Uncommon Descent Contest Question 9: Is accidental origin of life a doctrine that holds back science?

_{Denyse O'Leary

August 24, 2009

Origin Of Life}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

For a free copy of Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell (Harper One, 2009), help me understand the following:

Accidental origin of life is the basic thesis of origin of life researchers. Life all just somehow sort of happened one day, billions of years ago, under the right conditions – which we may be able to recreate. But there is a constant, ongoing dispute about just what those conditions were.

Here is the problem I have always had with accidental origin of life: It amounts to spontaneous generation. However, banishing the doctrine of spontaneous generation played a key role in modern medicine’s success. If we assume that life forms (for medical purposes, we focus on pathogens) cannot start spontaneously, then they must have been introduced. Hence, we can develop procedures for a sterile operating room or lab.

If life can be spontaneously generated, why isn’t it happening now? Conditions for life today are probably as good as they have ever been, and maybe better. For over 500 million years they have obviously been good for complex life forms, and for billions of years they have been good for simple ones.

If you wish to contribute to this question, you may advisedly wish to read this recent article in the math and engineering literature by Dembski and Marks:

Abstract—Conservation of information theorems indicate that any search algorithm performs, on average, as well as random search without replacement unless it takes advantage of
problem-specific information about the search target or the search-space structure. Combinatorics shows that even a moderately sized search requires problem-specific information to be successful. Computers, despite their speed in performing queries, are completely inadequate for resolving even moderately sized search problems without accurate information to guide them. We propose three measures to characterize the information required for successful search: 1) endogenous information, which measures the difficulty of finding a target using random search; 2) exogenous information, which measures the difficulty that remains in finding a target once a search takes advantage of problemspecific information; and 3) active information, which, as the difference between endogenous and exogenous information, measures the contribution of problem-specific information for successfully finding a target. This paper develops a methodology based on these information measures to gauge the effectiveness with which problem-specific information facilitates successful search. It then applies this methodology to various search tools widely used in evolutionary search.

Index Terms—Active information, asymptotic equipartition property, Brillouin active information, conservation of information (COI), endogenous information, evolutionary search, genetic algorithms, Kullback–Leibler distance, no free lunch theorem (NFLT), partitioned search.

Comments

Denyse, Barb asked:
What is the probability of a bacterial flagellum arising on its own? Also, where did its parents come from?
I had to do a little interpreting here. Flagella don't have parents. So, I assumed she was asking, if we consider an organism with flagella, what can we say about its parent(s)? My answer is that the parent(s) either had flagella themselves, or had features which could be converted through mutation to flagella in one step. If you go back far enough, you would reach a point where flagella were absent, of course. Do you dispute that this is what mainstream researchers hypothesize? Nobody knows in detail how flagella came about. It's an area of ongoing research. There are hypotheses, but the question is still up in the air. "Darwinists" would hypothesize that flagella arose through a series of steps rather than in a junkyard-in-a-tornado fashion; that was all I was saying.yakky d_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

Yakky D at 40: "I would guess that the parents of an organism with a flagellum had flagella themselves or at least the majority of the components present, ..." They had flagella themselves? . But then that only shoves the problem back further ... Look, I'd love to own a car, and would gladly make do with an older model. So where is my car? Majority of the components present? In that case, I would get all the crap towed to the local Canadian Tire, and get them to supply the rest, via auto parts dealers. And THIS is an origin of LIFE theory? The fundamental rule of Darwinian evolution is that the auto parts dealers that the guys at CT would just e-mail don't exist. Aw come on. As a local cop once said to a perp: You are going to have to come up with some better explanation than this.O'Leary_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

Barb,
Yakky: Abiogenesis as defined in the dictionary means ‘spontaneous generation.’ Literally, life just happened. Mathematically, it’s improbable. That’s the point I was trying to make.
I don't think we have enough information to say abiogenesis is mathematically improbable. Morowitz proposes that it was inevitable, given the conditions on the young earth. Michael Denton, an IDer and former senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, theorized that "... all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes." in his book Nature's Destiny; even though he believes in design, he essentially accepts that abiogenesis occurred.
To suggest that abiogenesis must have occurred because ‘well, here we are’ is circular reasoning.
I wouldn't call it circular reasoning; abiogenesis is just one hypothesis which could explain our presence.
At best, it involves educated guesses by chemists, biologists, and physicists as to what the early Earth looked like and what the atmosphere was like. Nothing can be said for certain.
I basically agree with that. This is science, so nothing is known with absolute certainty. And with more work, the educated guesses can either be rejected or refined as appropriate.
It does hamper science because it doesn’t have a solid foundation to build on.
What's the alternative? Suppose we abandon the hypothesis of abiogenesis. What, if anything, will take its place? What foundation will this new research program be based on?
What is the probability of a bacterial flagellum arising on its own? Also, where did its parents come from?
I have no idea what this probability is, and I doubt that anyone does. I would guess that the parents of an organism with a flagellum had flagella themselves or at least the majority of the components present, possibly serving other functions. I'm definitely not a biologist, by the way. You can find a detailed proposal for the origin of the bacterial here: http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.htmlyakky d_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

Yakky: Abiogenesis as defined in the dictionary means ‘spontaneous generation.’ Literally, life just happened. Mathematically, it’s improbable. That’s the point I was trying to make. To suggest that abiogenesis must have occurred because ‘well, here we are’ is circular reasoning. At best, it involves educated guesses by chemists, biologists, and physicists as to what the early Earth looked like and what the atmosphere was like. Nothing can be said for certain. It does hamper science because it doesn’t have a solid foundation to build on. What is the probability of a bacterial flagellum arising on its own? Also, where did its parents come from?Barb_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

Things have been going down hill ever since Aristotle and like-minded Greeks severed science from theism.Adel DiBagno_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

Yes, I would say that any doctrine that demands we live with lies, that we blinker ourselves to real possibilities, that we sever science from its theistic origins---that of course holds back science. It holds it back because it corrupts it. A dishonest culture that accomodates lies is not likely to have a passion for truth.Rude_{August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

PS: Ouch, missed this: . . . origin of life ~~theough~~ through chance and necessity only . . .kairosfocus_{August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
11:46 PM
11
11
46
PM
PDT}

Mrs O'Leary: Your contest attempts 8 and 9 are being overwhelmed by waves of darwinist distractive talking points. (It does not matter that hey have long since been adequately answered, the intent is to distract, distort and polarise.) Perhaps you should propose a format for recognising entries and distinguishing them from commentary; then moderate those who abuse it. GEM of TKI ++++++++++++++ Here is my entry (and one suggestion on format): Q9: Is accidental origin of life a doctrine that holds back science? ANS: It is one thing to investigate and discuss the scientific hypothesis that it is possible that life may have arisen spontaneously. It is another -- and indeed not only an UN-scientific but an ANTI-scientific -- thing to willy-nilly impose the worldview level assumption or assertion that life MUST have come about by this means; especially through the sleight of hand of suggesting that to do other than to stuff science into a materialistic, atheistical, censoring straitjacket is to improperly inject "the supernatural" into science. (Such a rhetorical move, of course not only raises the potent myth of the god of the ever-retreating gaps, but also works to suggest that investigation of the evidence without materialistic blinkers is the thin edge of the wedge of a sinister, tyrannical theocratic conspiracy. So, then, what does that tell us about the largely -- but plainly not completely -- SUCCESSFUL attempt to impose materialistic assumptions into the very definition of science in recent decades?) Nor is the issue of censorship, blinkering and straight-jacketing a matter of rhetorical flourishes by one or two over-enthusiastic would be public spokesmen. We may read, for instance, in the US National Academy of Sciences' 2008 pamphlet, Science, Evolution and Creationism, p. 10:
In science, explanations must be based on naturally occurring phenomena. Natural causes are, in principle, reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others. If explanations are based on purported forces that are outside of nature, scientists have no way of either confirming or disproving those explanations.
By "nature" of course, the Academy wishes us to understand both: (i) the sum total of foundational reality, and (ii) such reality must be viewed/ treated as if it were a material world of matter and energy in space and time affected only by forces tracing to blind mechanical necessity and/or chance. (Thus, they have conveniently suppressed the alternative to a natural vs supernatural dichotomy: nature vs art, where ART-ificial things are intelligently caused, e.g. the very sentences the NAS uses to impose its censorship on science.) That is, against all history, against the counsels of sound philosophy of science -- and against the empirical fact that there are reliable empirical signs of intelligence which just happen to be relevant to the origin of the complex functional information required for cell based life to come into being -- censoring materialism has been smuggled into the roots of science. And so the answer to the question becomes obvious: insistence on the ACCIDENTAL spontaneous origin of life theough chance and necessity only acting on matter and energy in one or another form of Darwin's imaginary warm pond is indeed an imposed ideological doctrine that holds back science from being "an unfettered (but intellectually and ethically responsible) progressive search for the truth about our cosmos based on evidence and reasoned discussion of its significance." It turns it, instead, sadly, into the thin edge of a destructive ideological wedge, as we can ever so easily see in ever so many situations all across our culture. But, we therefore know the solution: liberate science to be what is ti at its best: "an unfettered (but intellectually and ethically responsible) progressive search for the truth about our cosmos based on evidence and reasoned discussion of its significance.". And, that is the liberation struggle of our time. END ++++++++++kairosfocus_{August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
11:42 PM
11
11
42
PM
PDT}

O'Leary, The theory of abiogenesis does not postulate that modern complex cells such as bacteria suddenly appear spontaneously. The process is slow. Millions of years slow. Simple molecules which slowly become more complex. Maybe this will help you understand the idea.SingBlueSilver_{August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
10:46 PM
10
10
46
PM
PDT}

Yupcont 32: If life spontaneously arose in an op theatre, we would know. Patients would die of bacterial infections despite the best efforts of staff who stay up all night to ensure a clean op theatre. And new species of patho bacteria would swiftly be identified. Hasn't happened that often recently. Show me a real live primordial soup that produces real life proto-cells, and I will listen to your theory with more interest.O'Leary_{August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT}

Barb,
Consider this, also: if matter acting on matter for a sufficient period of time can create anything, I should (theorectically) be able to go to the Everglades and find a naturally-occuring telephone. After all, that is a less complex device than the bacterial flagellum pictured at the top of this webpage.
One difference is that telephones don't have parents, so they would have to arise in one step via a tornado in a junkyard scenario, which is extremely unlikely. Organisms with flagella do have parents, so there is the possibility they could arise in a number of steps.yakky d_{August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT}

O'Leary, I think you are confusing a theory of spontaneous generation which has been out of date for 200 years with the modern theories of abiogenesis, the "primordial soup" theories. As other posters have mentioned, the conditions in an operating theater are very unlikely to be the same as when life began. Also, question for everybody, if life did spontaneously start in an operating theater, how would anyone know?Yupcont_{August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

Barb,
Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds as being 1 chance in 10^40,000 (and this is considering only the proteins of an amoeba). From this, we get the “tornado in a junkyard” quote.
As for Hoyle's argument, there's a wikipedia page devoted to it, Hoyle's fallacy. Here's one pretty devastating criticism from that page:
They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.
yakky d_{August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

Denyse, Thanks for the reference to Marks and Dembski's paper, which establishes the accounting principles by which they later prove mathematically that nothing can create information. Unfortunately for ID, this means that not even intelligence can create information. So if abiogenesis entails the creation of information according to Marks and Dembski's accounting, it's mathematically impossible for it to occur spontaneously or otherwise.R0b_{August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT}

Well, I think the Morowitz stuff is pretty clearly a series of quotemines. First, note that Morowitz coauthored a paper entitled "Energy flow and the organization of life" in which he states:
Life is universally understood to require a source of free energy and mechanisms with which to harness it. Remarkably, the converse may also be true: the continuous generation of sources of free energy by abiotic processes may have forced life into existence as a means to alleviate the buildup of free energy stresses. This assertion -- for which there is precedent in non-equilibrium statistical mechanics and growing empirical evidence from chemistry -- would imply that life had to emerge on the earth, that at least the early steps would occur in the same way on any similar planet, and that we should be able to predict many of these steps from first principles of chemistry and physics together with an accurate understanding of geochemical conditions on the early earth.
See also: http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=2930 which is an article entitled "Biology News: Was life on Earth inevitable?", which further describes Morowitz' research. Here's a quote:
In other words, say biologist Harold Morowitz of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, and physicist Eric Smith of New Mexico's Santa Fe Institute, the geological environment "forced life into existence".
To address the particular calculation that Eastman quoted, as far as I can tell, this comes from a book entitled Energy Flow in Biology, and it has nothing to do with the origin of life. In particular, it assumes an environment which is in thermal equlibrium. A little more here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html#Morowitzyakky d_{August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

Yes, I believe he is the physicist at Yale.Barb_{August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

Barb, Thanks for those cites. I don't have the book by Mark Eastman, so I can't look up Harold Morowitz's calculations; is he the biophysicist at Yale? If so, he provided this testimony in McLean v. Arkansas. I've reformatted it slightly to make it more readable here. The original is at this page.
Morowitz: Well, I find the use of probabilistic arguments to be somewhat deceptive. Q: Would you explain what you mean? Morowitz: In general in the creation science literature, they start out by assuming, by making statements about the complexity of living systems. These will generally be fairly accurate statements about the complexity of living systems. They then proceed on the basis of probabilistic calculations to ask, what is the probability that such a complex system will come about by random. When you do that, you get a vanishingly small probability, and they then assert that therefore life by natural processes is impossible. But the fact of the matter is, we do not know the processes by which life has come about in detail. To do the probabilistic calculations, we would have to know all the kinetic and mechanistic details by which the processes have come about, and, therefore, we would then be able to do the calculations. We are simply lacking the information to do the calculations now, so to present them on the basis of the random model is somewhat deceptive.
I'll check out your other references a bit later.yakky d_{August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

Consider this, also: if matter acting on matter for a sufficient period of time can create anything, I should (theorectically) be able to go to the Everglades and find a naturally-occuring telephone. After all, that is a less complex device than the bacterial flagellum pictured at the top of this webpage.Barb_{August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

Harold Morowitz calculated the odds as being 1 chancein 10^100,000,000,000 (as noted by Mark Eastman in Creation by Design). Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds as being 1 chance in 10^40,000 (and this is considering only the proteins of an amoeba). From this, we get the "tornado in a junkyard" quote. Harold Marowitz, an atheist physicist, created mathematical models by imagining broths of living bacteria that were superheated until all the complex chemicals were broken down into basic building blocks. After cooling the mixtures, Marowitz used physics calculations to conclude that the odds of a single bacterium reassembling by chance is one in 10^100,000,000,000. Anyone willing to play this lottery? In response to the probabilities calculated by Marowitz, Robert Shapiro, author of Origins - A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, wrote: "The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle."Barb_{August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

Barb,
No one knows that it occurred, period.
I would agree to that. What about the probability calculation, though?yakky d_{August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

No one knows that it occurred, period.Barb_{August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

Barb,
Do they rule out the possibility? No, statistical probability does that. There is simply no positive evidence that life simply happened.
It seems like it would be very difficult to calculate the probability of abiogenesis, given that at this point no one knows how it occurred or how may possible pathways there were. Do you have a source?yakky d_{August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

Do they rule out the possibility? No, statistical probability does that. There is simply no positive evidence that life simply happened.Barb_{August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

Barb,
Pssteur’s experiments proved that life only comes from life. Scientists don’t know for sure whether or not the atmosphere was reducing.
Do Pasteur's experiments rule out the possibility of abiogenesis under whatever conditions prevailed on earth billions of years ago? No.yakky d_{August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

Yakky: "How are Pasteur’s experiments relevant to the possibility of abiogenesis in a reducing atmosphere?" Pssteur's experiments proved that life only comes from life. Scientists don't know for sure whether or not the atmosphere was reducing. Skew: "Barb, would you mind sharing with the rest of us your conclusive lab data on the non-emergence of life over the course of countless universe birth and deaths?" Care to first prove that there are multiple universes being born and dying? "You would think that the camp that is constantly foisting the image of god upon themselves is the one with self-esteem problems. Were you picked on by the science geeks in high school or something?" Actually, no and no. Healthy self-esteem is necessary to be a well-adjusted person. It's arrogance and obstinance that make people unlikable.Barb_{August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

Flat universe site: http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/boomerang-flat.htmlbornagain77_{August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

Skew, Since you fancy yourself such a scientific intellect,,,and oh so much superior to us imbeciles who dare believe in almighty God...do you mind citing your evidence for an oscillating universe...I know you probably think this beneath you to actually back up your arrogance with scientific evidence,,,,but please do humor us will you? Evidence against the oscillating universe- Michael Strauss - video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A9G8k02vpI Evidence For Flat Universe Reported By Boomerang Project http://www.lbl.gov/ScienceArticles/Archive/boomerang-flat.html Fine-Tuning For Life In The Universe http://www.reasons.org/fine-tuning-life-universebornagain77_{August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

Barb,
Can anything as complicated as life arise purely from accident or random chance? The answer, whether scientist or layman, is an obvious ‘no,’ based both on empirical evidence (see the experiments of Pasteur) and common sense.
How are Pasteur's experiments relevant to the possibility of abiogenesis in a reducing atmosphere? Billb: Thanks for the additional info.yakky d_{August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT}

Scientists have at times used the term ‘accident’ or ‘cosmic blunder’ to describe the rise of life on Earth. This presents an odd dichotomy; on the one hand, they regard humans as nothing special in a hostile universe, however, when a Christian kindly points out that perhaps they were created in God’s image or that the planet Earth was specially designed for life, they respond that this is hubris. Self-esteem issues, perhaps? Can anything as complicated as life arise purely from accident or random chance? The answer, whether scientist or layman, is an obvious ‘no,’ based both on empirical evidence (see the experiments of Pasteur) and common sense. Our universe is not ‘something that happens from time to time,’ and anyone with a brain knows this. Only the marginalized atheist feels uncomfortable since the burden of proof (that life arose from nothing) rests squarely on his (or her) shoulders.Barb_{August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT}

yakky d, The liberation of oxygen into the atmosphere by early life is also, if I recall correctly, hypothesised to be linked to the 70-80 million year long episode referred to as the Cambrian explosion. I seem to recall that there is some geochemistry that backs this up.BillB_{August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply