Eugene Koonin: REALLY Big Numbers Solve the Problem of the Origin of Life — and Hence, There’s No Need for Design
| June 22, 2007 | Posted by Paul Nelson under Intelligent Design |
If you visit Eugene Koonin’s lab at the NCBI — that’s Dr. Koonin standing just to the right of the woman in the red sweater — brush up on your Russian. Many of the most prolific scientists in comparative genomics work in Koonin’s group, hail from Russia, and love the Big Questions, such as the origin of life.
In a new, open access paper, Koonin argues that the problem of the origin of life may under current scenarios be intractable:
Despite considerable experimental and theoretical effort, no compelling scenarios currently exist for the origin of replication and translation, the key processes that together comprise the core of biological systems and the apparent pre-requisite of biological evolution. The RNA World concept might offer the best chance for the resolution of this conundrum but so far cannot adequately account for the emergence of an efficient RNA replicase or the translation system.
Is design implicated? Hang on, not yet:
All this is not to suggest that OORT [origins of replication and translation] is a problem of “irreducible complexity” and that the systems of replication and translation could not emerge by means of biological evolution. It remains possible that a compelling evolutionary scenario is eventually developed and, perhaps, validated experimentally. However, it is clear that OORT is not just the hardest problem in all of evolutionary biology but one that is qualitatively distinct from the rest. For all other problems, the basis of biological evolution, genome replication, is in place but, in the case of OORT, the emergence of this mechanism itself is the explanandum. Thus, it is of interest to consider radically different scenarios for OORT.
Koonin’s solution? Open your Epicurus, and read along with me. Make the number of trials (i.e., chances) REALLY big. Developing what he calls the “many worlds in one” (MWO) hypothesis, Koonin argues that what looks unlikely — the de novo origin of self-replicating biological systems — is bound to happen:
The MWO version of the cosmological model of eternal inflation could suggest a way out of this conundrum because, in an infinite multiverse with a finite number of distinct macroscopic histories (each repeated an infinite number of times), emergence of even highly complex systems by chance is not just possible but inevitable.
Because such emergence is guaranteed mathematically (never mind the messy chemical details, folks, just focus on the large numbers — you’re bound to win the lottery if you buy enough tickets), there’s no need for the design hypothesis:
A final comment on “irreducible complexity” and “intelligent design”. By showing that highly complex systems, actually, can emerge by chance and, moreover, are inevitable, if extremely rare, in the universe, the present model sidesteps the issue of irreducibility and leaves no room whatsoever for any form of intelligent design.
As this paper and the reviewers’ comments are open access, here’s something fun to try. Download the whole fascinating exchange, and search on “ID” and “intelligent design.” This paper continues a trend I noted some time ago, namely, that scientists don’t listen to federal judges (thank goodness) or the pronunciamentos of national science organizations. Rather, they alight on any interesting question, kick it around, and let the results fall where they may.
And thus the future of open inquiry is assured.
47 Responses to Eugene Koonin: REALLY Big Numbers Solve the Problem of the Origin of Life — and Hence, There’s No Need for Design
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thanks, sinclairjd. I had noticed this irrelevance to my post, but forgot it in responding to the issue of mutation and innovation.
seekandfind
In order to avoid nitpickery over the defintion of species or precisely what separates micro and macroevolution I came up with four things that define a macroevolutionary event:
The creation of a novel cell type, tissue type, organ, or body plan. The story of evolution from free living cell to modern animals cannot have occured without all four novelties arising many times in many different ways. You can get from a mouse to a man without those novelties but you can’t get from a fish to a mouse without them (for instance).
I think someone actually wrote a paper that showed Random Mutation can create novel cell types, tissue types, organs, or body plans.
In an infinite number of universes not only is it possible that someone wrote such a paper it’s inevitable. Indeed, there must be an infinite number of such papers. In the particular universe we inhabit however there are none yet.
russ: I’m not sure if this is a dumb question, but how would you falsify such a “big numbers†hypothesis?
The problem with the “big numbers” idea is that if the numbers get big enough, then the probability that a given event might occur in the age of the universe (forget about simply the age of the earth!) becomes vanishingly small — i.e., impossible.
Many Darwinist arguments are in this category. That is, the probabilistic resources of the entire universe are not enough to make a given event even remotely likely.
That is why they need to introduce the (non-provable/non-falsifiable/non-scientific) idea of “multiverses”. They are up against a hard limit of the age and size of our universe, so they need to invent more.
SeekAndFind,
In Edge of Evolution, Behe makes an analogy of the effects of random mutation with the effects of monkeys editing Moby Dick using a modern word processor. The monkey might change letters and words, might even re-arrange sentences or paragraphs. He might even move chapters around.
But in the end, you would still have a book about Whales.
You are imagining that the monkey could change Moby Dick into Black Beauty. Keep on imagining.
I really like the section after the paper where the reviewers and Koonin discuss the paper. There are some wonderful gems there.
“In an infinite number of universes not only is it possible that someone wrote such a paper it’s inevitable. Indeed, there must be an infinite number of such papers. In the particular universe we inhabit however there are none yet.”
That’s precious!
)
““Atheism turns out to be too simple…if the universe has no meaning we should never have found out it has no meaning. Just as if there were no eyes in the universe we would never know it was dark. ‘Dark’ would be a word without meaning.†CS Lewis”
Similarly, I’ve often thought, if there were no God our minds could never have conceived of such an idea.
If we define macroevolution as “Change in allele frequencies at or ABOVE the species level.â€Â, then even YECs accept macroevolution!
I say that because, according to Linneaus, the Created Kind is at least at the level of today’s Genus and some YECs place it up to the level of Family for certain populations (see “Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study” by John Woodmorappe).
As for the “information” argument, a good place to start is with Dr Lee Spetner’s Not By Chance. Until you understand what he says chances are you won’t understand what is being debated pertaining to information and biology.
Seek and find stated:
3) Another example is methicillin resistanct Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). This pathogen is being targeted by many researchers because it has gained the ability to resist many of our most often used antibiotics. The gene responsible for this resistance, mecA, popped up suddenly and spread rapidly. Analysis of the mecA gene sequence show that it most likely came from Staphylococcus sciuri, which has a very similar gene. However, the gene in S. sciuri does not give antibiotic resistance, but has some other unknown function. The antibiotic resistance was aquired when the mecA gene mutated following lateral transfer from S. aureus to S. sciuri. Here is another case of a mutation adding information.
This one particular example, you cite Seek and Find, should fall under the typical antibiotic resistance mutation. That is it gains resistance by losing function in the protein that binds with the antibiotic. The Staphylococcus aureus should be proven to be less fit for survival in an environment without antibiotics, Thus the genetic entropy of the whole organism is not violated if this is found to be true, as it has been found to be true for all other resistance mutations tested.
If it does indeed violate Genetic Entropy, and actually does increase the overall functionality over its original state in its “normal environment”, then it would be highly suggestive proof of a violation of Gentic Entropy. And many scientists would be very interested in investigating it further. (J.C. Sanford for one.)
Seek and Find Stated;
1) It is possible for a protein to undergo a mutation that deactivates it. Id Proponents would call this mutation a loss of information. However, the same mutated gene can then experience another mutation that reverts it to the original unmutated state and produces a functional protein. This according to IDers would be an addition of information. Clearly then mutations can add information. We can observe mutations such as this in bacteria with genes knocked out by a point mutation, over time some will revert.
Again to look at the principle of Genetic entropy vs. evolution you would have to demonstrate a gain in functionality over the “original” state of the organism. Here you are definitely not doing so.
To me your immune system response example is your best shot at trying to prove evolution (and violating genetic entropy).
Yet once again the functionality of the whole organism (man in this case) has not increased. The immune system is a built in responce that was “designed” that way. As Magnan stated it clearly indicates a preexisting feedback mechanism built into the genome. The genome is ready to produce a vast array of antibodies to fight off a multitude of infections. Though the immune system gains information for the future to ward off the particular i9nfection it fought off. It still has not increased the overall ability of the immune system to fight off a different infection. Thus the functionality of the immune system is still the same and the genetic entropy of the original organism has not been violated and evolution is still wanting for proof of evolution.
I hope I have made the level of proof required to prove evolution clear for you Seek And Find.
EndoplasmicMessenger Post #33:
I agree with your conclusions, but I think the question needs some more probing.
The Darwinists will never buy an argument from probability, simply because for them, the probability of God (or the external intelligent agent, which I think is God) is zero. Straight up zero. Therefore, given their ad hoc suggestion that there “could be” multiple universes, and the fact that additional universes increases probabilistic resources, it is an enticing choice for a Darwinist. That’s why I think they buy it.
Given their predisposition to throw out the probability argument using the multiverse, I think it’s more important to recognize that the materialist is reduced to absurdity by claiming that we can be both rational while being confined to the uniform laws of the universe. For if the universe is uniform, then it coerces everything the human does, and if the human is coerced, then he cannot possibly willfully choose to distinguish between truth and falsity. This is at least a contradictory notion rather than a probabilistic argument.
I don’t think a probabilistic argument is inconclusive at all (in fact, I think it’s great to show the Darwinist his inconcsistencies in employing the EXACT same tactics in archaeology and SETI), but I think that these people need a harder slap in the face than normally needed.
nemesis,
Darwinist != Materialist/Atheist
[...] In a previous essay where I partially explored the God-of-the-Gaps argument, , I also noted that origin-of-life researcher George Cody was quoted as saying “No one knows anything about the origin of life.” This moment of candor is consistent with what Paul Davies wrote in his book, The 5th Miracle: “Many investigators feel uneasy stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they admit they are baffled.†Before we explore why it is that origin-of-life researchers feel the need to hide their bafflement from the public, it would be useful to demonstrate the truth of Davies observation with a recent paper by Eugene Koonin (HT to Paul Nelson ). [...]
Patrick #42,
I know. I should have made it more clear that although I used both “Darwinist” and “materialist” at different times for slightly different reasons, I was basically using the two terms interchangeably.
However, I was just pointing out that in light of the definition “Darwinist = atheist/materialist,” we shouldn’t be surprised when these people reject teleological arguments since, in their eyes, the probability of science invoking a Creator is zero.
“I am glad to see arguments against ID that invoke infinite numbers of unobservables. This bodes very well for ID.
”
When I hear people invoking infinite unobservables I can hear faint hints of the Cosmic Sardonic Superchuckle.
I understand little
I think Origin of life & evolution are considered as close systems on earth Even if there are multiple universes It has no effect on this close biosphere.
Now Orgin of life & evolution requires multiple(quite large steps) steps So with this how much correct we are with multople universe big number.
I think it looks like turtles all way
The MWO theory would have interesting implications for our personal futures as well. For one thing it would mean that once we explore other star systems we will almost certainly find no other life out there in space, unless the original RNA came here by some model of panspermia.
But the even more interesting consequence would be that I can never die, similarly to the way the theory of quantum immortality suggests.
That is because while it is highly unlikely that a conscious mind with my memories will form purely by chance, it is not entirely impossible, meaning in an infinite multiverse not only will it happen but it will happen infinitely many times.
So no matter how many times I’d cease to exist, I will always come to life again, remembering my past, somewhere else—even if only purely by chance, the same way those RNA molecules came to exist purely by chance…