Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

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

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
You have to have a sterile environment for abiogenesis to take place.
By definition un-sterile means contaminated with living micro-organisms. If an environment is not sterile then you can't tell if abiogenesis has taken place because of all the pre-existant living organisms. Sterility is not required from a prospective replicators point of view, it just helps from an observers point of view - sterile equipment is critical for OOL experiments!BillB
August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT
Denyse,
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.
One issue is thought to be the presence of large amounts of molecular oxygen in our present-day atmosphere. While that's convenient for us, it's not so conducive to the formation of precursor molecules necessary for abiogenesis.yakky d
August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
"and in this sense alone" Amen to that.Gaz
August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
I am a proponent of ID. I don't think spontaneous generation in itself is a great argument. It seems to me in order for the accidental formation of life to work, it has to factor specified information into it. (Read the part on Francis Crick's sequence hypothesis in chapter 4.) You can have all the right ingedients in a primordial soup but if the nucleotides are not arranged in specified orders, how is it going to work? You can miracle all of the working ingredients together but the molecules will still probably only have shuffled Shannon information. Is this right? If this is right then, I fail to see how origin of life models have any merit.traderdrew
August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
The doctrine of accidental origin of life absolutely holds back scientific progress. Isaac Newton accomplished more for the sciences than perhaps any other man on his own because he saw nature as something that was perfectly intelligible and therefore made for comprehension and discovery. This position of purposive design presets a person towards an optimistic view of science and nature and is therefore encouraging. Also the design perspective brings one towards an engineering view of nature- that is it requires a person to seek a more complex and specific understanding of nature. This causes people to think synthetically- that is above and beyond the present material they have been dealt- which in turn should elucidate even clearer how things originate and work. Francis Crick very much used this kind of thinking to synthetically construct- or reverse engineer- the code of life. The idea that nature could not be a thing in which there is purposive design essentially means that the comprehensibility of nature may not be as fruitful as we hope. In other words if things like life are to be viewed as not designed then perhaps there is little more that we can learn from them. This view clearly is a science stopper- it kills the spirit of discovery and wonder that has lead so many great minds to profound individual achievements. "The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all art and all true science. Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable of wonderment and lives in a state of fear is a dead man. To know that what is impenetrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties - this knowledge, this feeling ... that is the core of the true religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself among profoundly religious men." -Albert EinsteinFrost122585
August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
naontiotami @ 5 You seem to be willing to accept the best available answer that complies strictly with naturalism. This is not the same as looking for the best available answer. Suppose I ask you the sum of '1+3' (and you belive all even numbers should be excluded to satisfy the first ammendment). Your answer may be entertaining, but not useful.bevets
August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
Clearly, naiontiotam, you are a believer in accidental origin of life, and no impediments will dissuade you. As a non-believer, I have no reason to believe that your proto-life molecules ever existed. Look, you can believe what you want, but don't call it science. That just complicates things.O'Leary
August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
O'Leary: "So it is happening in operating rooms all over North America?" Did you read what I wrote immediately after that sentence? Because that answers your question perfectly. If not, here it is again: 'Of course, this assumes that solutions of precursor molecules still exist that are stable enough to last the millions of years it would take to gradually produce proto-life. I don’t think those exist anymore, or at least not ones that have no bacteria or other living creatures in them.' Operating rooms don't produce life because they have none of the right precursor molecules. I don't need to identify what *exactly* they would be (eg. amino acids, nucleic acids etc.), but biomolecules, even simple ones, do not abound in sterile, human environments like operating rooms. "It is all very well to say that some special conditions must exist, but how do we know that they ever really did?" This is a different question to what you asked in the main post. I'm not an expert in prebiotic chemistry, so I can't cite papers for you. Perhaps you should do a little research yourself in that area, dig through the literature. Your other points are irrelevant to the main point of this post, so I'm not sure why you brought them up. You asked a question, and it was answered. Are you satisfied, within the context of that specific question alone? ;) Or are there other things that were part of the question that have been hidden from the readers of the post?naontiotami
August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
Off Topic: New Images Capture Cell's Ribosomes At Work: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090821135106.htm Excerpt: Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, have for the first time captured elusive nanoscale movements of ribosomes at work, shedding light on how these cellular factories take in genetic instructions and amino acids to churn out proteins. Ribosomes, which number in the millions in a single human cell, have long been considered the "black boxes" in molecular biology. "We know what goes in and what comes out of ribosomes, but we're only beginning to learn about what is going on in between," said the study's principal investigator, Jamie Cate,,,,,,To help elucidate the ribosome's movements as it interacts with mRNA and tRNA, the researchers used X-ray crystallography to obtain a highly detailed picture of the ribosome - a mere 21 nanometers wide - from an Escherichia coli bacterium. In addition to revealing atomic level detail, the technique allowed the researchers to capture the ribosome mid-action, a challenge because it acts fast, adding 20 new amino acids to a protein chain every second. "Scientists used to think that the ribosome made a simple two-stage ratcheting motion by rotating back and forth as it interacts with mRNA and tRNA," said Cate, who is also a member of the California Institute for Quantitative Biomedical Research (QB3) at UC Berkeley. "What we captured were images of the ribosome in intermediate stages between the rotations, showing that there are at least four steps in this ratcheting mechanism." "We suspect that the ribosome changes its conformation in so many steps to allow it to interact with relatively big tRNAs while keeping the two segments of the ribosome from flying apart," said Cate. "It's much more complicated than the simple ratcheting mechanism in a socket wrench." Cate said that while this study marked a major accomplishment in cracking open the "black box" of ribosomal function, there are far more details yet to be revealed. Advances in imaging techniques over the next decade should allow researchers to go beyond the snapshots taken in this study to high-resolution movies of a ribosome's movements, he said. "I'm looking forward to producing a movie of a ribosome with enough resolution and enough frames per millisecond that we can see what is happening at a molecular level," said Cate. "It would be great to watch and really understand how the ribosome makes a protein, how antibiotics interfere with a bacterial ribosome, or why a strand of genetic code in a hepatitis C virus is so effective at hijacking a human ribosome. We still have a long way to go, but we're working hard." Did you notice evolution was not mentioned once? Maybe they will allow this imaging to be used by ID proponents instead of the fiasco Harvard lawyers created when Dr. Dembski dared showed "Inner Life Of a Cell" without proper evolutionary spin... The inner life of a cell - Harvard University http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtZEqQ1cpmk The images they are trying to capture sure would make a great addition to this video: Journey Inside The Cell http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fiJupfbSpgbornagain77
August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT
naontiotami at 1: You wrote, "You have to have a sterile environment for abiogenesis to take place." So it is happening in operating rooms all over North America? Details please. A Nobel Prize awaits you if you are the first to explain. It is all very well to say that some special conditions must exist, but how do we know that they ever really did? I am not sure what the word "revelatory" means. If you mean "shedding light," no, it really didn't. Neither you nor anyone else has a single useful idea about how life began on Earth, but lots of people can explain how it did NOT happen.O'Leary
August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT
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.
I would have expected somebody addressing the issue of OOL would at least have a basic knowledge about the subject? It cannot now, and could not happen again as soon as life was etablished on the planet. Accidents are known to happen in laboratories; maybe creation was a designer's accident?Cabal
August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT
The main reason life cannot be spontaneously generated (I'm using that term because you did, not because I think it's accurate - "life" has a spectrum associated with it) is to do with the existence of bacteria - in short, any complex biomolecules that may be the precursors to some sort of primitive metabolism will be quickly metabolised by the already-living bacteria in the ecosystem. You have to have a sterile environment for abiogenesis to take place. Of course, this assumes that solutions of precursor molecules still exist that are stable enough to last the millions of years it would take to gradually produce proto-life. I don't think those exist anymore, or at least not ones that have no bacteria or other living creatures in them. So, that's why life does not spontaneously form in the lab or hospital (other than the fact that you don't run a lab for millions of years). I hope you found that revelatory.naontiotami
August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
03:00 AM
3
03
00
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply