inevitable in certain contexts would energize the search for the parameters that make life inevitable across different choices of parameters. We could easily learn that life is inevitable across many choices of parameters. We've already seen this at the level of star formation.Nakashima
December 14, 2009
December
12
Dec
14
14
2009
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
That makes a number of erroneous assumptions: * Protein-first abiogenesis (rejected by nearly everyone in the field).
You probably haven't read the book, so this mistake on your part is understandable. Meyer is not assuming protein-first abiogenesis. His argument is more nuanced than that. His argument has to do with information content, and is equally applicable to any information-bearing macro-molecule, of which a protein is just used as an example. The information in the proteins had to come from somewhere. Pick any conformation of whatever molecules you want, the problem is the same.Mung
December 14, 2009
December
12
Dec
14
14
2009
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
The probability argument is so daunting that any attempt to get to the current system of life is impossible. A trillion to the trillionth power of universes or time is not enough (maybe a little hyperbole here but I bet not much.) The only possible salvation is that the system we have is just one amongst an incredibly large number of other possible systems. Then the fact that we are here is that the luck of the dice just led to this system out of the incredibly large number of possibilities. The new daunting task is to show that there are other independent systems that would produce sentient life or at least a cell type replicating system. Then one can say well someone has to win the lottery if it is played often enough and we are the happy winners. But they could not say that if we are the only one or only one of a few possibilities. But if the research shows that the universe is set up in such a way to produce this form of life then I am afraid this will be an inconvenient finding for Nakashima and all the other Darwinist crew, because such a happenstance will not be too sanguine for the no God crowd. No their only chance is that we are just one of a zillion possible ways of doing it. As I said it is a daunting task. Meanwhile Nakashima is busy searching the internet for things that dictate our way not knowing if he will find anything or if he does find it, the information will probably produce a coffin for his dreamjerry
December 14, 2009
December
12
Dec
14
14
2009
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT
Mr lars, Mr Zachriel and I agree, Dr Meyer is assuming that only one 150 AA protein has that function.Nakashima
December 14, 2009
December
12
Dec
14
14
2009
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
Oops, I meant "of *any* functional (150 AA) protein."lars
December 14, 2009
December
12
Dec
14
14
2009
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
@Zachriel: That makes a number of erroneous assumptions: * Protein-first abiogenesis (rejected by nearly everyone in the field). But then, every abiogenesis hypothesis that has been developed into any detail is rejected by nearly everyone who's willing to look at it realistically. Yet the field remains. If Meyer helps to accurately point out the hopelessness of one hypothesis, he has done the field a service. * Exactly one possible 150 aa protein. According to Nakashima, Meyer's numbers claim to represent the probability of *any* functional (AA) protein. * No possible intermediate steps. In order for intermediate steps to help, they have to first be preserved so that they can be built upon. Meyer points out in his book that the minimal mechanisms for preserving intermediate steps require many, many complex specified proteins to be present in the correct proportions and properly assembled. Thus intermediate steps do not help abiogenesis.lars
December 14, 2009
December
12
Dec
14
14
2009
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
I have newer understood the intermediate steps argument when it comes to OOL could someone explain briefly what it means to me? Thanks.Innerbling
December 14, 2009
December
12
Dec
14
14
2009
03:36 AM
3
03
36
AM
PDT
Mr Heinrich, Are these numbers just pulled from the air, or do you have any basis for them? 10^-164 is broken down by Dr Meyer as 10^-74 - the probability of functionality in the AA sequence 10^-45 - the probability of the AAs only forming peptide bonds 10^-45 - the probability of only using one chirality for all 150 AAs The important point is that this is a calculation, not an experiment.Nakashima
December 13, 2009
December
12
Dec
13
13
2009
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT
Robert Deyes: Following in the footsteps of fellow ID advocate William Dembski, Meyer has done us all a great service by showing how the chance assembly of a 150 amino-acid protein (1 in 10exp164) pales in front of the available probabilistic resources of our universe (10exp139 is the maximum number of events that could have occurred since the big bang).
That makes a number of erroneous assumptions: * Protein-first abiogenesis (rejected by nearly everyone in the field). * Exactly one possible 150 aa protein. * No possible intermediate steps.Zachriel
December 13, 2009
December
12
Dec
13
13
2009
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT
In other words, vesicles *can* spontaneously assemble, but not in ionic pools. You were saying that they can’t assemble *here* while ignoring that they can assemble *there*.
The fact that a vesicle *can* spontaneously assemble, whether *here* or *there* misses just a few important points. What point is there to vesicle formation if it doesn't contribute the overall "project" of the OOL. Vesicles by themselves are useless. So what would be required to makea vesicle "useful" in the quest for life, and what is it that brings about the appropriate conditions whereby vesicles begin to server a purpose or function, rather than just existing as a mere vesicle? This doesn't even take into consideration just how *unlike* a cell membrane a vesicle is. http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/astrobiology.html#8zrXQTf2T8y3 http://www.reasons.org/biotic-borders-cell-membranes-under-scrutinyMung
December 13, 2009
December
12
Dec
13
13
2009
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT
1 11 12 13 14

Leave a Reply